RETREATS AND A SPIRITUAL AUDIT

One of the special offerings of John Mark Ministries to pastors, church leaders and their spouses – and many others – is a ‘This is Your Life’ retreat. In these two months as I write six individuals and one couple have booked a retreat-time. (They will come from our home-state Victoria, one from interstate, another from an Asian country).

Here are the most commonly-asked questions about our retreats:

Question: What’s the general idea of a retreat?

Answer: It’s a time to ‘stocktake’, review one’s life, without any other distractions. It is to one’s spiritual/emotional/relational life what a medical check-up is for one’s physical well-being.

Q: What do we do?

A: Talk (about six hours over two days): often we walk along the Dandenong Creek to the bird wetlands nearby, think, pray, reflect, write in your journal…

Q. Ah, um… what do we talk about?

A. Anything of importance to you – unfinished business from the past, difficulties in your life/ministry/relationships, your spiritual life – anything at all.

Q. If something’s too ‘personal’ or difficult do we have to talk about that?

A. No: you call the shots. Some matters might be too hard, so we don’t have to face them until you’re ready. But in principle there’s nothing we don’t talk about (and after 22,000 hours of doing this I’m only rarely coming across people’s experiences that are really novel)!

Q. Is there some sort of structure to our discussions?

A. Well, yes and no. Depends on several things – the ease with which you hold up your end of the conversation, the issues at stake. The ’18 Questions’ appended below provide a rough guide to our time together. We usually begin with the time-line; the story of one’s childhood often takes an early hour together, adolescence another hour… and so on.

Q. Is there a ‘confessional’ dimension to this?

A. Usually yes, but not necessarily. Under the headings ‘guilt’ or ‘shame’ you may wish to get rid of bad stuff accumulated over the years. Sometimes, if these issues are ‘real bad’ we might have a time of writing it out/burning it up and experiencing ‘absolution’ as God forgives us and cleanses us.

Q. So, let me get this straight: you, Rowland, ask lots of questions?

A. Well, yes, but it’s not an interrogation. I’m simply the prompter, you’re on the stage (and if you want to carry the analogy further, God is the audience).

Q. Does that mean only Christians do this?

A. No, I’ve had some ‘ex-Christians’ and ‘non-Christians’ come to a retreat.

Q. What’s your philosophy of counselling?

A. There are several ways to respond to this. Good counselling is pure friendship, the exercise of unconditional love and ‘grace’; it’s the chance to off-load stuff that is weighing us down, to clarify/objectify issues that have ‘gone round in circles’ in our head. I’ve identified about sixteen ‘counselling philosophies’ (Freudian, Gestalt etc.) and I’m somewhat eclectic, using insights from all of them. However, I’m fairly strongly ‘Glasserian’ (William Glasser’s book Reality Therapy is a guide to this way of thinking) – that is, I believe in our God-given ability to take charge of our life. What we do to life is more significant than what life does to us. I’m also strongly influenced by the women’s and men’s movements. For example, a lot of male problems go back to inadequate fathering or initiation into manhood. A lot of women’s problems go back to their non-affirmation by fathers etc. When I asked a forty-year old woman why she’d come on retreat she said ‘To rent a dad – the dad I never had!’

Q. What about the practical details and cost?

A. You stay with your friends or book into a local motel – like Quest, Wantirna/Knox – 03 9801 6044: ask for a $100/110 rate. A recent retreatant found that the 4 1/2 star Golden Pebble Hotel (500 Boronia Rd. Wantirna) was cheaper – $95 on the Wotif website. Suggested donation: a $200 deposit when you book the retreat, then, say, $800, at the time of the retreat, total $1,000: all tax deductible (and negotiable if that sum is difficult for you). Contact me by email to arrange payment – either by cheque: simply click on the ‘Contact Us’ button top right on your screen (or change the [at] to @ in rccroucher[at]optusnet.com.au) and I’ll email a postal address. Or if online: Direct Debit to Account name: John Mark Ministries (if an organization/church is paying) or Well-Being Australia (tax deductible if an Australian individual is making the donation) BSB: 063 191 then account 0090 1840 (JMM) 1012 2484 (WBA). Note: I do not draw a salary/stipend – all donations go to various ministries/missional projects we support, like Urban Seed, working among the poor in downtown Melbourne, or UNOH, a brilliant missional organization serving the poor in Springvale/Noble Park Victoria, and in Bangkok, Thailand. The best way to view remuneration is that it’s ‘an exchange of gifts’: money for (hopefully) 72 years of accumulated wisdom and love. Meals out are included. You may purchase any of my books at cost. The timing is over two days: the overnight sleep between sessions is important for us both to pray/reflect on what has been talked about. Usually, the retreat lasts from late afternoon (about 4.30 pm, then a couple of hours over dinner) one day, and resumes about 9.30 to about noon the following day. Bring your walking shoes!

Q. Can I come back for other sessions if there’s more to talk about?

A. Yes, I’d love that. I will continue to pray for you, and it would be good to know how you’re going. You can email me to keep me updated…

Q. OK. I might do a retreat on my own first and see what happens. What/where are those 18 questions?

A. Here they are (below). All the best.

Select some/all of the following, and jot down notes for discussion in your journal:

1. Do a time-line of your life, noting ‘highs’ and ‘lows’ (however you define them). Graph the highest and lowest and put rough dates against these, noting your feelings then and now about these events/experiences. Why were/are they significant?

2. On separate pages, write the following headings and make some notes on your experiences in each: Anxiety/Fear, Sadness/Grief, Guilt (bad things I have done)/Shame (bad things I feel about me), Irritation/Anger.

3. What problems/challenges do each of the ‘seven deadly sins’ hold for you? (Sloth, Lust, Anger, Pride, Envy, Gluttony, Greed). What are your ‘addictions’?

4. We each have a ‘shadow’ side (Jung). What is yours? Where are your areas of incompleteness? For what non-altruistic reasons are you in ministry or doing good?

5. Of the three great temptations – money, sex, power – where are you weakest? Why? What are you tempted to do/be/think if you were sure you wouldn’t be found out in this life?

6.  What dreams do you recall? What do they tell you about yourself?

7. What ‘spiritual gifts’ has God given you? What have you done with them?

8. If the relevant resources (money, people, authority etc.) were plentiful enough, what would you like most to do with your life?

9. What happens when you pray?

10. Write a paragraph about each of these: God, Jesus for me, faith, love, hope, the Bible, the Church, authority-figures, being a woman/man, being a parent, being a child, being a partner, counseling / being counseled, work, church, hobbies /interests…

11. What books and/or movies, great works of art etc. have most influenced you? What are your favourite Bible passages/texts? Why?

12. What do you like / what don’t you like about the way you were brought up?

13. Write some notes about friendships. What do you enjoy? Do you have sufficient friends? What do you do with them? Are there limits to what you can disclose to them?

14. Physical/emotional/mental health: where could you improve? How’s your diet, exercise, rest/sabbath/sleep and thinking habits? If there were some things you’d like to change about yourself what would they be?

15. How do you feel about the future?

16. If you died today, write down in one page what your eulogy might look like (be honest!).

17. Write in a page or so what you think you will hear at the Great Judgment!

18. List anything else of significance in your life that you’d like to think/pray/talk about…

Shalom! Rowland Croucher

See Also: Case Study: ‘Cynthia’ ( http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/4973.htm )

*****

Some notes and reflections on time with Rowland Croucher

I am 30 years old and grew up in a close knit community, in a family of 3 children. We faithfully attended church every Sunday and went to a Christian school as well. On the surface my family seemed happy – Dad worked hard to provide for us and we never lacked anything we needed, or even any of the things we really wanted. But I don’t ever remember hearing him say he loved me. My parents were reluctant to praise us in any way in case we became proud. Things around the dinner table were often quiet – no one ventured an opinion about anything because it would just be cut down and when there was humour it was in the form of sarcasm and put downs. Defensiveness was the key communication strategy and withdrawing into silence ran a close second.

I craved my parent’s affirmation and praise and sought it by good grades which never seemed good enough. I adored my teacher’s praise and cried when school ended each term and they left.

I struggled in relationships – although I had a good number of friends I was fearful of them moving on to other friendships, and experienced a lot of jealousy. If someone else entered a friendship I often backed away, withdrew and shut down, assuming that I wouldn’t be wanted any more.

I had had an “experience” with God in my teenage years and began praying and reading the Bible regularly, as well as any books I could get my hands on about living the Christian life. I was a ‘model’ Christian girl, attending youth and prayer groups, and spending a year at Bible College. That’s where I got to really know my future husband, whose love was the first ‘building up’ kind of love I had ever known. After working in a number of different jobs, he was asked by a church to come and work with them and, as we wanted to serve God together, I soon joined him in this role. I looked forward to working with the pastor who was gifted in many areas, but from the beginning we struggled. I longed to know I was doing ‘ok’ with my up-front responsibilities. I would go home from worship and feel condemned for hours afterwards, ‘knowing’ that what I had done was ‘stupid’ and ‘hopeless’. I wanted my pastor to tell me it wasn’t and to still the inner fears I battled with more and more. For a number of reasons he didn’t. I knew I had to make a choice to continue – that I could not be dependant on his approval. I tried to not do what I had done so many times before, in shutting off and withdrawing. But we continued to clash and things just got worse, despite several hours of counselling with him and efforts to forgive. In the end we did what we had to do up front on Sunday’s – and kept up appearances just as my family had done so well all those years ago.

When I heard Rowland Croucher speak about the importance of fathers something triggered inside of me and I knew I could speak with him. It was a fairly big step to take – we live on one income, so spending money on a counsellor was a huge thing for us! We booked our weekend in faith! I had a deep desire to touch the hem of Jesus’ garment and be made whole … for my years of bleeding to stop … if I could just touch his cloak …

These are some of the things we talked about on the weekend:

I shared some things about my Dad, and cried. Obviously there’s a softness somewhere in his heart for me but he is unable to show it, for whatever reason – the most probable being that he didn’t receive it himself. This is unfortunately the norm for fathers and their daughters, but is completely the opposite of how it should be. A father is the only person in a girl’s world who can give her affirmation but without the sexual price tag. It’s difficult for husbands to affirm for the same reason, and also that the wife thinks he has to say nice things� its his job! It’s even hard to believe a counsellor, because he is being paid to affirm. I wrote in my story that I wanted to shake Dad out of his confidence struggle, but people have shaken me and it hasn’t worked, so obviously something much different/deeper than shaking is needed!

A father’s job is to soften his daughter and prepare her to delight in her sexuality and receive her husband one day. If my father spent what time he did with me retreating and backing away, then I will have problems coping with sex, which is basically invasive. How can I relate sexually, invite and respond warmly to the male authority figure in my life (my husband) when my previous highest male authority (my father) was completely unemotional towards me? Pain in sex is quite normal in this situation. In what should be a wonderful experience the body doesn’t naturally receive and invite. There is a psychological shutting down. The only women who don’t have a problem with sex are those who’ve been fathered properly, which is not very many women at all!

Was my pastor unsure how to handle my fragility? I feel part of my expectation with him was reasonably healthy, partly unhealthy and that not much of it at all was met! It is possible to have a therapeutic relationship with my next pastor to be honest with him and tell him my struggles – with confidence, self-esteem and need affirmation. I struggle to trust authority and need to work on this.

If I tend to smother people in my search for an exclusive friend, then people may not know how to handle the frailness they see and back away. People are unlikely not to like me unless I’m projecting something they can’t handle.

My problem is not giftedness, it’s confidence. What people see when I’m leading up front and what I feel inside don’t match up. A lot of what I do up-front is an exhausting act. I can act quite well but it gets tiring because I’m not being myself. My opinion of myself is measured by what others say about me – a fairly unreliable yardstick!

One of the first jobs Adam was given to do was naming the animals. Similarly, one of the first steps in healing/redemption is to name the problem. What animals are in my inner zoo? (A tiger who lashes out, a kitten who wants to be stroked?) When I name my problem I will be on the way! When I had my “God experience” I moved forward in my faith, but much of what I’ve learned since then is just a shell around the thick wall of my heart. I don’t know how to receive God’s love and I don’t know how to relate with a healthy love to those around me. Currently I am on the wrong side of grace – I need to stand on the right side and begin the process of transformation. Among other things I need to break the ties with my Dad which were transferred to my husband sexually, and transferred to God in an inability to receive his love.

These were some of Rowland’s suggestions for me:

Little children cannot have ideas about ideas. What they see is truth for them. When a little girl (me) saw her Daddy back away and not affirm her, she could only interpret that as meaning he did not love her and she was not loveable. That is a child’s reality.

I want to be healed from my fear of others and their opinions of me, my jealousy, self hatred and hatred of others.

People like me become whole when they

• Make a confession of their shadow side and their sin. This is being honest, it’s saying “This is who I am”
• Realise that the child’s reality is real and not odd in any way. How a child sees the world is true for the child. They cannot interpret a father’s coldness towards them as anything but coldness. The automatic assumption is that “there’s something wrong with me”. Young children, especially girls, usually blame themselves for their parent’s weaknesses, which are almost never their fault.

Now I am grown up, but this little girl is still running my life. Paul says that we are to put away childish things. This includes the reaction of the little girl who sees things as her problem when other’s don’t like her. I don’t need to be in bondage to this. The grown woman in me needs to take control of the child. The child in me can be an OK thing – it is sweet and winsome, but is counterproductive when fearful and too close to the surface. How do I grow up?

• I can make a covenant with men whose feedback I rely on to give be honest with me about the things I do. This will probably be my husband and my pastor. My husband loves me as I am, and my pastor is, in a sense, a spiritual father for me. I will serve my church better if he relates to me as a kind of Dad. I need to learn to trust what these two men tell me.
• I can start a book divided into half on each page. On the left hand side (messy and childish writing) I can write down how I’m feeling about a situation with my childish left hand writing. On the right hand side (with adult writing)I can write what I think God’s response to the situation would be, and what the response of an objective adult might be.
• I can learn to walk by faith. Each day I can decide, just for that day, to accept God’s reality about me, even when I can’t understand it, and act as if that reality is true, even if I don’t believe it. I can go out, acting as if I’m a lovable person and choose not to be put off by any paranoia. Tomorrow I can choose to do it again.
• I need to watch what is going through my head. Inner messages are OK (everyone has them), but I need to watch the content! My mind is like a jug of poison that needs to be replaced by pure, fresh water. Each day I need to think some good things about who I am and what God has done for me in the past, is doing right now and will do in the future.
• I need to meet Jesus and feel accepted and loved. I need to learn about grace. I need to know that I am acceptable to Him in spite of all the junk. He doesn’t love me more, nor less than any other of his precious human creations. To do these things I need the discipline of a daily quiet time. Some ideas for this are
• To light a candle before I begin
• To pray and ask God to meet me in the words of the Lord’s prayer or some other simple prayer such as “My all powerful, all loving friend. I come to you and ask you to displace the poison in my life. I trust you and ask for your Spirit to guide me now”.
• To read the Bible. It can be read for information or transformation and is the pure truth of God which needs to be poured into my life.
• To pray before I sleep.

On returning home this verse was in my daily bible readings:

Therefore prepare your minds for action; be self controlled; set your hope fully on the grace to be given you when Jesus Christ is revealed. – 1st Peter 1:13

This is for me! My mind is a big issue in my struggles, I do not understand grace and I long for Jesus to be revealed in my heart and life! And I move forward in hope!

*****

I am a 46 year old male who has recently returned from a weekend retreat with Rowland. I live in Sydney and the thought of travelling all the way to Melbourne to talk to someone about what I thought were a few issues I had been trying to deal with seemed a bit over the top. In fact the idea of arranging to talk to a counsellor at all was something I never saw myself doing until about 18 months ago when I experienced the biggest failure in my work place that left me with acute anxiety and depression like I have never known before. And believe me when I tell you I know all about depression having suffered from it for as long as I can remember at various stages of life, and never doing anything about it until recently.

I have been a Christian for about 20 years.  I attended Bible College for a year, went to or ran home groups for much of that time, had what I thought was a pretty good devotional life that included prayer and Bible study and I have a good circle of friends that we socialise with regularly.

I kept thinking that “she’ll be right mate, I can work this out”. Isn’t that the typical male response to dealing with problems? The truth of the matter is, I wasn’t working things out and not only that, things were  getting worse.

When I say “things”, I mean my emotional and spiritual well being.
With this overwhelming sense of failure came attitudes of worthlessness, despair, and probably the scariest of all was the realisation that I was becoming very bitter. It was so real to me that I could almost taste it. My darling wife of almost 25 years and some great friends continually encouraged (without pushing) me to seek help. Prior to that I had been searching the web for articles on anxiety and depression when I came across John Mark Ministries. Immediately the name struck a chord with me given the nature of my own previously mentioned failure, yet it wasn’t until 12 months later that I finally booked a retreat for March 2010.

Prior to leaving for the weekend I completed the questions that are posted on the web and found them to be extremely helpful in preparing my heart for the talks I would have with Rowland. The  other thing I did prior to leaving was to make up my mind that I was going to be as truthful as I could possibly be to any of the questions that were posed to me: this made me more than a little  bit nervous I can assure you. I needn’t have been, because what I experienced with Rowland as I poured out my heart on things that I thought I could never share with anyone else was a non judgemental and unconditional love without fear of reprisal. The thing is you can talk about as much as you want or as little as you want on any subject that is bothering you. And we covered a fair bit in the six hours. It’s entirely up to you: you’re never pressured to go anywhere you don’t want to go.

Without going into all the detail, we started off by going through a time line of my life and discussed relationships within the family. It didn’t take long for Rowland to work out that much of the difficulty I had experienced in life, including the ongoing battles with depression were directly attributable to the relationship I had with my father and the void that this had left in my heart. Something that had never really crossed my mind.

I had long since learned to forgive him for the emotional abuse that I felt I had suffered for all those years. He was a very angry man who broke my spirit at an early age through verbal abuse and constant outbursts of anger. Nothing was ever good enough and unless you agreed with him on every subject imaginable you were put down and shouted into submission. My first real recollection of this behaviour began when I was about 7 years of age and continued up until I left home at 18. I never knew when the next outburst was coming, so as a result I tried to stay as far away from him as possible. So, essentially I grew up without having one meaningful conversation with my father. Nor feeling as though I could approach him for guidance about any subject. In short I was very fearful of him and never experienced the type of loving father son relationship.

As a result of the weekend and our talks, Rowland has been able to steer me toward some really good material on manhood, fatherhood, and the process of mentoring that is essential in the development of healthy mature men. If anything is really bothering me I flick him an email and he usually gets back within a couple of days with the best one line responses ever (two if it’s really serious, ha ha).

Probably the best way to describe the change in my whole attitude since my weekend retreat comes from my beloved wife when talking to a friend over the phone I overheard her say, “I have got my husband back.”

*****

(for John Mark Ministries retreatants).

1. LOVE FOR GOD – with all my heart, mind, soul, strength: how am I doing in these four areas? Does all this translate into a life of obedience to God?

2. INTIMACY WITH GOD: how are my devotional disciplines (Bible reading, prayer, spiritual reading)?

3. PRAYER: specifically – how are the components of adoration, confession, thanksgiving, supplication? Contemplation / meditation?

4. LOVE FOR OTHERS: do I serve others each day without thought of reward? Am I an encourager and non-judgmental listener?

5. CHARACTER: (go through these slowly, one at a time): how’s love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control? Are my emotions ‘under control’, with past emotional stuff dealt with?

6. PRIMARY RELATIONSHIPS/COMMUNITY: how am I currently nurturing relationships with spouse, children, parents, grandchildren, God-children, friends?

7. CHURCH: Am I a regular contributing member of a worshipping/missional community? Are my skills/gifts available to others?

8. THE WORLD: what ministries of evangelism, compassion and social justice am I involved in regularly? Are one or two of these cross-cultural?

9. INTEGRITY: how’s the devil getting to me these days in terms of of money, sex, power? How’s my thought-life?

10. TIME/SELF-MANAGEMENT: are my days, weeks, months, years ‘balanced’?

11. WORDS: am I thinking more carefully before I speak these days?

12. WORK: do I believe my vocation is God-ordained? How does that translate into the excellence with which I pursue it? Is my life balanced between work and relationships?

13. NATURE: do I take regular excursions into the natural world to find and relate to God the creator/sustainer/redeemer there?

14. RECREATION: are my leisure-pursuits (particularly TV watching and sporting interests) for re-creation, or have they become time-consuming and idolatrous? Do I have a regular weekly and yearly sabbath/quiet days/reflective retreats?

15. HEALTH: Do I have a healthy diet, adequate exercise and sleep, regular physical check-ups?

16. THE MIND: Do I have a good balance in my reading? Spiritual discernment in terms of media/ the world/ ethics/ politics etc.? Do I regularly read theological/ devotional/ auto/biographical books? Is my thinking able to be free of human ideological / theological systems, and comfortable with ambiguity?

17. STUFF: Do I have a desire to sell or give away more possessions than I bring into my home? Do I (at least) tithe my money, skills and time?

18. ACCOUNTABILITY: do I have a life-coach or mentor to help with reality-checking and keeping to any covenants I’ve made? A spiritual director to assist in my relationship with God? A group of peers to talk with and pray for one another?

Rowland Croucher

PASTORS-IN-TRANSITION

Hi friends,


Here's a summary of my thinking about pastors-in-transition, written mainly from an Australian (Victorian) perspective. It's too long and yet too brief, and off the top of my head. There are many other angles on all this.


~~~


# A Baptist ex-pastor in another state thought his credentials were current, and happened to come across a Baptist Union Yearbook - to discover his name was not there! No contact from anyone, no phone call, no pastoral care...


# An Australian Pentecostal pastor's ministry was terminated by a church meeting and a phone call on Sunday, and on Monday an elder called to his home to arrange for him to hand over the manse keys. No farewell, no thanks, no holiday pay, nothing.


# Reverend Joe served two rural churches, but both pastorates ended badly. He asked to be put on the Baptist Union's 'list' for another pastorate. The meetings of the Union's 'settlement committee' came and went and Joe's name would come up each time. But there wasn't a 'suitable' church. (One of the members of that committee said to me, 'We have to be efficient, because there's always a lot of business each month. But these names... they're people! This is their vocation, their job, we're talking about. We don't pray for them except generally when we 'bless the meeting' in a pious way, or even meet some of them. They're mostly just names. I feel very uneasy about the whole process.'). I'd met Joe when I preached at the Baptist church he attended. We made a time to talk - at the local McDonald's. He got there early and was waiting for me, with a cup of coffee. (I learned later he found a used styrofoam cup, and asked for a 'refill', as he couldn't admit to me that he was penniless). His wife was supporting them both with some 'agency nursing', but her health was not good, and she could only do about two shifts a week. After mortgage payments, and other bills, they had about $50 a week for food. He couldn't find a job - and his old trade wasn't a possibility any more. (More of this story - http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/2039.htm )


In some of our older church buildings there's an honour roll dedicated to the memory of those who've fallen in battle. But if you're wounded in the pastorate, you're often left to die, sometimes all alone. Occasionally not even your comrades-in-ministry will call you. (About half of all Baptist ex-pastors tell me they had no significant contact from their peers when they left pastoral ministry...). The majority of those who are no longer in parish/pastoral ministry, whether by choice, or because their ministry was prematurely terminated, walk a lonely road...


Pastoral ministry, commenced with high ideals and expectations, had become a source of stress, had caused a lowering of self-confidence, and a sense of powerlessness for over half of the 243 ex-parish pastors who responded to our John Mark Ministries questionnaire. And yet many would identify with the person who said, 'but my "sense of call" remained; [I] felt guilty that I could not fulfil my calling.'


About 20% of ex-pastors in parish settlements left to move into another career (either within their denomination, a para-church organisation or a secular position). One-quarter of these have done so without hurt, conflict, loss of health, or plain boredom, being their underlying motivation. The few can say, 'I had enjoyed a total of 15 years of parish ministry and I felt ready for a new challenge in ministry', or saw the move into another vocation as the natural next step because of the gifts and the expertise that they possessed. Many more would say something like, 'I was "burnt-out". God gave me a way out - I was tired of fighting unproductive battles...'


PASTORS AND CONFLICT


The most significant reason for leaving (for about half of the sample) is conflict. This conflict may be with local lay leaders, colleagues in the parish, members of the congregation, or denominational leaders. Conflict with local church leaders (lay and other pastors) is mentioned as one of the most significant factors in the actual decision to leave by one quarter of all respondents, and difficult relationships with denominational leaders by approx. 20%. When this is combined with the fact that half of the ex-pastors surveyed have felt a lack of support/encouragement in the pastorate, this raises serious questions about the quality of community in many of our churches. The ex-pastor is often left with intense feelings of failure, anger, a sense of betrayal (not only by others, but also by God), resentment, guilt and shame. These can take many years for the pastor, the pastor's spouse and teenage or adult children to work through to a point of healing - if it ever happens.


SPOUSE/FAMILY ISSUES


Spouse/family issues are often significant in the decision to leave the pastorate. Problems in the marriage relationship are mentioned specifically by 13.5% of respondents, 10% of spouses have had problems accepting the lifestyle, and 16% mention family problems. Factor analysis of the various factors operating when pastors leave parish ministry has shown a definite clustering around the questions relating to spouse, family, housing, finance and mobility. When these factors are considered together, the significance of the pastor's personal relationships would appear to be important for about a third of those who decide to leave the pastorate. A regular response in the questonnaires is the felt need 'to spend more time with my wife and family'. Adultery on the part of the pastor is the sole reason for leaving for some of our respondents. Sadly, this often occurs when the pastoral ministry has been progressing effectively. One perceptive ex-pastor for whom adultery and the subsequent break-down of his marriage had been the key issue said: 'The inability of the church to deal with my situation, the closing off from expression/acknowledgement of issues relating to sexuality and lack of opportunity for support/examination or reflection to help me was significant.'


'SELF' AND HEALTH

Only 4% of the respondents returned to the pastorate.

These two issues recur as very significant reasons in the decision to leave the parish. 'Self', including a loss of self-confidence, inability to continue to cope, and awareness of weaknesses, is the most often given reason for leaving. Health factors (often associated with stress/burnout) is the third reason given (after self and conflict with local church leaders). It would be very wrong to assume that the third of pastors who acknowledge self as a factor in their decision were unsuited to the pastoral ministry. (There are a few for whom this is so.) Many ex-pastors (about 40%) have good self-knowledge, and have learnt through their experience. One ex-pastor said: 'Some of my inter-personal skills needed attention', and many have sought counseling help to look at themselves.

WHERE TO FROM HERE?

In an ideal world, the 'marriage' of church and pastor ought to be 'for better and for worse, for richer and for poorer'. But we do not live in an ideal world. Sometimes divorce is the only option when this important relationship breaks down. Today, it's both easier and harder to be a pastor - and indeed any sort of church leader. It is easier for pastors because there are so many resources available to help him/her do a professional job. (See for example, 'The Professional Pastor' in Paul Beasley-Murray's A Call to Excellence, Hodder & Stoughton, 1995). But it's harder for both pastors and church leaders primarily because churches are becoming more specific in their performance-expectations of their pastor, and more likely to initiate a termination if the pastor doesn't meet those expectations. In a world of 'performance standards' or even 'downsizing', executives these days are disposable.

No one wins when a church feels forced to terminate the services of a pastoral leader. In many (most?) instances, not all church members favor the action or the process and tempers flare and often times a church split results. If forced terminations become the "norm" for a church, there is negative witness in the community, and sometimes that church gets a 'name' for crucifying its pastors.

My counseling of 'pastors in transition' has led me to believe that a major component of their conflict has to do with unresolved childhood issues. Some bristle at this suggestion, but I can only report what I have learned from the stories of hundreds of these people. When the media asks 'Why are there so many ex-pastors?', I now respond: 'There are 41 discrete answers they give to the question "Why did you leave?" A list of those responses can be found at http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/2001.htm . Second, the _occasion_ of leaving was often conflict of some kind - usually with powerful people in the local church. But I think we then have to ask: "What causes those conflicts?" And the broad answer to that question might suggest reasons associated with a mismatch of expectations and reality, but beneath all that is the inability to get along with others because of unfinished business in various people's lives - the pastors' and/or the leaders'...

A significant number of ex-pastors don't 'attend church' for short or long periods - or ever. And many who do attend as 'laypeople' do so for the sake of their children. And they generally can't express their hurt and anger: anger is a most misunderstood emotion, and poorly handled in the vast majority of Christian contexts... (more on that below).

Many cannot easily find another vocation: the one they left to enter pastoral ministry might not exist any more.

There are financial problems - particularly if they do not own their own home. The families suffer from geographical dislocation. The spouses and children often become angry with the church - and this causes issues of loss-of-faith for many.

OUTSIDERS

So what can be done? First, let's note the biblical precedent of Barnabas relating to Saul of Tarsus and to John Mark - two 'outsiders' who had very different reactions to their life-situations. Can you hear good Christian folks saying to Barnabas: 'Saul? Don't touch him. He's trouble!' 'John Mark? He's a loser: the mission is more important than one individual...'

The Barnabas option is time-consuming, and emotionally demanding. So the church-as-institution often follows the easy road. When ex-pastors say to me 'The denominational leaders didn't help, I was viewed as a capital-p Problem', my response is sometimes: 'And didn't you have to deal with problem people in your pastorates, and what was your strategy with these?'. This situation is complicated by role-conflicts: the denominational leaders are by default both counsellors-of-pastors and gatekeepers to other possible appointments. So they wisely refer pastors-in-transition to outside counsellors. But then there's the inevitable response: 'They had no time for me; I was shoved off to someone else to get sorted out; and I've not heard from my denomination's leaders again.'

How are pastors-in-transition helped? Depends on their personality, pastoral experiences, unfinished family-of-origin business and a host of other variables.

In all cases there's a need for confidential, caring, listening by a trusted 'other'.

Here we have to note two pastoral dynamics (there are others):

1. Intimacy. Gordon Macdonald writes: 'A preponderant percentage of those of us drawn to pastoral leadership have a higher-than-normal urge to engage with other people. We love to get below the surface of people's exterior lives: to understand their dreams and their burdens, to urge them on to higher possibilities, to sympathize with their feelings and fears, to show them grace and mercy when they fail' (http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/17246.htm ).

And so we might have a higher-than-average expectation others will do that for us if/when we fail.

2. Power. Most ex-pastors, if they're honest, say they miss preaching more than anything else. The pulpit is about the last place in our society where someone can speak to a crowd without being interrupted - or often even questioned, at least directly. We humans love our little occasions of power, and when deprived of them don't know sometimes how to handle the concomitant powerlessness.

~~~

Should some of them, in their pain, 'act out' their rage? In my view, and in a minority of cases, and in a safe and appropriate context, yes. There's the role-play model, where they 'let fly' at an imaginary person sitting in a chair. Occasionally I've taken people driving along a freeway at night to shout/scream/swear (the only context I know in the city/ suburbs where they can safely do that without someone calling the police!).

Some people have been taught that they shouldn't externalize their strong emotions. I'm wary of that advice, but, yes, I know that 'self-control' is a 'Fruit of the Spirit'! (I was talking to someone recently who said 'I'm from a Greek family. And we say what we think, and we're often "in your face" with each other. Then we get over it. But I'm married to an English spouse, who doesn't understand the Greek way of solving conflicts!')

I reckon also we have to be frank about the strengths and weaknesses of institutions. Walter Wink is helpful here. Where two or three join together to do something there's institutional power at work. When someone inhibits the process of 'getting the institutional thing done' they're usually ostracized. 'Good guys' conform to the institution's aims and norms of behavior. Troublemakers are 'bad guys' and are excluded from the institution's benefits. Some 'troublemakers' then rage at the institution, occasionally sabotaging any good/reform which might result, and suffer the consequences. (Today's news: Melbourne Storm fined $15,000 by the NRL for claiming they are victims of a conspiracy by the northern states to destabilise their club). Biting the hand that feeds you is not generally a constructive strategy!

Oh, that'll do... there's much much more, but some might like to respond to some of this... Like asking:

1. How do we as pastors encourage discipline and maturity in these matters while acknowledging genuine pain and rage in someone?

2. How can we exercise constructive loyalty to our group/denomination without suffering from 'institutional preciousness'?

3. How is someone (like most ex-pastors I talk to every week) encouraged to 'own their own stuff' while debriefing on conflictual situations?

4. Where does the (enlightened) notion of 'restorative justice' fit into all this?

5. How can 'outsiders' become 'insiders' without compromising their convictions or becoming less 'prophetic'?

6. An issue of the GRID leadership letter - 'Do Yourself a Favour: Encourage your Pastor' provoked a record 600 responses to World Vision (http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/2019.htm). Why?

7. We pastors are supposed to go after lost sheep, but are not good at helping 'lost shepherds'. True? Why?

~~~

Resources

'How many ex-pastors in Australia? Somewhere between 10,000 and 13,000' (More -http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/16971.htm )

'Moral failure: Let's require that every man and woman in Christian leadership belong to a peer-oriented group that creates covenants of behavior such as no casual dining with a member of the opposite sex, no travel of any kind with a colleagues of the opposite sex, no team relationships unless three or more people are involved' (More - http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/17246.htm )

'Churchie behaviour: to be accepted on a Sunday you have to behave a certain way. I am simply not that person that I am supposed to pretend I am whilst in church' (More -http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/17126.htm )

Motivation? 'I used to pray for everyone individually, phone them up to ask how they were, show an interest in their kids and budgie and labrador... but what was my motive? To be nice and win 'em for my flock. Why don't I do that now that I'm not in a pastorate?' (http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/16899.htm )

'I found that I was sick of running a small business. More and more of my time seemed to involve administration. I have been involved in such diverse admin duties as: developing an environmental impact study for a new development, creating a registered training authority, running a community development and training programme, developing a men's refuge from the ground up. All quite worthwhile but miles from where I was trained and from my real interests and love. And the number of meetings really began to take their toll.' (http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/15764.htm )

'In 2002, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America found that its clergy were far more likely than non-clergy to suffer from clinical depression and financial difficulties. They also experienced higher levels of work-related stress and had an increased likelihood of substance abuse and obesity' (http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/14446.htm )

'Despite what some people say, quitting is not just for losers. It can be the best thing you'll ever do.' (http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/14291.htm )

'People love labels and pat explanations so they won't have to think too hard. But if you have just walked away from bible religion, you are rediscovering the joy of thinking freely.' (http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/14236.htm )

'What are some of the core reasons a pastor doesn't get a call? (much of this material is taken form a previous Baptist Union of Victoria paper "When the call to leadership is not confirmed") 1. The pastor may not have the gifts appropriate to the needs of a given church. This is more so today than ever when there are so many different kinds of churches with different styles and approaches to ministry'. (http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/14003.htm )

'I think my greatest pain though was the fact that, when I shared the problem with my minister friends, they started keeping their distance. None of them had any sympathy. It's like they couldn't believe that such a bizarre thing could happen, so they just shake their heads and say, "Ummm..." ' (http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/12013.htm )

'In one recent year 72,000 pastors/clergy were fired across America. For reasons that were partially their fault, for reasons that were not their fault, some for reasons no one knows but God Himself. Nevertheless, they and their families were fired, force terminated, pushed out into the streets' (http://www.thecents.org/ )

And many more stories/ideas like these - http://jmm.aaa.net.au/catalog/section/xp1.htm

Footnote: This writer has experienced both highs and lows in pastoral ministry. For a story of my 'lowest low' see a recently-posted article on 'The Vancouver "Adventure"' on our website (http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/17347.htm )

Shalom! Rowland Croucher

http://jmm.aaa.net.au/
http://victoriaconcordiacrescit.blogspot.com/ 

THEOLOGICAL LIBERALISM

(Note: I'm not an expert in Orthodox or Catholic theological spectrums, so will limit this discussion to the Protestant scene).

Non-Catholic/Orthodox 'Christians' can roughly be put into about ten theological categories. They are (from left to right): 'radical liberal' (eg. Cupitt), 'liberal' (Tillich, Robinson, Kung, Spong), 'neo-orthodox' (Barth), 'liberal evangelical' (Fosdick), 'radical evangelical' (Wallis), progressive/ Lausanne evangelical' (Stott), 'conservative evangelical' (Packer), 'fundamentalist' (Bob Jones III), 'sectarian' (the JW's), and 'cultish' (Koresh). 

Now it's common to call everyone to the _left_ of one's theological position 'liberal'. But I'm ahead of myself. Let's define our terms.

Political liberalism (Latin liberalis, 'of a free person') is about liberty, equality, tolerance. Philosophers like John Stuart Mill believed that democracy, individualism, and the rule of law could be reconciled. Today political liberals argue about how a liberal society should accommodate illiberals - like fundamentalist Moslems, for example. (See e.g., John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1994).

Theological liberalism is, broadly, the attempt to adapt religious ideas to modern culture and ways of thinking. These 'Modernists' say Christianity has always adapted itself to various cultural situations. (It is possible, by the way, for a person to be politically liberal but theologically conservative, and vice versa).

From this it's a short step to rejecting religious beliefs which are based on authorities other than reason. Liberals say that because the Bible was authored by people limited by their ignorance it can't be our sole authority for faith and conduct.

The scientific ignorance of the ancients, for example, caused them to believe in miracles: today we have other explanations for many of these events. (For example a distinguishing feature of most liberals is their doubt about the physical resurrection of Jesus). Higher criticism has questioned many assumptions about the Bible - like the authorship and dating of many of its books, the 'accuracy' of the biographical details of Jesus' life etc.

Liberals also tend to be somewhat humanistic and optimistic (though two world wars put a dent in that!). They accommodate easily to scientific 'advances' (like Darwinian evolution).

Christian liberalism varies from place to place and time to time. In the U.S. the Unitarians have been the most liberal major denomination. Recently it's the United Church of Christ (whose recent hymnbook de-genders Jesus!). Some Southern Baptists prefer to call themselves 'progressives' or moderates'.

Theologically, twentieth century liberalism has tended to believe that corrupt society corrupts people (rather than the other way around) so the Church ought to major on saving society rather than saving 'souls' (Rauschenbusch). 'Sin' is a product of apathy and/or ignorance. And the radical liberals believe that the traditional God is dead in this secular age (Paul van Buren, Harvey Cox. Bishop Robinson's Honest to God edged the New English Bible into second place among religious best-sellers in 1963). Today's 'Christian atheists', like Don Cupitt, do not deem it necessary to believe in the objective existence of God to account for the phenomena of Christianity.

As the conservative IVP Dictionary of Christian Ethics and Pastoral Theology points out, liberalism has been a healthy corrective in some areas. Yes, humans are 'made in the image of God'. Yes, the church ought to be 'an ethical - and not a solely spiritual - community' [1995: 553]. And I would add that it's also a corrective to a naive biblical literalism and fundamentalist privatism. Jesus was truly human. We must emphasise again the prophetic notion of social justice. And we ought to take the idea of 'natural (or general) revelation' more seriously.

But there are grave dangers in theological liberalism. The New Zealand Presbyterian Professor Lloyd Geering confessed back in the 1960s that 'many of the things I have said and believe are at variance with the Westminster Confession.' 'We can no longer draw a clear line between what is orthodox and what is not.' Today Bishop Spong is similarly contemptuous of the term 'orthodox'.

Liberals are more at home asking questions than providing answers. But authentic Christianity is about truth, not just opinions. Sin is more than alienation from oneself and others: it's rebellion against God. In ethics our aim is not simply to do what is good but what is right. And although I would encourage scholars to study the Bible 'critically' we must never forget that (a) our stance is primarily to be 'under' rather than 'over' the Word, and (b) we do not have a mandate to destroy the faith of the less theologically-literate.

Liberal preachers have tended to use Biblical texts as ornaments - attached to already arrived-at conclusions and convictions; a 'resource' rather than a 'source'. As an atheist put it: 'You hear what the psychologist says, what the historian says, what the New York Times editorial writer says, and then the sermon concludes with, "And perhaps Jesus said it best..."' [Martin Copenhaver, 'The Making of a Postliberal', Christian Century, Oct. 14, 1998, 937].

Liberals have little idea what Jesus and Paul meant by humanity's lostness. Evangelism and conversion are alien to their thinking: they did not tend to get excited about Billy Graham. But people need good news rather than simply good advice. And liberals can't seem to understand why Elijah would mock the priests of Baal, Isaiah deride Bel, Paul argue with the pagans of Lystra, or what 'it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God' (Hebrews 10:31) might mean.

The story of salvation is not simply an extension of human wisdom or an expression of common sense.

This all came home to me when I met a 50-ish man who'd been to a mainline Protestant church all his life, but had always been uneasy talking about his faith. Then he got 'converted', and attended an evangelical church. They sent him with some others on an evangelistic tour to Indonesia. There he had to give his 'testimony'. 'It changed my life. Now Jesus is a reality to me rather than an ancient nice man. I now want to share my faith. The Bible is alive for me. God speaks to me every day...'

Today liberalism has lost its appeal to laypeople - I don't know any liberal preacher today who gets the crowds Fosdick used to draw - but it's still alive in mainline seminaries (note, eg. the work of the Jesus Seminar). Folks today want the preacher to be certain about core Christian beliefs and values. Liberalism is just too sophisticated, too nice, essentially a university brand of Christianity. It is humanism in religious garb.

'Christ has set us free,' writes Paul to the Galatians (5:1). 'Stand firm therefore...' Followers of Jesus are called to be 'both liberal and conservative at the same time,'  the Reformed Churches radio preacher Dr. Peter Eldersveld used to say. 'We are instructed to conserve our liberty... You might say that the whole Protestant Reformation was truly liberal, in the true meaning of that term. But in order to be liberal it had to be truly conservative - that is, it [called us] back to the historic [Christian] faith. In fact its "liberalism" [was in] its commitment to the gospel of liberty in Christ.' ['Liberal and Conservative', Back to God Hour, date unknown].

The last word is from an excellent article in the British Expository Times: 'The tragedy of liberal theology [is that] it has become all too skilled at telling us what is _not_ the case, what it is that we can no longer believe; but it shows little sign of being able to replace these negatives with convincing and intelligible positives. "Conservative" Christianity, at its best, combines a faithfulness to the founding traditions of the Christian faith, a proper graciousness, humility and teachability, an awareness of and an engagement with the intellectual and scientific issues of the day, and a confident message which people... can understand and rejoice in. In a word, while it may yet be far from perfect, it is the closest approximation on the market to the phenomenon of which we read in the New Testament - a phenomenon which changed the world.' [Colin Sedgwick, 'Where Liberal Theology Falls Short', Expository Times, October 1992, p.3].

Rowland Croucher 

June 1999

WHAT'S YOUR CHURCH'S LEGALISM/S?

Every church institution develops its somewhat unique legalisms. Here's the Baptist version...


OPEN MEMBERSHIP IN AUSTRALIAN BAPTIST CHURCHES


(Paper presented to the School of Ministry, Whitley College Melbourne, July, 1992, and then to all the Baptist clergy conferences throughout Australia. Updated 2010).


'Now abides faith, hope and love, and the greatest of these is
baptism.'


The relationship of a person's faith-to-baptism-to-church membership
is one of the most complex issues in contemporary Baptist faith and
practice. Most Australian Baptists have resolved the closed/open
communion issue (in favour of open communion), but only a minority of
our churches have moved to an open membership position. So we approach
this divisive issue with teachable humility, recognizing that if, after
four hundred years of to-ing and fro-ing on the subject we have still
not reached a common mind, that prospect is not going to be realized
easily or soon for us either.


The early Christians baptized 'believers' by immersion into the
membership of their churches. Repentance-faith-receiving the Holy
Spirit-baptism-church membership were seen to be linked, theologically,
experientially and chronologically. Baptism was the doorway into the
church local and universal (these two aspects of the church were
inseparable for them). Immersion was the normal mode (though effusion
was allowed, says the [second century AD] Didache, where the water
supply was inadequate). Adults were the usual candidates (though
households of believers were also baptized. You don't often hear of
whole households baptized these days do you?). These apostolic churches
had no formal constitutions or regulations; their koinonia had not yet
become institutionalized. The uniting factor: 'one Lord, one faith, one
baptism'.


Augustine later linked the necessity of baptism with the doctrine of
original sin. First the Syrian church, then others, began the practice
of baptizing babies during the first eight days. Aquinas affirmed that
baptism 'leaves an indelible mark upon the soul.' Calvin linked baptism
in the new covenant with circumcision in the old; Luther prescribed the
involvement of an adult sponsor; Zwingli said baptism was a sign or
symbol only, of a deeper faith-reality.


Baptists first baptized by effusion, but soon switched to immersion.
Their commitment to a 'believers' church' prescribed baptism only of
those who could personally request it. John Bunyan was the most famous
proponent of open membership, for which he was vilified by other
Baptists. In three treatises on the subject, he said the reality of an
inward faith was more - much more - important than an outward sign like
baptism.


The key question: 'Why is it possible to be accepted into the family
of God but not into the family of a Baptist church?' Baptists have given
many answers, which can roughly be summarized into six broad categories:


[1] HARD CLOSED: Here members are only those baptized by someone
with authority in one's own Baptist denomination. Many U.S. Southern
Baptists, for example, will re-baptize other Baptists.


[2] SOFT CLOSED: These churches will not re-baptize someone already
immersed as a believer, unless the baptism took place in a sectarian
group.


[3] MODIFIED CLOSED: This - with the 'soft closed' position - is the
stance of most Australian Baptist churches. Here a believer who is
unbaptized, or was baptized as an infant, is given 'associate' status,
and may vote on secondary matters in church meetings, and generally will
not be eligible for the office of deacon or elder.


[4] MODIFIED OPEN: In these churches only those who are baptized can
be members, provided the individual regards their baptism - of whatever
kind - as valid for them. This is the position of about 70-80 of our
Australian churches.


[5] PLURALIST OPEN: These churches (eg. in parts of the UK and in
North India) go one step further and allow options for either infant or
adult baptism, choosing sprinkling, effusion or immersion.


[6] WIDER OPEN: This position allows the individual, in
consultation and prayer within the community of faith, to reach a
conclusion about baptism that is valid for them, but may be a full
member of the church during this process.


In the view of this writer legalism decreases, and a commitment to
ecumenism increases, as we move from [1] to [6]. Further, older Baptist
pastors in Australia would tend towards [2] and [3], younger pastors [4]
to [6]. South Australians have the greatest heterogeneity across this
spectrum, Queensland and WA Baptists the narrowest. In the last decade
at least a dozen Baptist churches in Victoria have joined the existing
half-dozen committed to some form of Open Membership. At a recent
conference of 100 NSW Baptist pastors, the overwhelming feeling I got
was (1) sympathy with an Open Membership position; (2) pessimism about
their leading laypeople and 'the Union' agreeing with them.


The two theological questions here are (1) Is baptism the esse of the church? and (2) Should believers only be baptized? [1] [2] and [3] would answer 'Yes, yes'; [4] and [5] 'Yes, no' or 'No, yes'; [6] 'No, no.' Mother Teresa or the Pope could be a member of [4] and [5]
churches, but (Salvation Army General) Eva Burrows couldn't!


Let us organize the issues into ten clusters:


1. PASTORAL. Every sensitive Baptist has had to wrestle with the
problem of someone from another church feeling they shouldn't have to be
re-baptized to join the church of their choice. Their earlier baptism
was confirmed when they knew what it was all about, and, anyway, can't
baptism - in any mode - happen before, at, or after conversion? 'I would
be a hypocrite if I got baptized just to please you lot!' These people
believe their earlier baptism was something God did, rather than what
they did or was done to them; and that the most important things you can
say about baptism of any kind are that it is unrepeatable, and that if
it was in the Triune name, that's what matters most. And then there is
the inevitable feeling of being second-class, even if some form of
'Christians in fellowship' or associate membership is practised.
On this point our constitutions say one thing, but our pastoral
hearts and theological heads say another. Bunyan wrote: 'The Church of
Christ hath no warrant to keep out of their communion Christians that
walk according to their light with God.'


2. HISTORICAL. Over time, Western Christendom has moved beyond the
bigotry of the Middle Ages and Reformation eras. Indeed, Baptists, as we
shall see, were involved as much as any in their commitment to religious
liberty and tolerance. When we read of dissidents in Iran being
executed, we are thankful we have moved beyond the militant
fundamentalism that has blotted Christian history as well. Baptists
should be at the forefront of encouraging all peoples to move from
bigotry to tolerance, from overstanding to understanding. (By the way,
the earliest Baptists in Australia practised open membership).


3. CULTURAL. We live in a multicultural society. Pluralism is the
order of the day - even in the worldwide church, which now has over
40,000 separate denominations, each of which believes it is more right
than all the others! The secular media are having a field day with our
intolerances and failings. We don't need to give them any more
ammunition, while at the same time affirming our commitment to the
unchanging Word of God, rather than the whims of a pagan culture.
Moreover, the 'tribal' role od denominations is decreasing: well over
60% of Christians now say they do not have a strong denominational
allegiance.


4. INSTITUTIONAL. All institutions, said sociologist Robert Merton,
are inherently degenerative. Institutions tend, over time, to increase
in complexity and exclusiveness, multiplying laws, regulations, and
constitutions. Tradition is a good servant, but an oppressive master.


5. MORAL. Let us state the issue in stark terms. Most Baptist
22-year-olds in our churches are not virgins (ask any experienced pastor
or youth counselor!). Those who are members, however, may, despite
their private morals, vote on all matters financial and theological. So
may the adults who are factional, greedy or backbiters. However, if a
godly Salvationist or Anglican were to request membership, they would be
refused in most of our churches. Their spiritual life may be exemplary,
but this matters less, apparently, than the quantity of H20 used in
their baptism, and the chronology of that event. Any system which
produces this kind of legalistic and unchristian anomaly has got to have
something wrong with it!


6. THEOLOGICAL. There are two questions here:


6-1. Can infant baptism be a valid baptism? If your view is that
baptism is primarily something God does, the answer is 'yes.' The
extreme form of this position, however is a quasi-magical
sacramentalism: baptism is a 'work of grace' which is instrumental in
bringing salvation to the candidate. Conversely, if you believe baptism
is primarily something we do, it can degenerate into a empty 'mere
symbol' stance. British Baptist theologians Wheeler Robinson and George
Beasley-Murray, among others, have helped us see baptism rather as a
Divine/human encounter. Baptism is linked in the NT with baptism in the
Holy Spirit. It is a means of grace. There is no gift or power which the
apostolic documents do not ascribe to baptism. All the chief Christian
doctrines are somehow linked with baptism. So sacrament and symbol need
to be held together.


Swedish Baptist theologian T. Bergsten says there are two kinds of
infant baptism: indiscriminate baptism which has produced 'millions of
baptized pagans', and that in which parents and later the confirmed
teenager/adult have had a more responsible role. Any judgment about
validity has to be made very carefully, or we will find ourselves
'unchurching' other committed Christians.


The issue of re-baptism is complex. Individuals can give all sorts
of reasons why they believe their earlier baptism was invalid:
theologically, it was not according to biblical precedent;
experientially, they were 'not a Christian' at that point;
methodologically it wasn't done properly (insufficient water etc.). Some
feel they were baptized for the wrong reasons - peer pressure, pleasing
a spouse, obeying the rules merely to conform etc. If baptism is only
something God does, re-baptism for any reason would be invalid; if
baptism is only something we do, re-baptisms can occur ad infinitum.
Surely the better way is to affirm the Divine/human encounter in the
event, and only re-baptize in the rarest of circumstances, if an
individual is utterly convinced their earlier baptism was invalid.


6-2. Can we add anything to grace? We now come to the crux of the
matter, an issue unfortunately not often tackled sufficiently in the
scholarly literature. The essence of the Christian gospel is that God
accepts us unconditionally. His grace is all we need. Further, in the
Christian community, grace means that all the old racial, social,
sexist, and theological barriers that divided us are shattered forever.
Some groups add 'tongues' to grace; others 'sabbath-keeping'. Baptists
add baptism to grace. Any proviso expressed as 'Sorry, unless you... - in
addition to being accepted by God - you are not fully acceptable around
here' is essentially pharisaical. The pharisees had a theology of
'grace-plus'. That's why Jesus got offside with them. With the pharisees
repentance preceded acceptance ('you change, agree with us, and you'll
be acceptable around here'); with Jesus it was the other way around ('I
accept you; let's work on a process of change together'). Pharisees are
territorial (only our kind are welcome); Christians ought to be
hospitable (you are most welcome here).


7. BIBLICAL. Advocates of an open membership position take seriously
the prophets' and Jesus' unjunction: 'It is kindness I want, not
ordinances' (Matthew 9:13). These sacrifices were divine-ordained, but,
said Jesus, kindness and mercy to others, accepting others, is more
important. Paul agreed: 'Accept one another, then, for the glory of God,
as Christ has accepted you' (Romans 15:7). How are we accepted? Purely
on the basis of grace. We then must accept others the same way. Nothing
can be added to grace.


8. ECUMENICAL. This is a 'dirty word' for many Baptists, and I am
aware of the reasons for that. We have been given certain insights into
the nature of the church which we do not want to modify. Whilst we
affirm the integrity of other churches' search for truth, our own
affirmations and distinctives are dear to us.


However, our generally exclusive attitude to paedobaptists is
abhorrent to them. Are we the only true church? Have we nothing to learn
from others? With Christendom so divided, how should we work to answer
our Lord's prayer for his church, that they may be one? By refusing
membership to those belonging to other Christian churches is to say
something else is more important than our Christianness.


Our unity is not on the basis of a particular view of baptism, but
in the common confession to which baptism points - the redemption of God
God in Christ by the Holy Spirit.


'In all things essential, unity; in all things doubtful, liberty;
and in all things, charity.' What are the 'essential' things? Only four,
I believe: * The unity of the Godhead, Father, Son and Holy Spirit; *
The saving work of Jesus Christ, who was fully human and fully divine; *
The full authority of the Scriptures in all matters of faith and
conduct; and * justice and love as the key kingdom values for Jesus and
for us (Matthew 23:23; Luke 11:42).


God probably isn't a Baptist!


9. DENOMINATIONAL. Baptist distinctives may be expressed this way:
Jesus Christ is Lord of the church, which essentially comprises only the
regenerate; the Bible is the ultimate authority for all we believe and
do in the church and in the world; believers' baptism (preferably by
immersion) is the ordinance by which we enter the membership of a
church; the autonomy of the local church - which means that no outside
body can dictate what a particular community of faith believes and
practices; individuals are at liberty to be guided by the Holy Spirit
operating within the community of faith in their understanding of the
Scriptures; the state has no mandate to interfere in the beliefs and
practices of the people of God, except to uphold good laws and maintain
order.


Now Baptists have vitiated their own history by insisting that
'freedom' is OK on every issue except baptism, a theory of biblical
inerrancy or the parousia, or whatever. What Baptists have insisted
others grant to them, they have not been willing to grant to others.


10. PRACTICAL. The devil has a particular strategy to destroy the
faith and life of every denomination, every local church, and every
Christian. A useful spiritual exercise would be to figure out what that
strategy is for Baptists!


A criticism leveled at open membership churches is that they tend
towards nominalism. This is not necessarily true. Many Southern Baptist
churches which insist on baptism by immersion of children or others have
a far greater nominalism than, say, the 50% of Baptist churches in South
Australia which practice open membership. The antidote for nominalism is
not pharisaism, but a more rigorous cachetical program, whereby those
applying for membership examine the reality of their confession, and the
essential truths of the biblical gospel. I would urge a more serious and
extended study of baptism and other doctrines, so that the ordinance
does not become a mere rite or formality. Another good practice is a
membership re-affirmation or covenant service each year.


Open membership churches feel that their 'closed' counterparts are
legalistic, putting adherance to a particular doctrinal interpretation
ahead of accepting others whom God has accepted. This criticism surely
has validity. Closed membership is a denial not only of our Baptist
principle of the liberty of individuals to be guided by the Holy Spirit,
perhaps into another point of view, but is, above all, a denial of the
Christian good news about God's grace.


For someone to have one's name in the Lamb's Book of Life but not to
qualify for our membership books is aweful! Baptists have always said
the Reformers did not take the Protestant Reformation far enough.
Perhaps we, too, have to take the great Reformation principle of grace
to its logical and biblical conclusion.


Further reading: T. Bergsten, 'Baptism and the Church', The Baptist
Quarterly, Vol 18 nos. 3 & 4 (1959), pp. 125-131, 159-171.


D. Bridge and D. Phypers, The Water that Divides, IVP, 1977.
A. Gilmore, Baptism and Christian Unity, Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1966, pp. 58-74.


Thorwald Lorenzen, 'Baptism and Church Membership: Some Baptist
Positions and their Ecumenical Implications', J. Ecumenical Studies, 18:4, Fall 1981, pp. 561 ff.


(Rev. Dr.) Rowland Croucher