Skip to main content

The Dependencies of Ministry

Over the last couple of days here at TCC, I've met a couple of ministers who've had a hard time with their churches and/or their leadership teams. The good news is: both of them are still Christian, still married, and still in ministry - although they've been scarred by their experiences.
In this public context I can't say too much about them. One of them had good initiatives and ideas for growing and developing the church, and the youth ministry in particular - but kept being blocked by their leadership team. The other one was victimised by a few very vocal members of their congregation. Both left the difficult ministry contexts, but are now in different ministries with a lot more potential.
This just illustrates how dependent ministry is - dependent on other people's goodwill. Unlike a secular work context, a minister can't "make" anyone do anything. We're dependent on people doing things voluntarily - just because they want to. And of course people could want to be involved in ministry for all kinds in bad reasons - personal security, pride, feeling sorry for the minister... whatever. So the challenge for all of us is to get people motivated - by the gospel. We want people compelled by Christ, because they are convinced that one died for all, and therefore they live for him. (2 Cor 5:14-15)

Comments

Anonymous said…
Hi Kamal,
Having been a member of a deeply divided Parish Council for a couple of years, I totally agree with your observations re the necessity of a good leadership team is assisting the work of the Minister.
2 January 2008 at 12:09
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The different distractions of secularity and spirituality

There has been a lot of discussion about the recent 'vibe shift' away from radical atheism back towards an openness to the supernatural. I don't think this new spirituality is necessarily an openness to the unique claims of Christ. It will more probably replace one set of commonly-accepted misunderstandings about Jesus with another.  Under radical atheism, people dismissed the Biblical claims about Jesus' resurrection because they 'knew' that it was impossible. Jesus hadn't really died. He just passed out (after being beaten and whipped and crucified) and then woke up in the tomb (and rolled away the stone himself and overcame several guards). Or the disciples hallucinated that they saw him (even though Jewish beliefs of the time didn't expect one person to rise possessing eternal life himself; they expected a general resurrection at the end of time - see John 11:24 ). Or something else.  The so-called 'explanations' of Jesus' non-resurrectio...
Post a Comment
Read more

A better understanding of nonbelief

The Nones Project is an ongoing study into the belief systems of people who call themselves non-religious. A few weeks ago one of the project leaders,  Ryan Burge  of Washington University,  posted some really interesting preliminary results  on his Substack.  1. We've probably heard of people who are spiritual but not religious (SBNRs). SBNRs were "the largest group of nones" in the sample. They believe in the supernatural realm but not necessarily in "a God." They are "deeply skeptical of religion but highly interested in spirituality," therefore individualistic and anti-institutional.  2. But this study differentiated SBNRs from people they called Nones In Name Only, NiNos. They different to SBNRs by being religious about their spiritual. They believe not just in the supernatural but in "God." And they tend to engage in traditional communal religious practices while SBNRs practice individualised eclectic bespoke spiritual practices. The s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Barfights in the public square

Everything in the public square seems to be increasingly conflicted. We seem to be operating with less and less shared values. It feels like we're less and less sure of what holds us together as a 'society.' A retreat into 'tribes' both drives this social fragmentation and is a result of it.  Post-modern scepticism towards metanarratives, which has now become culturally normal, significantly contributes to this fragmentation. If we no longer believe that objective truth, independent of our individual or tribal perspectives, exists, we will no longer believe we can appeal to that objective reality as common ground for debate. All we will do is exert power to magnify ourselves and punish those who disagree with us.  Because we believe that our cause is right, we will always think of ourselves as the victim of other people's aggression. Therefore, as Stephen McAlpine says, we will always think we're punching "up." We'll valorise ourselves as the ...
Post a Comment
Read more