Spiritual Parenting: A guest writes

I recently read a short article about some parents who were being investigated for child neglect after allowing their 10 and 6 year-old children to walk home from the park alone; a distance of 1 mile through a nice, well-to-do residential area. The comments ranged from those applauding the parents for their common-sense approach in giving their children freedom and teaching them personal responsponsibilty to those berating them for their laziness and lack of care.

I didn’t share my opinion. Having so little background information about the parents, the children and the area through which they were walking, I felt I had no right to comment. However, it stayed in my thoughts. In my time as a Parenting consultant, I came across families that fell into two distinct camps: those that expected too much of their children and those that expected too little. The latter group were those parents who did everything for their little ones, believing that they were showing love. The outcome was that  the children were stunted in their development, unable to perform simple tasks such as tying shoe laces and were unprepared for life ouside of the home. I met some of these children when I was a student; they lived on takeaways because they had never learned to cook (no need to: mum always cooked) and didn’t know how to use a washing machine (mum always did that too!).

The former group believed their children were capable and mature beyond their years. So often they would tell me that their child was very bright, top of the class, an early reader etc. Children are like sponges, they soak up intellectual stimulus, but they are emotional beings too. These parents came to me becasue their child was having behavioural difficulties; crying and tantrums when told ‘no’ or when they lost at a game. Although the child had progressed intellectually beyond their years, their emotional development was lagging.

It struck me that so often, church leaders fall into these same traps.

The over-indulgent minister who cares for his people by doing everything for them; taking on the full responsibility for their spiritual discipline and growth. The problems arise when the minister tries to encourage the congregation to take on some roles or tasks within the church and finds that their people lack the confidence and the initiative to do so. The congregation in turn look unrealistically to the minister to provide for all their spiritual needs and often end up leaving the church stating that they were ‘unsupported’.

The other type are those who are so enthusiastic to develop their people that they push them into roles that they don’t have the spirtual maturity to sustain. Without a well developed prayer life or deep understanding of their standing in Christ, the baby Christian can become overwhelmed and end up stressed, burnt out and disillusioned leading to them leave the church and be unwilling to get involved in any form of ministry in future. They might even cause problems for others along the way as they struggle to cope with responsibility beyond their means.

Church leaders - much like parents - have to perfect a delicate balancing act. A good parent will aim for their own redundancy: a time when the children have learned the life skills they need to fend for themselves. A good minister will likewise strive to teach and enable church members to stand on their own feet spiritually, having been trained and equipped ‘for works of service’ (cf Ephesians 4:11). This is the route to a healthy family and a healthy church.bog

Church: Thinking about structures

As a missioner (of sorts) and one of the biggest issues I come across has nothing to do with the Gospel or evangelism or even 'paying the share' but has to do with the size and structure of a church.

So many people want large churches but fail to realise that this means the end to being a 'family' church.  When I say this the listener throws up their hands and starts explaining how they want families and how families are oh so important. So I have to explain that somewhere around the forty to fifty member mark the church runs like a family - often, but not always, with the minister are the father (but always invariably the primus inter pares*) and above this we find more pastoral support structures which evolve into programmes and stratification before eventually giving way to a corporate structure (which I'm increasingly seeing relabelled as a 'modern minister' model).

Church and management are words that should go together but the problem is that they seem to mix like Guinness and Lemonade (if you fancy a bit of fun ask for a Guinness shandy some time - two drinks in one!).

Many of those who are spiritual eschew structures and anything that sounds like management whilst some I meet have well organised and well-oiled machines running like clockwork but without love, joy, peace and all the other fruit and traits that speak of Jesus and new life. But there is a balance and this is one of the rarest things to behold and yet a joy when we do. I know because I've seen it (but just don't seem to be able to make it mine!).


When talking to one dogcollar recently I was amazed at the passion they had for their sub-fifty church to become a 'large church'. They were longing for the day when they might become a 'midi' church and continue on to the diadema that is a 'larger churches day' at the cathedral. I have to say that having been at them the journey would definitely be better than the arriving but hey ho, you've got to have a dream and talk about the things you'd like to do. After all as hymn 999 in hymns Ancient and Ancienter so rightly continues: 'You gotta have a dream, if you don't have a dream, how you gonna have a dream come true?'

The problem is that I see people organising church out of existence (and yet we really do need structures, organisation and processes - accountability, lines of support (and management)  and job descriptions and the like). The problem is I do see churches where there's so much dissipation and chaos that any talk of a God of order is taking the mickey. Letting the lunatics run the asylum is not delegation and the Stalinist approach to church management only fuels transfer growth (at best) and the end of church-going (at it's worst).

One of the greatest aids to growth is a mixed-mode, mixed-economy Church. One where Emerging church emerges and lives alongside Fresh Expresssions and traditional church models and all live in harmony. One where churches send their members out to 'make Christ known' and do this as the end in itself, not as press gangs who will bring back impressed church members to the mother ship.

So, following on from some troubles conversations and some querulous folk who are exploring what it means to be leading church and are confused by what they see in the place they belong, I thought I might intersperse the baptism dialogue (which will continue at a pace at which other might keep up and perhaps take the lead) with some thinking about collaboration and delegation and how it is neither 'do what you want' or 'do what I tell you to' but us reasoning together and walking in step with our eyes on the cross and our hands joined in fellowship and common purpose.

* First amongst equals

Just what is being a Cleric about?

There are so many interesting conversations to be had regarding what a 'Vicar' really is and does at the moment.

We have some who consider themselves in places merely to 'keep the lights on' and this raises some good stuff regarding 'mission vs maintenance' and whether 'lights on' is enough (or valid).

There is the issue of Self Supporting Ministers (the ministers previously known as 'Non Stipendiary'*) and what they offer and how they are regarded by others and, perhaps more importantly, by self!

We have those who are 'locally ordained' and how they, their churches and the establishment see them.

As the numbers of stipendiary clergy diminish as the old adage of 'cutting one's coat according to our cloth' is applies; and looking increasingly towards living out the 'can't pay - can't have' mantra, the reality is that the locally-ordained are viewed (by many) as those who will replace the departing stipendiaries at ground level. Something that leads us to also consider the return of some form of Minister model

In broaching these discussions, people have pointed to the demise of the old 'one parson - one parish' and the fact that unless some (especially 'rural' church?) 'grow their own' then they are doomed to closure. But then again if we put clergy into a building without a strategy for growth are we being effective for the Kingdom or merely putting off the dreadful day of reckoning  and leaving it to be 'someone else's' problem?

Another part of the problem is the fact that many of the locally-ordained are perhaps a little older than the twenty-four yr old priest who made the press today and they move with retirement and get ill and, as one person put it, simply 'die' (don't we all?) and where full-time posts are replaced with others the church's find themselves bereft and without a shepherd.

And as for 'no cost' options - there is the supervision of the locally ordained (three years) and then the Training Incumbent roles and then being a 'line manager' after that (for ministry and management are indeed two different elements!). Sounds like quite a bit of emotional, spiritual, physical, practical and temporal cost to me!

The Local Ordination process is much akin to eating spaghetti, for once embarked upon, the churches need to keep sucking to ensure that there is more in the chain and to prevent the day when the can (spaghetti only comes in cans doesn't it?) yields its last!

All of the above appear to regard the minister as the person who 'staffs' the church building rather than shepherds the sheep and facilitates, trains, releases and supports. As a friend put it (accurate as ever) the clergyperson is the 'religious service provider'.

So here we are - much to discuss and reflect upon (I hope) for everyone, for Church is about all-member, collegial, Kingdom ministry - not the few.

Pax