Theology and Pastoral Harm (a repost)

 A BRIEF INTRODUCTION

The following essay had originally appeared in another forum in late 2016.  I have on occasion had need to refer to it and have confidently stated, "Oh, you'll find my piece on that topic if you go looking for it."  Well, because of a particular debate at the present moment (which may or may not have long-running implications) I went looking for it myself today and discovered that it was no longer being hosted in its original context.  Whether I was not told that it was being taken down or I had been told and simply forgotten I am not quite sure (I suspect the latter).  Nevertheless, since I am confident that I will have need of this piece being made widely available in the future I am posting it again here where I intend it to remain until the Second Coming.  Please note that the following is what was published in 2016 and I have chosen not to revise any wording in order that this may be an accurate record of what my views were at the time.  Though I stand by all the points I made then and will continue to use them, it may be that if I were to revisit the topic afresh in 2021 after a number of extra years of pastoral ministry and the completion of postgraduate study I might phrase certain points more neatly and with greater theological depth, but that would necessitate a more extensive rewriting which I am not convinced to undertake at this juncture.  This old version will do for right now, and we will see how we get on.

******************************

“This doctrine has the potential to hurt people.  I think that you should seriously consider changing it.”

The challenge was made at a recent meeting of local ministers during a discussion of a topic involving a number of sensitive pastoral issues.  The person who made the challenge was aware of the biblical and theological reasons for the evangelical position but was concerned that there was potential to be easily misheard or misunderstood by some to the extent that faith could be critically harmed.

It would be very hard to be a teacher of Scripture without being aware that the preached Word can sometimes be very hard for certain people to hear.  Preaching on the barrenness of women like Sarah or Hannah, for example, as couples who have longed for years to receive the blessing of children is something that must be undertaken with the greatest sensitivity.  Also, the task of bringing the message of the Bible to a culture that is increasingly drifting from its Christian heritage brings a whole new set of preaching challenges.  Much of what Scripture has to say about God, life, sin, and so forth have become so far removed from contemporary views that expressing them aloud can invite accusations of being deliberately offensive or harmful.  The temptation to minimise or accommodate the truth of God out of a good concern to be pastoral and sensitive is always present, yet he faithful preacher will understand this temptation for the spiritual trap that it is.

However, it isn’t sufficient to simply resist an inclination.  There must be something positive to hold onto to anchor our teaching approach and pastoral concern.  It is critical, therefore, that the pastor remembers the following as he teaches the Scriptures:

True doctrine which is both accurately taught and appropriately applied can never cause pastoral harm.

This statement is very bold, to be sure.  Nevertheless, without confidence in this it would be impossible for the preacher to say anything at all without the fear of the sheep being lost.

It is important, however, to reflect carefully on a number of points:

1)    The doctrine taught must be true doctrine.  It must not only derive from Scripture but also take into account the entirety of God’s revelation rather than isolated verses or passages.  In this way it is assured to come from God and not from the World.   Jesus warned about the consequences of teaching not based on God’s Word but merely on human regulation (Matt 15:8-9) as well as the reality that false teachers would be found in the church (Matt 24:24).  It was a reality that even those in the apostolic age had to contend with (2 Cor 11:12-13; 2 Pet 2:1-3).  False doctrine has the power to cause great harm to many, and thus the remedy the Bible gives is for church leaders to ensure that good doctrine is taught in order to safeguard the faith of leaders and laity (1 Tim 4:16; Tit 1:9)    

2)    True doctrine must be taught accurately.  It is possible to hold to true doctrine and either do a poor job of explaining it or leave out points crucial to a full understanding.  In such cases it would be possible for harm to be caused.  Of course, no preacher (apart from Jesus) is perfect and there is only so much that can be said in an average sermon.  Yet it is still possible, after a few appropriate caveats, to teach accurately what any passage says about God and his gospel in a manner that the congregation may understand.  This is not to say that all true doctrine that is taught accurately will be easy for anybody to accept.  Many who initially followed Jesus turned away when confronted with the reality of his call on them (Jn 6:60-66).  But this turning away was not the result of the teaching itself but of hearts who were not willing to hear.  It is a hard reality of pastoral ministry that not all will find God’s Word pleasurable to hear or be willing to accept it, but in these cases the fault lies not with the preacher but on the one who does not accept Jesus (Lk 10:16).

3)    True doctrine must be applied to suit differing congregations and individual circumstances.  A gathering of mature saints will need to hear God’s word applied to their lives in a different manner to a youth group of mostly new converts.  Part of the richness of the gospel is that it has relevance for anyone – there is not just one type of ideal disciple or discipleship path.  It is the reason why the apostle Paul gave instructions to church leaders to apply the teachings of the gospel in ways appropriate to various individuals (e.g. Tit 2).  The danger is that the preacher may either fail to exegete his congregation appropriately and thus insist on an application of the passage which is unhelpful for either the context or the individuals, or propose a practical application that does not logically or theologically flow from true doctrine.  Practical and ethical application are areas which have not been typically strong points for evangelicals and it is at this point that perhaps extra care should be taken.

While dangers may be present (and no preacher is ever perfect) it is necessary for the preacher to have confidence as they come to teach the difficult passages in particular.  If a preacher fears the harm that they might do more than have trust in the good that God is doing through them he cannot sustain his task long.  Too often it seems the former situation dominates, thus leading preachers to avoid difficult topics or taking a stand on matters of principle for fear of harm that they may cause.  Preachers of God’s Word must have the confidence that if what they teach is true, if it is explained carefully, and applied appropriately then that teaching of itself cannot cause harm to the flock of God. 

The Word of God has the power to heal, restore, encourage, empower, rebuke, and direct the Church.  God, in his wisdom, has left this Word in the care of the teachers of the Church for the good of all.  That goodness cannot be fully realised if preachers and teachers do not have the confidence that the task which they undertake is fundamentally good, that God means good for all even through the challenging passages of the Word, and that the Sheep are primarily in his care not ours.  True doctrine must never be compromised or changed out of pastoral concerns as real pastoral care cannot flow from watered-down teaching.  Our teaching methods can always use improving and our applications may need more nuance, but sacrificing biblical truth can never have a loving justification.

Where Have All The Rectors Gone - A Reflection

IMPORTANT PREFACE

The following article has a short history and some important context.  At the end of June an article appeared by Bishop Peter Lin reflecting on some of the reasons why the number of vacant parishes in the Anglican Diocese of Sydney was higher than usual.  I was glad this question was being addressed publicly, and I have been encouraged by the discussion it has generated in social media and beyond.  That said, I felt that there were a number of issues contributing to this problem that had not been addressed by Bishop Peter.  I put my thoughts down and, after it had been reviewed by a number of my personal associates, I sent it through to Anglican Media.  They were not willing to publish the whole piece, but were happy for a shortened version to appear in the Letters section of the next Southern Cross.  While I appreciate their publishing constraints, I felt that the cuts to the piece necessary would take away some important nuance in both my position and that of Bishop Peter's which I was interacting with, leading to the appearance of more antagonism than actually exists.  I am not fundamentally at odds with Bishop Peter, who I have always known as a godly and capable leader.  This was evidenced in his personal reply to my piece, which was passed on to me by the Anglican Media office.  Bishop Peter acknowledged that his article had limitations, mostly due to space, and that he is aware that this problem is more complex than he was able to communicate in 1000 words.  He also made clear that he was not intending to deliberately impugn the character of assistant ministers in his wording.  I accept and believe him in this, but he should be aware that more than a few people interpreted his comments regarding avoiding "the hassles or responsibilities" as subtly implying such.  Bishop Peter and I do not see quite eye-to-eye on the openness of the local presbyter process, which I think is more indicative of his personal leadership approach than how the system generally operated during the decade or so of my experience (which is what is pertinent to the current problem).  The reality remains that the (eternally shifting) hoops that applicants are required to jump though are much easier for some than others.  Finally, Bishop Peter noted that changes have been made recently to address the issue of abusive and toxic parish workplaces.  This is indeed to be applauded, and I stated as much in my submission.  My point was not that nothing is being done about the problem in 2020, but that what we now know was going on in the previous decade (at least) has most certainly contributed to the difficulties in filling parishes at the present time.  Bishop Peter concluded his response to me by asking (genuinely) what could be done to improve the process.  To be honest, I am still mulling over that question.  I have a number of partially-formed ideas that I will certainly be giving more thought to, and I am not presuming to speak ex cathedra on the subject.  For now it is enough for my readers to reflect on a number of concerns what has brought us here which (I can assure them) are not shared by me alone.

************

Bishop Peter Lin’s article (27/06/20) on the shortage of Anglican rectors in the Diocese of Sydney produced a mixture of emotions in me.  On the one hand it is very encouraging to see this issue getting a public airing from a member of the episcopal team.  There is an obvious problem, and if those at the top of the organisation are prepared to address it in this way then there is less risk of it getting put back in the Too Hard basket.  I am also convinced that Bishop Peter is tackling this issue with sincere motives and makes several relevant observations regarding the proximate causes of the lack of senior ministers that the diocese is currently experiencing.  Such steps are commendable. 

However, in my view Bishop Peter does not go beyond the proximate causes of the clergy shortage to address the root causes and factors that have brought the diocese to this state of affairs.  Some readers may come away from Bishop Peter’s article convinced that simply encouraging assistant ministers to take more responsibility and bumping up the Moore Theological College enrolment numbers the current problems will be addressed.  Personally, I am far from convinced that is the case.

About three years ago, after over 20 years as a committed Sydney Anglican, I left the diocese to pursue ministry in another part of Australia.  Some might object that having taken my prayerbook and left the game it is no longer my place to speak on current issues back in my hometown.  Wouldn’t it a case of throwing stones from outside without having to deal with the consequences?  I can certainly understand that type of criticism.

However, something in Bishop Peter’s article caught my attention.  He discussed what some assistant ministers had said to him about why they had not seen the value in taking up the responsibilities of a rector.  Now, I believe that certain assistants have said these things and it represents a part of the problem, but it also highlights an ongoing issue in these discussions.  We did not hear from the assistants directly about their concerns and doubts about taking on a rector’s role, just that they existed, which gave the impression that the major factor in the lack of rector candidates is that the current crop of assistant ministers out there have a problem with laziness or irresponsibility.  Perhaps some of them do, but what if this impression is unfair?  What we have, I suspect, is selected responses to a question that have been filtered to present a particular interpretation of the issues at hand.  There are gaps here, and I don’t believe they are insignificant.

So, the reason that I believe I can speak is that I am one of those who are being talked ABOUT rather than talked TO.  I am one of the “missing rectors”, part of the group of clergy ordained within the last decade or so who would otherwise be approached to fill one of the thirty-odd current vacancies.  This group being discussed in absentia are my contemporaries.  Some of their struggles and frustrations have been mine also.  Reasons exist why existing clergy are electing to play it safe, have moved to another diocese, or have left Anglican ministry all together.  While not providing a comprehensive answer, my own observations and experiences over the last decade may help shed light on some of the root causes of the current shortage of rectors.

First, before we can address the numbers of rector candidates, we must consider who and how the current system selects for senior minister roles.  Every system must have checks and processes to determine who is appropriate and suitable for positions of responsibility.  As Bishop Peter’s article notes, the role of rector involves not just Bible teaching but also administration and compliance tasks (among others).  The role has come to be viewed as a highly specialised ministry that rewards and advances those who have been immersed in that environment.  So the candidate for presbyter ordination who completed MTS in a medium to large church prior to theological training and then later is able to secure a sustainably funded assistant minister position with full congregational responsibility at a similar type of church (or perhaps the same one) is highly likely to be viewed as someone who “ticks all the boxes”.  That man is a Parish Man – he knows what to do and what is expected of him.  However, the candidate who has not followed this pathway – who has not done a pre-College traineeship, who has had to change parish positions because of lack of funds, has been focused on community evangelism or planting a new ministry, has been in chaplaincy, and so forth – will find ticking the (many) boxes much harder.  This man is not primarily a Parish Man, and though he may bring a range of leadership and practical skills to the task he is viewed as a riskier bet.  Flexibility in the criteria is minimal, and the discernment process focuses almost exclusively on the candidate’s present parish role rather than how prior ministry or secular experience may demonstrate parish leadership capability.  In other words, while the need for diverse modes of ministry and leadership has become more obvious, the process for selecting rectors has become narrower and more specialised.  It’s no wonder that a growing number of assistant ministers may not feel like they fit the mould.

Second, several official policies and external circumstances over the last 15 or so years combined to discourage or derail many candidates from the rector pathway.  The first was the Permanent Diaconate policy, which while good and sound in theory, ended up not being ideal in practice.  Ordination candidates and new deacons were explicitly told, “Do not apply to be a presbyter just for the sake of it, because if you do you will be put on a list where people will call you about rector positions and you’ll be expected to accept what gets offered unless you have a good reason.  Only start the process when you know you’re ready to take on that responsibility.  Until then, you can stay a deacon and you won’t be penalised.”  Post-ordination training also (while generally practically helpful) was accordingly entirely disconnected from any ongoing ordination pathway.  So, perhaps one reason for all those assistants not taking up the rector responsibilities is because for years diocesan senior leadership were telling them that this was a legitimate pathway for ordained ministry.  Then the GFC chickens started coming home to roost around about 2012, and by the end of 2013 over 30 assistant ministers across the diocese (many of whom had not started the presbyter process because they had been told it was not a priority) were made redundant without any possibility of re-employment.  Some of these assistants moved into other types of ministry, some eventually managed to move back into parish ministry (many only part-time), and others returned to the secular workforce.  Those candidates still in theological training (or considering it) saw the impact and heard the warnings from senior clergy that there were no guarantees of jobs available in the next few years.  The entrepreneurial ones started fundraising plans, others looked for alternative options, and some who were considering theological training started to think that maybe staying in that safe office job was God’s real plan for them after all.  And now, five or so years later, we are seeing the impact of these factors on the numbers of available rector candidates.

The third factor that must be addressed is the old elephant in the room that I have been thankful to see being taken some more notice of in recent times.  There are obviously many assistant minsters for whom parish life is a joy and a blessing to them and their families.  Sadly, for a significant number of others, this has not been the case.  After a decade of ministry I have seen and heard too many stories of parishes with toxic culture and patterns of workplace abuse that I believe some kind of systemic problem has been permitting this to happen.  I have close brothers in Christ who tell me that they will not return to ministry at all after what they have been through, and others tell me that they (or their wives) will never wholeheartedly trust a senior minister of a church again.  In most cases it is not the “alpha dogs” of ministry that experience this treatment, but those men and women of gentle and quiet spirit who will bear so much until they can do so no longer.  It is not my place to repeat what I have heard, but if even half of what has happened were to be aired in public the laity of the diocese would be horrified.  Was it always thus?  I have no idea.  God help us all if so!  At the very least, for a significant number of ordained and non-ordained ministers the system has not served them well, and so in turn has not served the needs of broader ministry either.  I am heartened by reports of changes to Safe Ministry guidelines that may identify ungodly behaviour earlier and see that it is appropriately addressed, but this is not a problem that will be solved with a few strokes of the pen.  Perhaps this issue may cause stronger reflection in the presbyter process as to what makes a “strong leader” and why.

In the end I desire the same thing as Bishop Peter – more servants of Jesus Christ proclaiming the gospel in the city of Sydney and beyond.  I too believe that the training and development of Anglican ministers in the Diocese of Sydney is a remarkable and powerful way for this to happen.  If more ordained ministers are to be raised up it is imperative that not only the proximate causes of the current rector shortage that are examined.  I believe that assistant ministers are not choosing to forego the task of parish leadership primarily because they are lazy or irresponsible, just as parishes are not choosing to hold on their best and brightest because of greediness.  Instead, in my view it is necessary to question whether the presbyter pathway as it has operated for the last decade or so has been adequate and appropriate for raising up the required parish leaders for 2020 and beyond.  Are the best new leaders being identified or excluded by the process?  Clergy and laity at all levels must reckon with past shortcomings, so that young people who are willing and desirous of a life of full-time ministry may have confidence that they are being invited onto a better and easier pathway than their predecessors had to tread.