Church: Bad Shepherds

As we head toward the close of yet another year I have been thinking and praying over the issues in the churches I am engaged in at home and a little further afield. To do that I often take up a 'black box' method of considering them so that I might work to understand what Church (universal) and church (the local entity) are doing what they, and I, are doing. To do this I try to stop, step back and ask the question:

Is there a difference between what we have and what is required?

This immediately causes panic in some as the word 'required' brings the problem of defining what that word means; for it always seems to differ from person to person and congregation to congregation.

Speaking to some of my clergy colleagues, it is obvious that many of them struggle with the word 'sin'., especially when the issue of correcting it in those around us arises. When I ask people how their prayer life is, I am berated by some colleagues for being too direct and for introducing something that might cause embarrassment and disaffection with the whole Christian thing. To quote a bright young cleric recently, "If you challenge people like that they won't stay in your church for long. You have to embrace them and look past what you see as not living as you think is required to see that they need to be made welcome and accepted not abused." I have to say that being labelled an abuser because I ask people how they are living out their life as a Christian is not abuse but the whole point of the pastoral role managed to wind me up - but the other person left the conversation unharmed (see I am growing up Lord!).

The problem is that I believe I am called to welcome and accept people  for who they are (hopefully I do) BUT I am also called to talk to people about how they are living and growing in their faith.  To not do so is to be a bad shepherd of the flock God has entrusted to me - have a read of Ezekiel 34 and see if you recognise the description of what a bad shepherd does - here's a taster from that book:

'The weak you have not strengthened, the sick you have not healed, the injured you have not bound up, the strayed you have not brought back, the lost you have not sought, and with force and harshness you have ruled them.'

Now, I was a bit niggled at being told that I mustn't challenge people over their lifestyles or their prayer life or Bible reading and the like, for I have to say that what I heard was a soft-touch, hands off, 'I just want to be their friend' approach to Church; and this is wrong! It is like a parent who wants to be their kid's friend rather than their parent. The kids are allowed to do whatever it is that makes the parents popular with the result that they are a blessed pain in the proverbials. I'm sure you know weak and indulgent parents and the nightmare that their kids are.

Those of us who are called to be shepherds of the flock that is church are called to protect, to provide for and to lead. These are fixed 'essential' roles, there is no way we can excuse ourselves from them. We are called to stand between them and things that might bring them harm (physically, morally, spiritually, mentally and emotionally) - and this means that we have no choice but to act when we perceive there is a clear and present danger.  But this is not always popular - as I have found to my cost. but as we find in 2 Peter 2: tells us, “There will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies.”  and that is what I am seeing in some around me. I find so many preaching a weakened Gospel as they seek popularity over rectitude.

I pray for those under my charge and/or known by me. This isn't part of a 'look how good I am' but a look at the things I 'must' do as part of my job activity - I do enjoy doing it, but even if I didn't, that would be tough as it's part of the role.

To provide for the sheep we are called to read and master the word of God so that we can feel the flock from it. The problem is that many of us are feeding our sheep dried up and reheated stuff or stuff that has little nutritional value. After all, once we've got past the conversations regarding feeding the congregation milk because there are spiritual babies present the issue of feeding them meat is often forgotten and set aside as we provide great worship (meaning singing the latest stuff and being lost in the moment) - which, when the wolf comes a knocking ain't gonna be of much help!

We do not come with persuasive words. We do not come with expensive suits and TV shows, books and merchandise. No, we come but preaching Christ - foe we, like the Apostle Paul have nothing but Him, and Him crucified ... and this is a hard message which calls us to pout off the former things and live as we should (which means according to the Bible).

In Acts 20, we find Paul telling those before him,
“I did not shrink form declaring to you anything that was profitable, and teaching you in public and from house to house, testifying both to Jews and to Greeks of repentance toward God and of faith in Christ.”

This is what we, as shepherds are called to do. It might not be popular, but it right if we are to discharge our duties as shepherds properly.

Those in leadership are called to lead! Now, it doesn't get any simpler than that, does it?

The Western model of the shepherd is a bloke who walks behind the sheep and kicks them up the rear end to keep them moving - this is, I suspect, what the bright young things who complain about being directive and having closed questions are revolting against.

The Eastern model of the shepherd if someone the sheep follow because they trust the person for lead them into green pastures and to protect them from those things that would harm or devour them. The follow the shepherd because they are the source of food, protection and care.

This is what a shepherd truly is, that way I prefer to think of myself as a 'Pastor' as that is what I seek to be for those under my charge. And this means that I do lead them and act to protect them from the wolves in sheep clothing we encounter from time to time.

So, as I start to reflect upon the year gone and the highs and lows - I wonder what sort of a shepherd I have been - and what I need to do to make me a better one in the year ahead?

Vicars or Bishops - some initial thinking

When I joined my current diocese there was a motion before the Diocesan Synod to abandon all sector ministry posts so that the money could be used 'where the need was'! This was one of those issues that drew a raggedy line between the two camps and left a few in the no man's land that appeared between them.

I, fortunately, didn't have anything to do with the discussion and watched with varying degrees of horror as slips (and prejudices) were displayed, often in the most unappealing and attractive of ways, leaving me dismayed and rather disappointed with the whole sorry episode. Since then I have seen the same awfulness inflicted on a number of occasions and on a number of issues (women in ministry, homosexuality, women with pointy hats - to name just three) and none of the three sides (for, against and 'who cares) have emerged unscathed or mentality secure!

But I digress, let us get back to the letter and the situation before us for in it I see a few interesting considerations:

i. There is a fair amount of duplication in that every diocese does the same thing. Is there potential for some of the core services to be amalgamated such that areas like personnel (which I'm told we must have because of Common Tenure) and many of the administrative and ministry areas to be removed to regional centres?

ii. Could we bring about the situation whereby those who are engaged in sector ministry might also be given a church to run too? Now this might be a bit of a challenge for those who find themselves out and about every week but some roles - Hmmm?

iii. What about reverse engineering it and making those who have jobs and are up to the task (and I mean 'up to' rather than desirous, for the church has many inept wannabees who seek positions  of power) sector minsters?

iv. It does seem odd that in an apparently constricting organisation the senior management is left in the ivory palaces whilst those on the high street are reduced. Surely the answer is fewer, smarter (that means able and called), pointyhats and more people out there growing the business and bringing in the money and the members (I apologise for the commercial tone of this - I do think we're a spiritual entity really!!!).

v. If a pointyhat really equates to four 'on the ground clergy' do we need to ask ourselves how many we need to function effectively (and where we need them). Now this is an emotive issue because like the military who have realised that despite 'the Few' and the Dambusters, there might be less case for an Air Force than some might think, feelings run high. But the questions need to be asked - don't they?

Now forty-four diocesan bishops makes sense on the grounds that we have (I assume) forty-four areas know as a diocese. The sixty-nine suffragan (or area) bishops make sense if they are all doing valid and effective ministry.

BUT

Has the time come to rethink the diocesan boundaries and structures and the way that they are services and supported?

Clergy are judged by many things I'm sure (so why does everyone, including 'Rev' assume it's merely about the ability to pay?) and as the apparent attitudes amongst some of 'train up, train out' policies as found in ministerial development reviews seem to make me feel I'm back in the City of London I wonder who assesses and rationalises/shapes those top layer of the Church.

Goodness me, what a challenging piece of writing that letter is - I've only splurged for ten minutes but my head is buzzing with questions, thoughts and confusions.

How you doing with it?

Vicars or Bishops?

I've been passed a photocopy of a photocopy that someone has photocopied and it makes quite interesting reading as it contemplates the question of the most effective disbursement  of the churches' money. But I guess I'd best let you read it for yourself:

'The dispute over the residence for the new Bishop of Bath and Wells typifies much that is wrong with the senior management (if it can be described as such) of the Church of England. Crucially, no one seems to have asked if a new Bishop is even necessary.

According to the most recent Church Commissioners annual report, there are 44 diocesan and 69 suffragan bishops, costing £25 million a year. There doesn't seem to have been any significant reduction in their numbers since the mid-Eighties, despite the substantial fall in churchgoers. Conversely, the number of parochial clergy seems to be undergoing almost constant reduction.

The Commissioners support for bishops and cathedrals in 2012 was £34.9 million, while support for parishes was £42.5 million: arguably, far too much concentration on the 'chiefs' at the expense of the 'indians'. All these bishops incur office costs on top of diocese and support staff: why aren't these back office functions combined? What are all these bishops doing? Much of their duty seems to be administrative and can be done better at lower cost by people trained to such roles.

I'm a regular churchgoer and treasurer of my local church, which is served by a priest who has five other parishes. All Six have grade 1 listed church buildings with their attendant maintenance issues. The local communities over which the priest has responsibility for the cure souls are spread over 80 square miles, served by poorly maintained, unlit, narrow, rural roads.

Many churchgoers would gladly swap a couple of bishops for seven parochial clergy, which seems to be the exchange rate. A local priest, available and accessible to the community, is much more use than an occasional visit from a bishop who knows very little about local people and their lives.'

Michael Price, Burstwick, East Yorks

Rights and Responsibilities

Heard today how some clergy were becoming members of Unison (the union) so that they have support for them in what they obviously perceive will be a battle over their rights.

A few days back I chatted to a member of the clergy who was telling me about all their rights and how the church needs to understand and respect them  . . . or else!

Often meet with members of church and and other organisations who are all too ready to tell me about their rights and what 'they deserve' or are 'entitled to' and to be honest it is just beginning to grind and grate and tug just a little too much for it to be comfortable.

Many years ago I was a member of a fraternity who found themselves very much acted against and to be honest, distrusted and quite despised. As a result of (misplaced) popular opinion this group found themselves legislated against in the sort of popularist, kneejerk way, that humankind excels at. Interestingly though, the kneejerk response aside, the clever people said that if legislation was passed then certain things would occur and some of society's ill would be remedied. Sadly though some seventeen years later that which they hoped to see change has actually gotten worse.

Now the incident that started it all was William Hamilton's murder of innocent children in Dunblane in 1996 and the subsequent law which removed handguns from the hands of those who legally held and used them did nothing to diminish gun crime, in fact the very opposite has occurred (I'll give you my theories some time . . but best continue).

The thing about having rights is that with them come responsibilities and yet I find it interesting that these days rights are what many people assume to have and responsibility appears to be what others have when it comes to the fulfilling of the expectations of those with rights.

Christianity is all about getting something because of grace, we don't get forgiveness, eternal life and the  other 'benefits' of Christ's death because we deserve them - they are not a right but a gift. But in accepting that gift of grace poured out on the tree for us, we do find ourselves with responsibilities.

We have the responsibility to keep commandments - even when they deny what we think is a right - for let's be frank, many of the things people tell me are rights are actually little more than selfish, soulish and often unchristian desires. They are all about 'me' rather than reflecting who Jesus is and what he has done for us and how He lives in, and through, our lives today.

We have the responsibility to read our Bibles and pray daily and develop our knowledge and faith and when we don't we are failing in our duty and putting aside our responsibilities as believers.

We have the responsibility to put our obedience, worship and devotion to Christ before our personal pleasures, desires and ambitions.

We have the call to love one another and the duty to avoid making any one cause the defining sin; to avoid labelling any one group and without merit or unloved; to avoid preaching hatred and right or sin as acceptable.

We have the responsibility to proclaim and live out God's love in our own lives and as a covering for others.

If you don't agree, that's cool, but please don't kid yourself (or con others) that what you do is a right, Christian, or is right either - for even though it may well be such in the eyes of the world in the eyes of God, and in His sacrifice and commitment to us, it is merely selfish and sinful (and I don't expect this to be that popular) and therefore wrong!

Let's stop and have a reflect on the words of 2 Timothy 2:

'You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus and the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable people who will also be qualified to teach others.

Join with me in suffering, like a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No one serving as a soldier gets entangled in civilian affairs, but rather tries to please his commanding officer. Similarly, anyone who competes as an athlete does not receive the victor’s crown except by competing according to the rules. The hardworking farmer should be the first to receive a share of the crops.

Reflect on what I am saying, for the Lord will give you insight into all this.

Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, descended from David. This is my gospel, for which I am suffering even to the point of being chained like a criminal. But God’s word is not chained. Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they too may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus, with eternal glory.

Here is a trustworthy saying:
If we died with him, we will also live with him;
if we endure, we will also reign with him.
If we disown him, he will also disown us;
if we are faithless, he remains faithful, for he cannot disown himself.

Keep reminding God’s people of these things. warn them before God against quarrelling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen. 

Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth. 

Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly. Their teaching will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have departed from the truth. They say that the resurrection has already taken place, and they destroy the faith of some.  Nevertheless, God’s solid foundation stands firm, sealed with this inscription: “The Lord knows those who are his,” and, “Everyone who confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness.”

In a large house there are articles not only of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay; some are for special purposes and some for common use. Those who cleanse themselves from the latter will be instruments for special purposes, made holy, useful to the Master and prepared to do any good work.

Flee the evil desires of youth and pursue righteousness, faith, love and peace, along with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart. 

Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels and the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.'

Church as a place: of Safety

It seems to me that one of the most important things that being Church brings is safety and this comes about in a number of forms:

Safety to be honest about our problems because we know:

• We will be listened to

• We will be given time

• We will be helped to further identify and resolve those problems

• We will find respect, and

• We will not be condemned or ridiculed

Now whilst I'm sure many will read this and say, "Yeah, we all know that already,' I am certain that a good many others will find at least one of the points above has been missing from their experience of church somewhere and at sometime: And of course we all have, because Church (and church in the local sense) is made up of flawed and imperfect individuals.

Of late I have encountered a number of people, near and far, who have engaged me in conversation and during it has voiced their sadness at the way they have been treated by others in the club we know as Church. I wish I could say that it was limited to leaders or people with some degree of authority but in fact it seems to me that perhaps we are all, across the board, becoming just a little less tolerant and a lot more impatient.

I made this comment to a church leader (they weren't CofE so for once I can breath a limited sigh of relief) and their response was, 'Well, they're just so demanding. They want your time and want you to listen to them and then want you to make their problems go away and I don't have the time for all that!' Sadly they weren't that impressed by my response to their response, because I merely pointed out that if they weren't there do do that then what did they think their role was?

What followed was a litany of 'I have to ...' and you know what, they didn't have to at all, the problem came from the fact that they were not only a blinking control freak but they also functioned as the lord of all they surveyed - running their little club as a fiefdom when some were granted rights and privileges whilst others were merely pew-fodder and their to be commanded and controlled. But I must be getting better for I merely smiled and left them to all that work they have to do - but sadly, one of their members I met have decided that they should do that too and have joined another (still not CofE) club elsewhere.

Now I know that we all have people around us who want time and a listening ear but never respond to advice.

I know that there are always people who have opinions and want things to be done differently - and perhaps if they wanted to 'do' the things done differently in the different way they wanted them to be done rather than merely criticise and make their demands they'd find life was a different reality for them too!

I am also all too aware that there are those who continue to do really silly things (and claim it was satan what made them do it perhaps?) and continue to repeat their mistakes at an alarming rate and sometimes increasing intensity - BUT - we have to make our churches safe and this means getting priorities right:

People are the most important thing we have in church and even if this means that we invest hours in them only to see them leave - it is right that we did it, and right that we do it again for the next person.

I'd rather have  a 'worship band' that sounds like Des O'Connor and a church (for Church = people) that purred like a Rolls Royce than the other way round - for I know which of the two blesses God.

Rather than keep looking for church growth and seeking the lost (and attractive to those in other churches) we need to concentration on shepherding our flock for this is where real Church is to be found and it also results in retention. Bringing them in is relatively simple - it's the keeping them that takes the work and if you aren't prepared to do that work - then you need to be prepared to lose them: And send them with a blessing!

A friend recently said of my blog that it was a place where I often appeared 'to have a cob on' and they wondered how people read what I wrote without 'chucking a brick through my window' (verbally rather than physically). Now I have to admit that I'm rarely angry when I write this stuff - it's merely a five/ten minute dialogue internally - the physical evidence of an inner struggle, consideration or 'trying to make sense of' moment.

I don't write to lecture - but as a 'memo to self' which I invite others to read and consider and offer correction, advice, pity or prayer - but if it touches a nerve, inflames a passion or gets you going too, them I am doubly-blessed.

Church is a great place - it's only some of the people in it that make it a pain,

Church is a bigger pain when the people who make it so are those who lead.

So if you're a leader - how are you doing?

Ask your members ;-)

phew - nine minutes - keyboard's smoking and I'm off to early communion, funerals, school assemblies and a couple of meetings and whatever else the day brings - please pray for those who lead, we're not always sitting indoors with our feet up :-)

Rowan - Political Commentator or Priest?

And all along I thought he was supposed to be concerned with matters spiritual. Explains a lot and makes sense of the often shambolic and ill-focussed goings on that we have within the Church of England! He thinks he's Robin Day in a dog-collar.

Funny that when I read of Rowan's warning that the government is committing Britain to "radical, long-term policies for which no-one voted" I immediately was drawn back to the heady days of Tony Bliar's government. You must remember them, they were elected because they 'weren't Conservatives'.

The policies they brought in had little or no mandate, they just did what they wanted because they were elected purely and simply on the basis that they 'weren't Conservative'. Then, to put a cherry on the cake we had regime change as Brown was given the stick with the pig's bladders attached! And he brought in new policies which had never seen the light of manifesto or husting again.

There has been 'indignation' at the reforms brought in by the previous Labour government and the current coalition and for good reason. The problem is the Labour Party used the open mandate that was gifted to them for not being Conservative and the coalition have been gifted the same because of the totally inept actions of a party who lined the pockets of supporters through PFI, Quango and other 'favours' (including Adonis and his gifting of land, capital and the demise of state education that appears to be Academies) and handed over the right to do pretty much as they please because they made the nation a morally, socially and best of all, a financially bankrupt entity!

Rather than mumble about the 'Big Society' as something that is viewed with 'widespread suspicion' Rowan would do better to motivate and mobilise the troops (the Church) to take back the pastoral and caring birthright which it has handed over of a mess of social state pottage!

We are seeing some things happen far too quickly, but the spectre of financial peril (seen Eire, Greece and Portugal lately?) perhaps does justify some of this (but not all) and we need to be sure that we are not standing by as the Lib Dem acts as puppets to permit some 'evening up of the scores and wounds of old!'.

Speaking of democracy, people don't know what democracy means anymore because they don't understand what a majority is! Wanting everyone to have a voice and be making the decisions, mathematically manipulating results to overcome voter apathy and skewed ideas of what and who should be elected - this is not constitutional (or national) politics but the politics of Bedlam and displays something worrying about our nation as a whole (We are becoming Golgafrinchams in that "We're all bloody useless!").

Having read the piece I think it shows the mark of an intelligent man, for Rowan is no fool, but I wonder whether they are the words of a spiritual leader. It is for this reason I am saddened and more than a little downhearted, for as much as I get frustrated at politicians who spout on about faith and Christ in particular, leaving me with the wish that they'd stick to what they know, I feel with this that I wish he'd preach the Gospel rather than be yet another political (and the words could almost be those of an agnostic or atheist, couldn't they) commentator.

As it stands, a good piece and some great points - but where was the Christian influence? Where is the Christian outworking? Where was the Christian (soteriological) imperative, where is the 'Good News' (The Gospel)? Sadly not that evident here.

Now I know many will accuse him of merely attacking the coalition, but I don't think he is. He's knocking the sad situation of popularist and envy, score-settling politics. He's bemoaning the global issues that are handled in ways that leave us sighing. Valid and reasonable - but where is the Christ in his writings? He had more to say about Bin Laden's death than many of the Christian issues that need comment upon and he has before him a church that is divided and breaking for want of some leadership and shrewd assessment, much as he shows in matters secular!

Pax

Read the whole leader here

Taking the bullet or passing the buck?

I was more than  little miffed to find that one of my sprogs had taken my sleeping bag to a Scout camp and returned without it. Not your ordinary run of the mill 'el cheapo' bag, this was a smart, warm and expensive version. Just what daddy needs when dug in somewhere cold  in the field.

Mummy goes to pick up our scouting hero and upon finding that he is bereft Dad's 'good' bag enquires of the Scout Leader the where's and why's of the situation.

She is informed that the Scout's property is their own concern and that if one has left stuff behind it is their own fault.  Each is responsible for his own load (a good Biblical precept in part) and none other (so who is my brother's keeper and is this how BP saw Scouting in terms of teamwork and Christian endeavour?).

Mumsy goes back to Scout and asks why he left bag behind only to be informed that all the Scouts were instructed to leave their stuff in their rooms (by the Leaders) so that they could collect and pack the vehicles properly. Better still, the person who has passed the information about responsibility appears also to be one of the leaders who told them to leave the stuff in their rooms for collection - memory laps or something more concern-making?

Isn't this a great example of what Scouting should not be about? Accountability or passing the buck? The wonderfully sloped shoulders of leadership demonstrating the paucity of integrity, honesty and conveying something that perhaps accounts for some of the comments I hear (and have tried to defend Scouting against) versus self-reliance, honesty, integrity and the Scouting code.

Still, our little Scout has had his training for the  'passing the buck/shifting the blame' and the 'not my problem' badges I guess - thought BP wanted to equip good citizens, not more of the same. Seems the best way when faced with a problem is to resort to pointing and passing the blame - a great lesson which I hope will not be well learned. Are you listening Bear, you have a lot of work to do me old mate.

Very sad indeed :(