Pastors

HOPE FOR HURTING MARRIAGES

Robert J. Carlson

The phone rang on a Friday afternoon. The desperate voice on the other end said, "Doctor, when can I see you? My pastor suggests I need to talk with you. Do you have a minute now?"

In the following minutes he poured out a story of torment. He had been married fourteen years and had three daughters, but in the last ten years he had been intimate with his wife only three times. He understood that the terrible abuse she had suffered at the hands of her father and cousins had placed terrible scars on her emotional being. Yet after fourteen years, he was wondering if he could continue in this relationship.

I wondered what her side of the story was and what role this man played in their nearly sexless relationship.

"Would your wife come along to see me?" I asked.

"Oh, no. She refuses counseling. She says it's my problem."

He continued, "She's in Canada now visiting her family. I don't know for sure when she'll be back, but before she returns I think I need to decide whether to see a lawyer or to hold off. Do you think you can help me?"

I paused, wondering how many pastors were hearing similar stories at this very moment. Why don't people ask for help before it's too late? Why do they wait until they're considering divorce before they seek a pastor or counselor?

I thought of the three girls. I thought of the photo album of family activities that would never make sense again. I thought of two extended families, wounded and confused by the tragedy of these torn lives. I thought of the pain and bitterness I could already sense in the untold part of the story. I thought how angry I was at adults who abuse children and expect the scars to be easily erased. I felt a sinking sensation in the pit of my stomach as I remembered how I dreaded these first meetings with couples in seemingly hopeless marital binds.

However, I also remembered other couples who had fought selfishly and ruthlessly to carve their mate into a person of their own expectations-turning their marriage into shambles-but then had come to a shattering awareness of how impossible it is to live with another person unless we let go, receive and grant grace to those we love, and above all, experience the grace of God. And they turned a hopeless situation around. They sought and gave forgiveness. They learned to communicate, to compromise, to care again. Now they smile and touch and hold hands. Not by magic, but by lots of hard work they are on the other side of the valley of despair. I know from experience that deeply troubled marriages can be saved.

"It would be best if you and your wife could come together to see me," I said. "But since she's not here, I don't think we should wait. We'd better get started now. When can you come to my office?"

The Hopeful and the Hopeless

Some years ago during my clinical training at St. Elizabeth's Hospital in Washington, D.C., I sat in front of a shy, sensitive man of profound intellectual capacity, but one who knew intimately the scars of emotional wounds. He spoke quietly yet deeply about how important it is for the mentally ill to be able to sort the hopeful from the hopeless in their life situations. How often I have thought of Father William Lynch's comments in my work with married couples. To be able to discern the hopeful from the hopeless is a critical issue in marriage intervention.

Indeed, it is a critical issue in being a good spouse as well. The day I decided it was hopeless to expect my wife to be like an old flame from my adolescence, our marriage took a big step forward. Then I had a chance to draw upon the uniqueness of the woman I married. That was hopeful-and very exciting, I might add!

Every marriage is built in hope. People marry because they hope that life together will be more effective, satisfying, and purposeful than life alone. People marry expecting it to be successful, regardless of what friends or relatives may say. But nearly every marriage also goes through a period of disillusionment. Some authors call it "The Fall." What they had hoped would happen is not going to happen. Sadness, hurt, and anger replace hope. Innocence is gone. They feel hopeless.

Karen said, "I thought when we got married we had entered into a joint contract and that I'd have a companion, somebody who was interested in the same things I was interested in, somebody who wanted to share the burden of life's day-to-day chores as well as the fun times. Instead, I married a little boy, someone whose mother had taken care of him all his life and who expected me to do the same. … And he expects me to be grateful in the process!"

Hopelessness.

And hopeless feelings are contagious.

When people tell us stories like Karen's, we often share the hopelessness. As pastors and counselors, we hear story after story of troubled marriages and dashed hopes, and we are tempted to join in the despair. We value a community of strong marriages, but we often find ourselves painting a bleak picture about the modern pressures against marriage. We come to believe that marriage is a choice between grimly enduring against incredible pressure or giving up entirely and escaping into divorce. Such hopelessness ignores the hopeful fact that people can change, people can grow, miracles can occur, and changed attitudes and perceptions (by even one person) can significantly alter the relationship of a couple.

Actually, disillusionment is a step in the right direction. It helps sort the hopeless (that Karen's spouse "will be the buddy I dreamed he would be") from the hopeful (that "here is someone who is facing a different way of living, and he will have to give up some expectations as I will have to give up mine").

One night the youth director of a large church called me at home. He had a crisis on his hands. One of the teenagers in his youth group had just "caught" his father, a prominent physician, in a suspicious liaison at the home of his office nurse. As the story unfolded, I learned that the boy's mother, a controlling, possessive woman, had sent the son out to comb the town to find his father's car. When he succeeded, the mother believed she had incontrovertible evidence of unfaithfulness. She insisted, with screams and accusations, that the father leave home that very night.

In moments like these, hope is dealt a serious blow. What remains is at best a fragile glow. The task of the pastor or marriage counselor is to communicate an appreciation of the agony people are going through, and yet to keep alive a flicker of hope and to protect that flame with our best skill, beliefs and prayer.

In the last five years, I've discovered what I've wanted to believe for a long time-that marriages in trouble don't have to break up! It is possible to rebuild a marriage.

Jon described it this way: "Our marriage was OK at first. It served us well. But as time wore on, it showed some wear and tear, and our needs changed. Like our house-we loved it at first, but there came a time when we either had to remodel, build an addition, or leave it altogether."

Jon and his wife, Margaret, were able to renovate their relationship. Today they're part of a ministry called Recovery of Hope, which helps other couples on the brink of divorce.

Recovery of Hope

Believing a marriage can improve is the essential first step in restoring a deteriorating relationship.

Using that premise, two couples who met while counseling and teaching at Friends University in Wichita, Sheldon and Lillian Louthan and Floyd and Nelda Coleman, developed a program to help seriously troubled marriages. The program, to which pastors in the area often refer counselees, centers around a Saturday morning seminar and follow-up counseling. But I've found the principles transferable to other settings where pastors are trying to help struggling couples.

Recovery of Hope seminars provide a chance for attending couples to hear the stories of other couples, like Jon and Margaret, who were ready to divorce but who were able to rebuild their marriage. (These couples have been trained in sharing authentically.)

The attending couples listen in a nonthreatening and confidential setting. They are encouraged to identify for themselves in private what has caused them to lose hope and what would help them recover that hope. They are given an opportunity to meet with a professional counselor to spell out a plan to work on the specific issues that have caused the most stress. They are also encouraged to postpone divorce action for three to six months in order to give them time for the work. The couples are encouraged to identify someone who can pray for and support them as friends in the time of need.

The five essential and transferable elements:

1. Hearing the stories of other couples whose marriages have undergone a similar crisis and survived.

2. Utilizing a trained counselor who understands marital therapy.

3. Experiencing a caring community.

4. Discovering the possibility of change.

5. Beginning to understand that "I can be responsible for my own behavior and let go of the past in order to build a better future."

The ingredients seem simple. But they can have a powerful effect.

Hearing the Stories of Others

Bob and Dawn attended a Recovery of Hope seminar. They listened to three couples tell the story of their marriages: built in hope, tested in disillusionment, regrouping through the creative struggle to understand one another, and being rebuilt through a long but significant process into a strong and enduring relationship.

Afterwards as they met with the counselor, Dawn said, "You know, we've got a lot of problems. Our families are a mess. All of Bob's brothers and sisters are divorced. His father has been married three times and now has taken a male lover. My father abused me, and my mother hated me. I know we have been terribly cruel to each other, but when I heard today what those couples have been through, I believe we can make this marriage work, too. I don't know yet how to go about it, but I believe we can find a way. I'd like to tell you what I think some of our problems are. Maybe you can help us with them."

The responses of Bob and Dawn are not unusual. To hear someone else speak about the unspeakable-personal failure of a marriage contract, the death of dreams, the despair and pain-yet with a message of hope is a powerful encouragement. Again and again, I've seen couples find they can begin to believe in the possibilities of the future. That's what hope is about. It's the necessary ingredient for people to do the hard work necessary to rebuild.

Utilizing a Counselor

In times of crisis, people need someone with authority and skill to lean on, someone who understands marital therapy.

People in trouble have already tried their own problem solving. Now they are looking for someone who has more knowledge and skill than they have

Jim and Gina came to see me because I had helped Gina's cousin. When Jim called he said they needed an appointment "right away." They'd been married only four years. Jim had kept his relationship with most of his bachelor buddies alive and spent a fair amount of time outside the home. After their first baby was born, Gina felt increasingly trapped by his other interests and his unwillingness to share in what he perceived to be "woman's work." Jim was raised in a traditional farm home. His dad never helped with the inside work. Jim had no reference point to deal with this kind of problem. So he ignored it. He came home one day to find their mobile home empty. She'd gone to live with her parents.

When I told him he should ask Gina to come along for the first appointment, he seemed skeptical. He was surprised when she said yes and accompanied him to my office. He began to believe I knew some things he needed to know. He started to trust me. With some encouragement, he tried some new behaviors. He found out he could do some important things to make his marriage better.

Physicians have known for a long time that a particular aura surrounds the office of the healer. They call it the "time-honored doctor-patient relationship." That relationship has a kind of healing quality in itself. Pastors can also exercise that aura of authority and hope.

Not all counselors, however, are trained in marriage therapy. In my own practice, I realize now that in the past I was sometimes very helpful to individuals who came for counsel but perhaps inadvertently harmful to their marriage. Unless I work with couples with the understanding that I'm committed to develop the relationship, the marriage may fail as the counseling succeeds. Individual growth often drives a wedge in the relationship. If the marriage is already weakened the marriage relationship may be perceived as the enemy of individual growth instead of a true catalyst for personal development.

When Kirk and Jan came, in the first session I saw them each alone. She was just out of law school and trying to establish her practice. She had made a big investment in the training. She wanted a chance to try her wings in the best possible place. She was also having difficulty letting go of a secret affair she had been having during her last year in law school. Kirk, an accountant, had a much more conservative approach to life. He had never wanted her to go to graduate school. He thought she should be content at home. His family, immigrants from Europe, had very conventional expectations of women. Kirk resented his parents' control, but he more often expressed his anger at his wife, who acted out the freedom he wished he had.

After that first hour, I told them I was interested in the marriage and most of the time I would see them jointly. I sensed that if I had seen either of them alone, as individual counselees, I would only have contributed to the death of the marriage. Two years later I shared, with their pastor, in Kirk and Jan's recommitment ceremony.

Finding a Caring Community

Working with troubled couples, I have rediscovered the power of the caring community, something I should have known all along.

Following the pattern of Marriage Encounter, each couple in Recovery of Hope who makes a recovery plan is helped to find another couple who will care for them. This other couple may pray for them, perhaps visit, but at least represent the bond of a caring community. If possible, we try to find this couple from the troubled couple's congregation.

Two years after their Recovery of Hope experience, Don and Noreen reported that their caring couple had become their best friends. Noreen said, "We hardly knew Pam and Jim, but when they consented to be our caring couple, we knew at least they were aware we were having problems. We were too embarrassed for other people in the congregation to know. But we could talk to Jim and Pam. We didn't have to pretend with them."

Too often congregational concern is expressed in a way that is interpreted by troubled people as gossip. But when the care is clarified and a contract established, the powerful healing resource of the body of Christ can help the rebuilding.

The chairperson of the deacon board in one congregation called me to report they were sending a couple to Recovery of Hope. Loved ones, members of the congregation, and the pastor all were concerned for this marriage of twenty-five years that continued to be marked by hostility and bitterness. Now, with the children gone, the sullen stubbornness was being replaced by concrete plans for separation. The congregation paid the thirty-five-dollar seminar fee and promised to help with the cost of follow-up counseling. Here were people surrounded with love and prayer instead of gossip and malice. Without that atmosphere, the couple would not have even tried to salvage their marriage.

Discovering the Possibility of Change

A recovery plan is a specific agreement about the problems in the marriage and some remedial steps to be taken. This often leads to some concrete agreements to try to modify some behavior that has been a source of irritation. Often these behaviors are not big things, but they are the stuff of relationships.

Lyle and Betty had been struggling. One problem was that Lyle had been raised with four sisters, and he had never learned to take any household responsibilities. Lyle had an affair, and he and Betty separated and finally divorced. After two years, Lyle came to visit his children, who were living with Betty. The conversation was polite and guarded.

Betty was cautious, but inside she was praying for a miracle. As the family spent the evening together, Betty noticed how delighted the children were to see their father, and how much like old times it was, but she noticed one other important difference: he carried his own dishes to the kitchen, and he emptied his own ashtrays.

Eventually they decided to try again and were remarried. Now they are a "presenting couple" who share their story at Recovery of Hope.

Seeing even small changes enables people to see the potential of negotiations made in good faith. This provides the loamy soil in which hope grows.

With Ted and Andrea, the problem was communication. He was in sales, she in education. She would talk about her day at school, and he would respond with advice. She thought What does he know about it? She wasn't after answers, only understanding. She grew more and more silent at home. He would try to dig and probe, but of course, you can never make someone else talk.

We examined the habits and patterns of their interaction. He agreed to "invite" her to talk about school. She agreed to try to share something. He agreed to LISTEN and withhold advice. It was tough at first. He felt obliged to "help her out." But gradually he began to change. Then she had the courage to deal with the bigger things in their life.

Learning to Be Responsible

Many times people in a painful marriage need to learn that "I can be responsible for my own behavior and let go of the past in order to build a better future."

Terry and Anne had been married twelve years. They had three children, ages seven, five, and three. Ever since the birth of the third child, sex had been a battleground. Terry, feeling somewhat insecure around his friends who bragged about their own sex lives, felt he had to maintain a macho image. As often as not, however, his wife discouraged his sexual advances. In response he would alternate between sullen pouting and brutal demanding, punctuated by accusations that "something must be wrong with you." This did not make his wife more responsive.

Anne developed such a seething resentment that when she would "give in," she would often rush to the bathroom and vomit as soon as her husband had satisfied himself.

In counseling, they each began to wonder about the origins of their behaviors. She began to explore why sexual behavior was so fraught with double meaning in her life. He began to explore his insecurity and why he believed that he was OK only when someone else gave in to his whims. As both began to trace the patterns of their behavior in their personal histories, some understanding and respect began to replace the blaming and accusations. He had to give up the expectation that she should respond to his every whim so he could match his friends' tales of sexual prowess (which, of course, were not nearly as impressive as he led her to believe when he was angry). She had to let go of an understanding that sex was always a power play. Instead she began to see it as a gift she could share at times of her good will. These lessons did not come easily. Time, work, tears, prayer were all part of the process.

But most important, there had to be forgiveness, a letting go of the past, a turning over to God of the hurts, bitterness, and anger that fueled the fighting for so long. Getting on with forgiveness is crucial to nurturing hope. Because I have seen couples forgive each other of sins and offenses I would find hard to forgive, I have more faith than ever in the possibilities of marriages to find and restore a wounded and battered love relationship. It takes this kind of miracle.

Marriage hope comes as people learn to forgive and to be forgiven. All of us have dreams or expectations that damage the personality of those with whom we live. Being willing to give up those expectations and humbly ask for God's forgiveness and the forgiveness of our spouse is to open up the possibility for love to grow. It allows the other person to be what God intended him or her to be, rather than what we intended them to be.

Even when hopelessness fills the air, we can point to the power of God to restore and rebuild.

I remember reading once about a man who stood on a hill above Hiroshima on the day of the fateful atomic explosion. Although he escaped the immediate blast and was sheltered from the firestorm, he watched with despair the vaporizing cloud that engulfed life as he had always known it. As the hours passed he sat immobilized, nowhere to go, no one to turn to. Finally the smoke began to lift from the black, sooty covering of what had been his city. As he watched, he saw green grass on the hills on the other side of the city, more than fifteen miles away. "You know," he said as he told the story, "the color of hope is green."

I often feel as counselor that my primary responsibility is to help people see beyond the immediate awfulness of their present moment and discover there is color again on the other side. The couples who share their stories in the Recovery of Hope seminars are, for me, the keepers of the green. They have helped me believe in possibilities I used to doubt, and they have helped many couples find "strength for today and bright hope for tomorrow."

Robert J. Carlson is a pastoral counselor with Prairie View, Inc., in Wichita, Kansas.

A WIFE IS NOT A HUSBAND

Reprinted by permission from The Mystery of Marriage: As Iron Sharpens Iron by Mike Mason ((c) 1985 Multnomah).

It is a dangerous thing in marriage to forget, even for a moment, that one's partner is a person of the opposite sex. This may sound like a preposterous unlikelihood, but in fact it is precisely what tends to happen in a marriage: just as cohabitation can at times serve to heighten the psychological differences between people, so also can it serve to flatten the anatomical ones. That very depth of intimacy which is the soul of a relationship can become its most insidious enemy, as a couple may be lulled into assuming that they are far more similar, in every way, than they really are. Continual togetherness, predictability of behavior, and just the routine sameness of everyday life are all factors that constantly threaten to blur that compelling distinction between man and woman which is the salt of marriage and which was the reason for the whole drama of attraction in the first place. The result is that couples can end up arguing over some of the very differences which initially fascinated them, or else assuming there is agreement in areas where agreement is not even desirable.

So it can be an important thing for a husband to remember that his wife is a creature vastly different from himself, not simply a different person, but a woman: almost, indeed, an alien being! Of course the woman is not an alien being at all, but a human being. Still, she is a different kind of human from the man, and that means she is bound to have a different way of looking at things, different categories of thoughts, different shades of emotion, some different needs, and so on. Naturally many things about her will be strange just because she is a different person from her husband; but the strangeness will be augmented, or lifted onto another plane, by the simple fact that she is a woman and not a man. When people forget that the opposite sex is opposite, it can result in men actually resenting women for not being men, and vice versa. Ultimately this is just one aspect of the way in which people are continually being hoodwinked into assuming they are in relationship with one another, when really all they are relating to is themselves. And there is neurosis in a nutshell.

-Mike Mason

Hope, British Columbia

Copyright © 1986 by the author or Christianity Today/Leadership Journal. Click here for reprint information on Leadership Journal.

Pastors

FIVE SMALL GROUP MYTHS

David A. Womack

Home Bible studies don’t always operate by the textbook.

After more than two decades of promotion in books, magazines, seminars, and classes, the fact about small groups is that few churches can testify to success. Among the reasons are:

1. We have few role models, at least in our own culture.

2. The literature on the subject has promoted the idea without offering practical methods.

3. The American concept of home privacy causes such ministries to develop more slowly here than in some countries.

4 Our American style of church leadership does not often encourage lay ministries to develop outside the walls of the sanctuary, beyond the immediate supervision of the pastor.

5. Pastors who decide in favor of home ministries become discouraged when they cannot find specifically prepared Bible study materials. If we want to give direction to the teaching, we must adapt materials created for other purposes-and that’s too much work.

Yet we cannot escape the reality that many lay Christians want a small-group experience-and can benefit greatly if the group functions properly. The question is how.

After seven years of experience with thousands of home meetings in dozens of churches as a denominational administrator, I think I know why more churches do not have home programs. The writers and speakers, myself included, were onto a good idea but were simplistic, idealistic, and premature. We approached the subject without understanding the complicated sociological terrain onto which we had so glibly ventured. The equilibrium of congregational life is finely balanced, and few pastors will risk disaster by adding untested and partially understood programs that operate largely outside their direct supervision.

Here are five theories I’ve had to revise along the way:

Myth 1: Small Groups Are a Wonderful Evangelistic Tool.

One of my early misconceptions was about the very purpose of home Bible studies. At first I said, “Home groups are our outreach to the city.”

But a couple of years later I said, “Home Bible studies contribute to the total outreach of the church. They are not directly evangelistic.”

Several years and much experience later, I said, “The evangelistic results of home Bible studies are indirect, for the groups draw from the congregation rather than the neighborhood. Home ministries conserve the results of other evangelistic methods.” Most churches that start new programs have outreach in mind, but they soon become disappointed with the evangelistic results. Churches that are successful with home ministries, I concluded, must do so for their developmental and conservational value, not solely for evangelism.

Then finally it dawned on me: Home Bible studies are a withdrawal from the community into an intimate Christian circle for fellowship and nurture. They are for inreach, not outreach!

People brought to Christ through the home meetings usually are drawn to the church by answered prayer. Much as wheat is harvested at the critical point of its ripeness, so people brought into the church through the home meetings are reached at some moment of personal crisis. Still, they often come to the church before attending the home group that prayed for them.

Myth 2: Small Groups Unite the Christians in a Neighborhood.

Another lesson I learned was about the locations of home groups. Like many churches starting home programs with little advance knowledge, we began by studying the territory and recruiting host homes throughout the community. Then we asked the church people to attend the home fellowship group nearest them.

Obedient as our congregations sometimes are, the plan worked . . . for about two weeks. After that, people went wherever their friends attended.

People form small groups around centers of common interest; they cluster socioeconomically, not geographically. True, home fellowships are brought together by a common interest in the Bible, love for Christ, and dependence on interpersonal support. Yet, many people share those interests without bonding together in clusters. These common bonds would not suffice in themselves to form a particular small group without some additional core of commonality that draws people to one another. At the heart of the small-group phenomenon is an interdependence among friends.

This raises the question of cliques in the church. Most of us have preached or heard preaching against church cliques as far back as we can remember. Now we are beginning to understand that cliquing is a natural and desirable gregarious trait that unites a congregation and forms the basis for home ministries. Home Bible studies take advantage of this natural bonding by providing a creative function for friendship groups.

The negative side of this social phenomenon is cliquishness-the temptation to exclude outsiders. Church leaders can avoid this problem by actively encouraging hospitality, posting public invitations to all home groups, and starting new groups as friendship circles develop.

Although home programs are not in themselves evangelistic, they contribute to church growth by strengthening the whole fiber of the congregation. Much as grapes grow in clusters, a church develops by attracting friendship groups around a central stem. Some center of mutual interest binds a congregation together in love and fellowship; but the church is made up of smaller units, each of which is more or less complete in itself. The force that attracts groups into a church body varies, but it often has something to do with a common ethnic, economic, or social background and lifestyle, a common belief system, and a popular pastor. The larger church learns to cluster smaller groups into its greater whole by providing nourishment, encouragement, identity, and protection.

Myth 3: Bible Study Is the Centerpiece of a Small Group.

In the beginning, I thought people wanted to gather in homes to study the Bible, so I put most of my effort into preparing the lessons. I still write and print a Bible lesson each week and accumulate them into thirteen-week series; but I have learned that people do not come to homes primarily for Bible study.

Rather, they are attracted by their needs for social interaction, the support of caring and sharing friends, and a sense of belonging to a meaningful body of peers. They want a place where they can get good advice and feel free to speak without rejection.

When I realized this, I did the necessary research in small-group dynamics and organized the home meetings to provide for the whole range of needs. Our church’s home meetings now have four elements . . . in this order:

1. Fellowship (conversation and refreshments)

2. Bible Study (a prepared lesson)

3. Self-Expression (sharing, exhortation, and prayer requests)

4. Prayer (either individually or as a group)

Myth 4: A Small Group Needs One Strong Leader.

The biblical shepherds led their flocks to pasture, but those of today drive the sheep. I soon discovered a similar contrast of leadership styles in home fellowships. Some led out strongly; others nudged around the edges.

Because people need both to hear and be heard, small groups do best with sharing rather than dominant leaders.

The wise shepherd learns to recognize and put bells on certain sheep the flock tends to follow. This keeps the sheep together and simplifies the task of moving the flock from one place to another. Guiding a few bell sheep and thereby leading the whole flock is much better than driving with sheep dogs.

Human nature is competitive, and every relationship includes a factor of leading and following. Whenever we put anyone in charge of anything, we establish a power structure in which a certain amount of struggle for domination will occur. It is not easy to find unthreatened and nonthreatening teachers who will lead without feeling ego-bound to rule.

On this score, I am glad I listened to the advice of Korea’s Cho Yonggi, who told me to put two teachers in each home, both equally responsible to the pastor. It was a stroke of genius. Neither feels the group is his or hers to control; both must remain loyal to the church and the program. They simply alternate each week, one teaching and the other leading the rest of the meeting.

Another problem was how to maintain quality with teachers who had little or no previous experience and training. I overcame this by providing weekly lesson outlines and teaching the lessons myself on cassette. Each week the teacher listens to the thirty-minute tape and follows along in the Bible and a lesson outline. Then he or she takes the outline to the home meeting. We also have a training manual with an accompanying tape.

The method works well, allowing us to use almost any Christian who will accept the responsibility. In fact, we generally do better with humble people who lack some confidence than with teachers trained in other methods.

Myth 5: Small Groups Multiply by Cell Division.

The popular idea compares home groups to amoebas that grow to a certain size and then divide into two equally viable cells. At first I suggested a group should divide when it reached twenty in regular attendance. Well, in the first three years only one group grew that large-and after it divided, only one of the two cells survived. Most groups grew to fourteen or sixteen and stopped.

The idea of church growth by cell division works only on paper. Real groups grow to the size of the available space minus a comfort factor of about 20 percent (to allow for introverts, claustrophobics, and others who resist crowding). In most homes that means a maximum of not more than a dozen people. The concept of growth is not really a goal in small-group dynamics.

So how do we start new groups? The best way is simply to form new groups! Some people will come from other crowded groups, and the new home with its friendship connections will attract its own following. This is a constantly flowing process as some groups flourish, others stabilize, and still others fade for lack of leadership or cohesion. The experiences are as varied as the people who attend.

Truthfully, a home Bible study network is a living thing that comes and goes, expands and contracts as the years go by. We must expect some groups to fade while others flourish. One group in our church has met continuously for five years-mainly because of steady leadership and practical teaching materials. But others have fallen by the wayside. That is why we must never cease starting new groups.

Why Groups Are Worth the Effort

The best lesson of all was when I began noticing that people who regularly participate in home meetings seldom require pastoral counseling. The small group is a caring and sharing environment that provides excellent psychological and spiritual therapy in addition to fellowship and Bible knowledge. The people receive emotional support, Christian advice, and answers to prayer.

The early church did not construct its first church building for three hundred years. In the beginning of that period, it used the temple for corporate worship, and after A.D. 300 it began to worship in the Roman basilicas, but its basic meeting places were believers’ homes. Those nonthreatening, marginally evangelistic, low-profile leadership gatherings accounted for some of history’s best church growth.

Pastor Gerald A. Roles of Calvary Community Church in San Bruno, California, attributes much of the growth of his crowded church to home fellowships. He is fond of saying, “Home Bible studies grow on you.”

He is like a number of other pastors, myself included, who have learned a lot on the twisting, turning road of home ministries. The small groups did not do everything we originally had in mind, but they have surprised us with unexpected success in the maturation and care of our congregations.

That is why I still say with conviction: Every church should be a motivational and training center surrounded by a network of home Bible studies-even if they don’t take shape the way you projected in the beginning.

David A. Womack is pastor of Twin Palms Assembly of God, San Jose, California.

Copyright © 1986 by the author or Christianity Today/Leadership Journal. Click here for reprint information on Leadership Journal.

Pastors

YOU CAN’T TEACH JUNIOR HIGHERS ANYTHING

Eugene C. Scott

Sandie’s blue eyes bulged with fear, and her thin cheeks were paler than usual. She stared at me for a moment, then slipped out of sight over the cliff.

It had taken a week to get her to this point, but finally she was doing something she had sworn she would never try. Sandie, the frightened little sixth-grader, was rappelling. After she reached the bottom of the cliff and stopped bouncing with excitement, I asked what she thought.

“I want to go again!”

Later I asked the rest of the group what had been the best moment of camp. Most of them said it was the seventy-foot drop off the cliff. “Now I really know what trust means,” one girl said. She had learned in a way no classroom could teach her.

And once again a heresy proved false. There is no truth in the saying “You can’t teach junior highers anything, so just keep them busy until they are in high school.”

To many people, junior high ministry is nothing more than a holding effort, a place for the church to entertain the young and the restless. Too often adults consider young adolescents hopeless cases who are best left bouncing around a padded youth room; or worse yet, they are ignored. While excitable at times, they are not hopeless cases, and they can learn.

Research studies of young teens consider this the perfect age to teach them. Between 1840 and 1970, the onset of puberty dropped from seventeen to thirteen, and by now it has dipped to as low as eleven for some girls. With puberty comes the beginnings of adult thought. Jean Piaget, the Swiss pioneer in developmental psychology, has pinned down the beginning of abstract thought to around eleven or twelve years of age.

“I found myself thinking about my future,” said one young girl, “and then I began to think about why I was thinking about my future, and then I began to think about why I was thinking about why I was thinking about my future.” What a perfect example of what Piaget calls formal thought! Many researchers claim this kind of thinking is the first stage in a process that enables us to choose values.

Imagine the thoughts of a junior higher sitting in front of a pile of values passed down from parents, teachers, and friends. “God, hmmm, pretty boring; I’ll chuck that one. What’s this—’Succeed at all costs?’ Sounds hard, but I’ll give it a try. Ah, now this one is more like it—’Party till you drop!’ I can live with that!” On and on the process goes until he has chosen the standards he will live by.

The point is, we often ignore adolescents at the most crucial stage of development. At a time when junior highers are questioning all their hand-me-down values, the church is sometimes not even part of the procedure. Why?

There are many reasons, ranging from an unfounded fear of eleven- to fourteen-year-olds to just plain ignorance of the need. The main reason, however, appears hidden in the idea that youth are “the leaders of tomorrow.” While this is true, it is also a mind-set that keeps youth from reaching their potential today. Too often we look at the future and lose the present.

I discovered this flaw in myself a few years ago at yet another camp. One of my first duties as junior high director at Cherry Creek Presbyterian Church was running a summer retreat. After I struggled through all the minor details of renting a camp and planning a program, I thought I had the job done.

Then I ran through the list of students who had signed up. I panicked. I didn’t have enough male leaders. I was forced to press a “mature” eighth-grader into action.

Visions of Todd’s marauders terrorizing the girls’ cabins haunted me. I was even afraid to tell my pastor my plans. Yet by the end of the week-long camp, Todd’s cabin was one of the best. Quite by accident I had failed to look at Todd as a future leader and had actually taken him for what he was: a real person with real abilities today.

Viewing adolescents as a future commodity subtracts from their present value, but worse, it traps them in a void of nonpersonhood. While their minds and bodies are straining for adulthood, the church is telling them their feelings are trivial.

When I first began youth work, a friend asked me what would possess me to spend my spare time baby-sitting other people’s problems. I didn’t have a good answer, but Barry St. Clair gave me a comeback in a Moody Monthly article. “They don’t need baby sitters,” he wrote. “The nineteen million high school students in America are in trouble.” Then he listed the all too common and all too serious problems they face.

Immediately I recognized them as the same problems junior highers battle. Family breakups, drugs, suicide, and any number of troubles hit any age. Junior highers are not exempt simply because we do not consider them old enough to have real problems.

What would possess me to spend time with these kids? A God-given desire to disciple them. Just as St. Clair suggested, the answer lies in taking them seriously, even at an age that has seldom been taken seriously.

Youth work must move toward discipleship and away from entertainment. That does not mean we should bore the kids with deep discussions; it means we should be willing to try new approaches.

Christ pioneered a new approach by living the kingdom of God on earth even though his method of teaching through small groups was already popular. It was the combination of the two ideas that was exceptional. I am convinced that for junior highers, modeling Christianity in small groups is the exceptional combination youth workers need to make today.

A few years ago a co-worker proposed we build our fledgling junior high program around small discipleship groups. I naively agreed. We designed the groups to demand commitment and intimate sharing with other Christians. The guiding thought was “If you don’t want to study, don’t come.”

We were shocked when twenty signed up. That meant from a group of about thirty, the majority were begging for personal association with an adult Christian. But, because adults willing to disciple young adolescents were in short supply, we had only three leaders to spread around. Each of us took a group of four or five kids and met weekly to study, pray, and occasionally just have fun. The remaining kids had to wait. And the waiting list grew as the kids in the small groups began to have a positive influence on the large group. We rejoiced over the numbers and cried over the lack of leaders.

We zealously began recruiting warm bodies for our great program. Then the problems began. A couple of the warm bodies turned cold, and so did the kids in their groups. Four of the most dependable kids in the youth group quit attending large-group events, and one even made slams at me and the program in general: “Man, that’s an ugly shirt!” and “You have too many leaders.”

After a few months, I finally figured out what he was really saying. His first comment was merely a childish way to win my attention, but the second was a mature criticism of how I had lost control of his Bible study’s leader.

His particular leader had dropped out of the large group activities and often canceled their weekly Bible study. That had been topped off with only rare visits from other leaders. It became easy to see why these kids lost their commitment. They had gone from core figures to forgotten members.

I learned the hard way: A plan can succeed only if all in it own it.

Soon another problem popped up. The kids were coming to Bible study confused by the books we used. The books were good for adults but bombed at the junior high level. We searched for study guides written for junior highers, and finally, a couple of frustrating years later, we found Putting God First by Jim Burns.

Now the kids were coming to studies with answers to their questions. They no longer joked about “the stupid books”; they actually liked Bible study again. The small groups were teaching them to think. God was no longer a factor they were willing to throw out.

To this day, the friendships and values formed in those groups are intact. Many of those same kids are now leaders in the high school group, a couple are considering full-time ministry, and one, at age thirteen, has preached his first sermon to our congregation. God is busy, even with young adolescents.

The move is on, the focus is shifting, as it did years ago when youth work attention moved from college to high school youth. The focus today is heading toward junior high. Junior highers are unique—a subculture all to themselves. And as on any foreign mission field, we must contextualize the gospel to the target culture. The kids in our churches can learn, but many times our traditional methods fall flat. That’s the time to be brave and experiment.

Camps, for example, can teach first and entertain second. An example of this is a weekend retreat we held last fall.

We arrived at the camp and gave the kids a snack while we set up Monopoly boards. They played Monopoly for an hour, enjoyably—until we stopped the game and told them the money in their hands was all they had to live on for the rest of the weekend.

We then gave them a list of costs. We charged them for everything from their own sleeping bags and clothes to the meals and camp games. All items were very expensive. Soon many kids were out of money and humor.

“All right, we’ve had enough of this. I didn’t pay to come on this retreat to be mistreated!” whined one with a sour look on his face.

“You’re not having fun?” I asked, trying not to laugh. “Why don’t you go play pool or something?”

“Funny. I don’t even have enough money for lunch.” He stormed away.

Then a wonderful thing happened. They rebelled. The entire group pooled their money and threw it at my feet.

“If that isn’t enough money for all of us to eat and play any game we want, then none of us will do anything for the rest of your stupid retreat!” United they stood. They were angry, but they had done what we wanted them to do. Right then we sat down and discussed things.

“You guys have any questions?” I asked, knowing full well they had more than questions.

“Why did you ruin this retreat? This is the worst one I have ever been on,” one girl complained.

“Can anyone answer that?” I replied. The kid the group would later call The Preacher raised his hand.

“Um, was it to show us how much money means to us?” That comment lit the fuse of a discussion that lasted about an hour. During that time I was amazed at what had actually taken place in the twenty-four hours of the game.

“I really liked how the guys bought us lunch so we could play games later,” one girl volunteered with her eye on a certain guy.

“Yeah, I was out of money and the guys in my cabin said not to worry because they would take care of me,” said a little guy who was usually left out of everything.

Soon they were all wrapped up in war stones about how they had shared or how someone had shared with them. All I had to do was sit there and watch God work.

Their timing was superb. I wanted them to learn from the experience no matter how it unfolded, but they didn’t even force me to use my weekend contingency plans. We finished off with games that night and worship the next morning.

Our purpose was to teach them about putting other gods before God; they learned that and more. In one hands-on weekend, they had learned about the two greatest commandments. Most of them still remember.

Teaching junior highers is not easy, and teaching them with creativity is even harder. But they can be taught. God’s ability to empower leaders and the junior highers’ eagerness to learn are powerful elements that combine to make a ministry with everlasting results.

When I took a chance, like Sandie, and backed off the cliff, God showed me I am much more than a baby sitter. I am a pastor to a group ripe to hear the truth in a relevant way. I have discovered that the saying “You can’t teach junior highers anything” is a figment of one’s lack of imagination.

—Eugene C. Scott

Aurora, Colorado

Copyright © 1986 by the author or Christianity Today/Leadership Journal. Click here for reprint information on Leadership Journal.

Pastors

HOW MANY MEETINGS DO WE NEED?

Paul Caminiti

A pastor I know was recently rushed to the hospital with sudden paralysis on his right side. While out on a call, a chilling numbness had begun crawling up his right leg. By the time he reached home, he thought he was dying.

Four doctors worked on him into the wee hours of the morning but found nothing. Finally they began quizzing his wife about unusual pressures her husband might be facing. Their diagnosis: “We suspect your husband is suffering from stress; he’s not the first pastor we’ve seen in this condition.” Later they explained that recovery would most likely involve treatment at a mental hospital.

Survival in the ministry today depends in part on pastors’ ability to understand and diagnose their own stress. One of the great stress producers in the pastorate is the inordinate number of meetings we are expected to attend. During a “normal” week, I attend four formal meetings and at least two committee meetings. To say I attend these meetings is misleading; usually I’m in charge, which means I have to come prepared with a message, a devotional, an agenda, or some other presentation. Being in charge is an enormous emotional drain, a drain the congregation does not fully comprehend.

Pastors who love Jesus seldom complain about spending themselves for the kingdom. Being wise as serpents, however, demands that we spend ourselves in something productive. Many church leaders are beginning to see that our present structure of multiplied meetings is unproductive, many times even counterproductive.

How do you gauge the number of meetings that are healthy for you and the church? There are no easy formulas. The size of the church and staff, your geographic location, and the church’s goals must all be factored into the decision. There are, however, some telling questions to aid the pastor and board:

1. Are church meetings preventing us from reaching the lost? Churches that evangelize primarily through meetings will find such a question irrelevant, but churches that reach out through their membership understand that time is needed to make contacts and cultivate friendships with unbelievers. A church calendar cluttered with meetings interferes with the Great Commission.

In a football game, huddles are designed to lead to plays; without the play, the huddle is absurd. Huddles are cozy. Running the play is risky. Sometimes I picture Christ in a black-and-white striped shirt with a silver whistle in his mouth, ready to call a penalty for too much time in the huddle.

2. Are church meetings interfering with family unity? The verbs in Moses’ provocative speech to Israel’s families remind me that it takes large chunks of time to grow a family. Parents were commanded to teach and talk to their children “when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up” (Deut. 6:7). I like to think of these as “home-grown” verbs. They convince me God is unhappy with the rampant absenteeism that prevails in too many of our homes.

Often, I confess, my home is only a stop-off place between meetings where I grab a bite to eat, change clothes, and catch some sleep. God says, “Sit with your family; walk with your family; be there to tuck them in and be there when they get up in the morning.” Meetings must become the servants to that mandate, not the other way around.

3. Are church meetings negatively affecting my physical, emotional, and spiritual health? Charles Simeon, a Methodist pastor of the 1700s who argued for fewer meetings, wrote, “I compare myself to bottled small beer; being corked up, and opened only twice a week, I make a good report; but if I were opened every day, I should soon be as ditch water.”

Bottled beer and ditch water-funny but accurate ways to describe a pastor’s condition. Yet every pastor can relate to being a source of refreshment or flatness. Our vigor is not merely a personal concern. Our congregations are better refreshed by having us twice a week in an animated state than five times in stagnation.

Honest answers to these questions will lead pastors and church leaders into the controversial business of cutting and trimming. But with evangelism, families, and health (ours and the congregation’s) at stake, we have no choice but to break out our ecclesiastical scalpels. If we are skilled surgeons, we can cut with a minimum of blood. Here are some suggestions:

First, begin by educating, which in most cases will amount to un-educating. Like it or not, we must confess that certain meetings have been almost canonized. Sincere but misguided teachers have taught that “People who love their church come Sunday mornings; people who love their Bibles stay for Sunday school; folks who love their pastor come again Sunday night; and those love the Lord show up for prayer meetings.” Simplistic formulas like these have to be debunked.

Re-education is most effective when performed in an atmosphere of love and patience. Instead of bullying our way through the front door, we can slip in the back way. I recently asked a group of our people to identify the sacred words in the title, “The Wednesday Night Prayer Meeting Service.” They quickly saw that corporate prayer was the issue, not Wednesday night.

Using sanctified humor also helps get the point across. I got a good laugh when I shared about a Martian who visited our planet and returned to tell about a strange group called “the church” who exist for the sole purpose of holding meetings.

Second, encourage people to pray about which church programs to be involved with. This helps them see that church meetings are not forever settled in heaven. A new sense of Christ’s headship emerges. Instead of presenting our agenda for his stamp of approval, we invite him to chair our planning committee for reaching the world.

Third, be understanding of people’s reticence to reduce the number of meetings. God’s people are justifiably fearful of compromise, and many erroneously equate fewer meetings with watered-down commitment. Help them to understand the true nature of commitment by showing how Jesus played down programs and played up people and their needs.

When our church began small group ministries in homes, attendance dropped at our Wednesday night prayer meeting. Conscientious members voiced concern about our commitment to prayer.

I explained, “Our commitment to prayer has never been stronger. We have more people praying together than ever before in the history of our church.” Now many are beginning to see the wisdom of beginning new forms centering on the Word, prayer, evangelism, and fellowship.

Fourth, begin consolidating wherever you can. We tried to lump as many meetings as possible on one night of the week and avoid all extra Sunday meetings. Sure, it limited what people could be involved in, but it helped in our goal to make church members more people-oriented and less program-oriented.

Making the needed changes in Christ’s church is pioneer work, and pioneer work is both exhilarating and exasperating. As our church has gone through this trying transitional time, I have asked, and been asked, some hard questions. “Pastor, don’t you think that giving people more time at home will result in more time in front of the TV?” It’s a tough question. I don’t have easy answers. But I know that such questions cannot stand in the way of pioneer advance.

There have been times through this whole process that I have wavered and said to myself, “Maybe you ought to leave well enough alone.” But through a number of incidents, the Lord has encouraged me to keep going. For instance, while sitting around the supper table discussing the breakneck speeds of our respective churches, my brother-in-law, a layman, said, “Paul, I think it’s time we re-evaluate what the Bible means by ‘not forsaking the assembling of yourselves together.’ ” Could it be that some people have an opposite problem from the Hebrews-and are not forsaking meetings but are addicted to them?

Another motivating incident was a recent trip to China. There we found a growing church of more than thirty million believers. The believers we talked to were fortunate to meet once a week for worship; they had no pastor, no church programs. Yet we witnessed a zeal seldom experienced on this side of the world. We learned from them a brand of Christianity that is not all meetings, It was more than attractive; it was compelling. And it still propels me today.

-Paul Caminiti

Grand Rapids, Michigan

Copyright © 1986 by the author or Christianity Today/Leadership Journal. Click here for reprint information on Leadership Journal.

Pastors

THE INGLORIOUS WORK OF SPIRITUAL DIRECTION

Eugene H. Peterson

How practical is it to guide Christians one at a time?

In the Spring 1983 issue of LEADERSHIP, Eugene Peterson wrote “On Finding a Spiritual Director.”

He described his personal pilgrimage toward the idea of asking one godly individual to guide his development as a Christian and a pastor.

In this follow-up article, Peterson explores what he has learned trying to do the same for others.

I have been talking with friends and colleagues for several years now about spiritual direction. Many are familiar with the term and uneasy with the implications. Most don’t think they are qualified.

But when we talk of what they are actually doing, a surprising amount of it is spiritual direction. However, what I call spiritual direction is almost always what they are doing when they don’t think they are doing anything important. It is what takes place in the corners, in the unscheduled parts of their day. It is offhand. And they do less of it than they otherwise might because they are so tightly scheduled, or so intently involved in completing a task or project. A lot of us would do it a lot more consistently and skillfully if we realized how much more important it is than our teachers ever told us, and how large a place in pastoral ministry it always filled in earlier centuries.

The culture conditions us to approach people and situations as journalists do: see the big, exploit the crisis, edit and abridge the commonplace, interview the glamorous. The Scriptures and our best pastoral traditions train us in a different approach: notice the small, persevere in the commonplace, appreciate the obscure.

Spiritual direction is the task of helping a person take seriously what is treated dismissively by the publicity-infatuated and crisis-sated mind, and then to receive this “mixed, random material of life” (Erich Auerbach’s words in Mimesis) as the raw material for high holiness.

Spiritual direction takes place when two people agree to give their full attention to what God is doing in one (or both) of their lives and seek to respond in faith. More often than not, these convergent and devout attentions are brief and unplanned; at other times they are planned and structured conversations. Whether planned or unplanned, three convictions underpin these meetings.

One, God is always doing something: an active grace is shaping this life into a mature salvation.

Two, responding to God is not sheer guesswork: the Christian community has acquired wisdom through the centuries that provides guidance.

Three, each soul is unique: no wisdom can simply be applied without discerning the particulars of this life, this situation.

Reluctance and Rush

No one I talk to deliberately rejects the work of spiritual direction, nor goes very long without engaging in it somehow or other. Still, by and large it is a fringe activity for most of us. Being a spiritual director, which used to loom large at the center of every pastor’s common work, has been pushed in our times to the periphery of ministry.

Ironically, this is the work many people assume pastors do all the time: teaching people to pray, helping parishioners discern the presence of grace in events and feelings, affirming the presence of God at the very heart of life, sharing a search for light through a dark passage in the pilgrimage, guiding the formation of a self-understanding that is biblically spiritual instead of merely psychological or sociological.

But we don’t do it all the time or nearly enough of the time. Some of us don’t do it very much because we don’t have time for it, or don’t think we have time for it, which amounts to the same thing. Others of us slight it because we have no idea how important it is.

Whenever we do it, though, most of us know instinctively that we are working at the very center of our calling.

Spiritual direction means taking seriously, with a disciplined attention and imagination, what others take casually. “Pray for me” is often a casual remark. The spiritual director gives it full attention. All those moments in life when awareness of God breaks through the crust of our routines—a burst of praise, a pang of guilt, an episode of doubt, boredom in worship—these take place all the time and are mentioned in half-serious ways while we are on the run to something big or important. Being a spiritual director means being ready to clear space and arrange time to look at these elements that are not at all peripheral but central—unobtrusive signals of transcendence. By naming and attending and conversing, we teach our friends to “read the Spirit” and not just the newspapers.

A friend did this for me recently. I had returned to my parish after several weeks away. One of the elders met me and said, “Weeds have sprouted in the garden while you were gone.” He gave details: carping criticism about little things, fault-finding remarks about me—nothing substantial, but the kind of thing that can develop into an atmosphere of suspicious, distrustful unrest.

I was hurt and disappointed. And then I was angry. Everything had been working smoothly when I left. Now a handful of people with some careless and perhaps malicious talk had put things in commotion.

The elder advised me to take care of things immediately to preserve the peace and unity of the church. Confront, explain, smooth over, do a little cheerleading along the way. He didn’t want me or my ministry to be misrepresented. And he didn’t want the church’s life disrupted. I agreed. I made plans to smooth the waters.

At this point a friend introduced spiritual direction. He asked me to sum up what was going on. That was easy: I was angry over what had been said about me personally, and I was concerned about the seeds of dissent in the congregation. What was I going to do about it? I was going to confront the people who were criticizing behind my back and force them to deal with me face to face. I would rebuild the peace of the congregation through visitation and preaching. Actually, it was routine pastoral work.

He interrupted my conventional approach. “Don’t you think there might be more to your anger than righteous indignation? Don’t you think it could be a symptom of pride that you didn’t know you had? Why don’t you explore the dimensions and ramifications of your anger?

“As to the unrest: What if the Spirit is preparing something new in the congregation? What if the whitecaps on the recently smooth waters are caused by the wind of the Spirit, not the whispers of critics? Isn’t it possible you are working for a premature peace when something deeply creative is in motion?”

He named the anger as sin; he discerned the unrest as Spirit. The things I had set out to do still had to be done, but they were now mere footnotes to the major work he set before me. In my passion to clear myself and have a smilingly harmonious congregation, I hadn’t so much as noticed the obvious.

That is why the work of spiritual direction is essential—because we need to deal with the obvious, with sin and with the Spirit, and we would rather deal with almost anything else.

Our Best Work

In these moments when we are in conversation with another and spirit touches spirit, “deep calling to deep,” there is often a confirming sense that we are doing our best work. So we don’t need to be talked into doing this—at least most of us do not. For most pastors, being a spiritual director doesn’t mean introducing a new rule or adding another item to our overextended job descriptions but simply rearranging our perspective: seeing certain acts as eternal and not ephemeral, as essential and not accidental.

Spiritual directors used to be important because they attended to what everyone agreed was important; they are important still because they are about the only people left who confirm the insights and longings that everyone in fugitive moments thinks might be important—but get brushed aside by urgent and hurrying experts on their way to a therapy session or a committee meeting. So many other things clamor for attention that these timidly voiced, apologetically phrased needs and longings get bypassed. The spiritual director is in charge of attending to these quiet necessities.

But there are not enough of us. The consequence is that too much spiritual direction is off-the-cuff work. We dabble.

I was meeting with my friend Tom, a pastor in a nearby town. At midmorning we walked across the street to a diner for a cup of coffee. I went to the washroom and, returning, found Tom in earnest conversation with the waitress. I picked up a newspaper and looked through it so as not to interrupt them. The conversation lasted perhaps three minutes.

Then I returned to the table. While we were finishing our coffee, Tom talked about how often this waitress asked questions about God. “I wish I could spend a lot more time at this sort of thing,” he said. “I sometimes have the feeling I am more of a pastor in this diner than I ever am in my church study.”

“Then why on earth don’t you do it more?” I asked.

He looked at me in a kind of surprise. “Where would I get the time? And besides, that is not what they’re paying me to do, is it?”

That seemed outrageously wrong—that Tom should acquiesce to a view of what he was getting paid for that prevented him from engaging in what pastors have always been expected to practice.

Naming the Particulars

But a recovery is underway. More and more pastors are seizing this old identity and making it their own, refusing any longer to let it be marginal to their ministries.

The basic requirement for being a spiritual director is simply to take seriously what we already know are serious matters—a sign of grace here, a desire for prayer there—and to shape the agenda of our work from the souls of people we meet, not from the demands to which they give voice.

The difficulty in taking these kinds of things seriously is that we are not Indian gurus sitting quietly in ashrams receiving people who come hundreds and thousands of miles to observe us in postures of sanctity. Nothing in our culture and little in our churches encourages us. If being a spiritual director is going to be something more than a wistfully procrastinated intention, we must consciously oppose the principalities and powers of the air.

A simple act of naming is part of the recovery. What is unnamed is often unnoticed. Naming focuses attention. The precise name—whether “spiritual direction” or a synonym—confers dignity.

My most memorable experience of this came in naming birds. I have known what a bird was from an early age and could name a few—robin, crow, sparrow. The ones I named I noticed (not the other way around). I was aware the birds were in the air and bushes and trees but never paid much attention to them.

Then I became a bird watcher. I learned to observe the birds, not just glance at them. Within a few weeks I was seeing an enormous variety of birds and noticing how extraordinarily different they were. I began to be in awe of how much there was to know, and how long a lifetime I would need to arrive at mastery, and to regret my late start. A new world had opened up: colors, sounds, flight patterns. Why was I now seeing? In large part through naming. Without a taxonomy, a science of naming, I would neither notice nor remember the red-eyed vireo, touhee, Baltimore oriole, winter wren, Lewis woodpecker.

Warren had arranged to talk with me. He wasn’t experiencing what he observed in other Christians. He had kept quiet about it for a long time, thinking there must be something wrong with him. He felt flat and uninteresting. There was no inward zest. When others talked of grace, mercy, joy, and peace in Christ, he felt left out.

He told me about himself. I learned something he had told no one else, that there was a major relationship in his life that was extremely unfortunate. He had decided he would simply live with it, try not to feel sorry for himself, and get on as best he could. He had concluded this other person was emotionally sick, and improvement could not be hoped for. Still, he couldn’t quit hoping. He would be courageous in hoping.

I listened. I listened some more. We prayed. After several weeks I ventured, “You have named this person ‘sick.’ That implies no one is responsible, but if we try hard enough we might find a medicine or therapy that will make him better.

“What if we named his influence ‘envy’? That means there is an actively malicious will at work.

“You have named your part in this ‘courage.’ What if we named it ‘sloth,’ meaning you are too lazy to enter into the hard work of prayer in a spiritual warfare?”

Clarification was immediate. By a simple act of naming, the reality of his life was discerned. Emotional deprivation did not cause the flatness in his life; a malign will had enervated his spirit. With continuing direction and encouragement he gave up the fight against “flesh and blood” and took up the battle against the “principalities” and “powers” (Eph. 6:12) and gradually began to know within himself the meaning of grace, mercy, joy, and peace in Christ.

Being a spiritual director means noticing the familiar, naming the particular. Being knowledgeable in the large truths of sin, grace, salvation, atonement, and judgment is necessary but not sufficient. A lot of our work takes place in the details. It is the difference between being vaguely aware that birds are everywhere and naming particular birds. Every temptation has a different look and nuance. Every grace has its own ambience and angle of refraction. In spiritual direction we don’t apply truth so much as we discover particular temptations and actual graces. Casual and perfunctory habits of judging and labeling give way to the energies of a disciplined imagination and a prayerful attentiveness.

Direction Incognito

Nicholas Berdyaev clarifies the grounds for spiritual direction in this sentence: “In a certain sense, every single human soul has more meaning and value than the whole of history with its empires, its wars and revolutions, its blossoming and fading civilizations.” But who is there to insist on this meaning and value in a world craving for generalizations and dealing in commodities? I’m voting for pastors who, in the midst of their other duties, take up the work of spiritual direction.

Any Christian can do this, and many do. Spiritual direction is no prerogative of the ordained ministry. Some of the best spiritual directors are simply friends. Some of the most famous spiritual directors have been laypersons. But the fact anybody can do it and it can occur at any time and place must not be construed to mean it can be done casually or indifferently. It needs to be practiced out of a life immersed in the pursuit of holiness.

What is required is that we bring the same disciplined prayer and discerning attentiveness into the commonplaces that we bring to preparing sermons, sharing crises of illness and death, celebrating births and marriages, launching campaigns, and stirring up visions. It means putting the full spotlight of prayerful concern on the parts of life that get no other spotlights.

For most spiritual direction takes place spontaneously and informally in unplanned but “just right” moments. I have been given spiritual direction by persons who didn’t know they were giving it while waiting for a red light, while climbing a mountain, while on a coffee break. In retrospect it is impressive how critically formative these unimportant, unscheduled, squeezed-in exchanges turned out to be.

Occasionally this gets formalized: Conversations are arranged in which two people seek companionship, encouragement, and insight in pursuing the life of prayer, developing an integrated and mature life of faith, maintaining an attentive alertness to God’s action at all times and in everything. But except for those who are set apart vocationally to provide spiritual direction in communities or schools, formalized direction will not be what we do most. For me, at least, formal spiritual direction only involves five or six people with whom I meet at intervals of four to six weeks.

Meanwhile the informal aspects of spiritual direction are there all the time for pastors. C. S. Lewis describes us as “those particular people within the whole church who have been especially set aside to look after what concerns us as creatures who are going to live forever.” People want more in faith, in life, in God. It is not unreasonable that they should look for direction from their pastors. And they don’t wait until we enter our pulpits to look at and listen to us. Beyond the boundaries of our awareness, who we are and what we say may be critical for anyone at any moment. As much by inadvertence as by design we make a difference. Realizing this motivates us to learn the disciplines of spiritual direction. We prayerfully cultivate an awareness that God has designs on this person, that God is acting in this situation, that God is bringing some purpose long in process to fulfillment right now.

This is one part of our work that stubbornly resists generalizations. All the same, I will risk one: The “unimportant” parts of ministry might be the most important. The things we do when we don’t think we are doing anything significant might make the most difference. It is certainly true in my own life that the people who have helped me most weren’t trying to help me, and didn’t know they were helping when they were. Conversely, the people who tried hardest to help were often no help at all. The ones who took me on as a project made my faith more difficult and not infrequently introduced obstacles into my life that took years to get through or around.

By its very nature—obscure, low-profile, everyday, noncrisis—this is the work for which we need the most encouragement. It is in fact the work for which we get the least encouragement, for it is always being pushed to the sidelines by the hustling, career-development mentality of our peers and the hurrying, stimulus-hunger demands of our parishioners.

Beyond Paperbacks

In the first century Paul observed, “Though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers” (1 Cor. 4:15). It is easier for us to tell people what to do than to be with them in a discerning, prayerful companionship as they work it out. The unfavorable ratio of “guides” to “fathers” doesn’t seem to have changed in nineteen centuries.

If anything, it is aggravated by the mass marketing of spiritual helps. People looking for guidance get paperback best sellers, digest articles, television talk show guests. But the very nature of the life of faith requires the personal and immediate if we are going to mature: not only wisdom but a wise person to understand us in relation to the wisdom. A person in need and in growth is vulnerable and readily accepts counsel sincerely given. But the help that might be right for someone else, even right for this person at another time, can be wrong for this person at this time. So the need for personal spiritual direction cannot be delegated to books or tapes or videos. It is our own proper work.

There are as many different ways of engaging in this work as there are shapes of snowflakes and kinds of flowers. Our individuality and the individuality of the other increase in these encounters, so it is impossible to predetermine what should be done or said. But there is a basic stance we take. We are sinners in this business and dealing with sinners; still, the primary orientation is towards God, looking for grace. It is easier to look for sin. The variants of error are finite. The “deadly sins” can be numbered; it is virtue that exhibits the endless fertility of creation.

It was a favorite theme of C. S. Lewis that “heaven will show much more variety than hell.” All our mistakes turn out to have a sameness about them. Nothing is quite as unoriginal as sin.

But as we cultivate the practice of spiritual direction, we find ourselves working in a field where the Spirit is inventive and the forms of grace are not repeated. In George Eliot’s fine observation, we “discern that the mysterious complexity of our life is not to be embraced by maxims, and that to lace ourselves up in formulas of that sort is to repress all the divine promptings and inspirations that spring from growing insight and sympathy.”

Eugene H. Peterson is pastor of Christ Our King Presbyterian Church, Bel Air, Maryland.

Copyright © 1986 by the author or Christianity Today/Leadership Journal. Click here for reprint information on Leadership Journal.

Pastors

How to Win at Parish Poker

Leith Anderson

Pastoral credibility can be parlayed into great gains … or squandered.

Royal Flush

Like poker, pastoring is an exercise that combines skill and providence to sort out winners and losers, often with frighteningly high stakes.

Your Initial Stake

Just a desire to play and win never got anyone a seat at a poker table. A poker player needs chips to enter the game—a stake. When a new pastor is called to a church, a pile of chips is normally stacked up for use as the pastor chooses. They represent the good favor and support of the church people. They may be saved for a rainy day or risked in the first hand of play.

Many complex factors contribute to the number of invisible chips provided the new pastor. If the vote to call was 99 percent affirmative, it's usually good for ninety-nine chips. However, a squeaker vote of exactly 66 2/3 percent is seldom worth more than twenty-five chips. There is already a built-in doubt about the new pastor's ability to lead the congregation.

Even here lie some subtleties only the most experienced players recognize:

The reason is more important than the number. Suppose the call is only 75 percent affirmative because 25 percent felt the selection was hurried after the accidental death of the previous pastor. In other words, 100 percent of the members liked the candidate, but some voted no for procedural reasons. In this case, the new pastor will probably still receive a full pile of one hundred chips.

On the other hand, even a unanimous vote can mean trouble. After being turned down by three consecutive candidates, one church began to wonder if it would ever get another pastor. The fourth candidate made it clear he would come only if he received a 100 percent call. Members who disliked him and held major reservations about his qualifications felt intimidated into voting yes. He received only 35 chips to begin his ministry, even though he thought his pile counted a hundred.

Smart candidates give much closer attention to the interpretation of the vote than to the numbers.

The pastoral candidate is often not what's being voted on. The naive would surmise that when a congregation is voting on a new pastor, it is voting on a new pastor. Seldom so!

The church members know comparatively little about the candidate. They may have read a resume, heard a sermon, and met the family in a receiving line. That is hardly sufficient basis for most members to determine if this is the right person to lead the church for years to come.

So, instead of voting on the candidate, the congregation votes on the search committee. Everyone knows these individuals. Their likes and dislikes, spirituality and sins, wisdom and foolishness have all been well-observed. If the pulpit committee is well-known and highly respected, it will be assumed they are presenting a worthy candidate. The members vote yes, and the new pastor gets a big pile of unearned chips. On the other hand, a committee disliked by many members in a divided congregation will generate a lot of negative votes and a small initial supply of chips for the pastor.

This is not to say the church will never vote on its pastor. That comes later when an assistant-pastor candidate or a new budget is presented. People may not know much about the proposed assistant nor understand the proposed budget, but they have definitely reached a decision about the pastor pushing these recommendations. The pastor's sermons, visitation, clothes, spouse, and children may all be factors in voting yes or no on the proposals.

To the bewilderment of a nixed assistant candidate, the vote may have had absolutely nothing to do with anything he said or did. The church only appeared to be voting on what it was voting on; it was really voting on the senior pastor.

Aside from the vote at the time of call, other factors determine how many initial chips a new pastor receives.

Age and experience are often worth up to 100 extra chips. The pastor with some gray hair and at least one successful pastorate is assumed to bring wisdom and knowledge to the new job. However, the recent seminary graduate or the older pastor closing in on retirement may be docked initial chips for being too young or too old.

The previous pastor sometimes unintentionally makes the biggest difference of all. Long-term pastors are hard to follow; they often seem to take most of the chips with them. Long-term pastors who died in the church are particularly unfollowable. And, if the previous pastor died in the pulpit preaching a superb sermon after 50 years in that same church, all the chips will be gone!

In contrast are those marvelous predecessors who prepare the way. They teach the congregation to love and support the next pastor "no matter who." They even make a special point to endorse their successors and thereby confer hundreds (maybe thousands) of their own chips.

Church health can affect the chips either way. Particularly healthy churches may be anxious to grow, so they intuitively stake the new pastoral leadership with the chips necessary to lead. Particularly sick churches often do the same. Like ambulance cases in an emergency room who are hardly in a position to check the physician's medical-school grades, they, out of desperation, give all the chips they have to the new pastor.

But watch out for those arrogant churches too cocky to advance chips. They expect pastors to earn their own. And beware of those churches so ill they have no chips left. They may be too depleted to survive, much less follow a new leader.

Any good poker player determines his stake at the start of the game. So does the smart pastor.

Gaining Chips

Some churches are anxious to add to the pastor's pile of chips, even granting new chips just for being pastor, since they have such high regard for the position. But most chips are won slowly over years of meaningful ministry.

Every good sermon is worth at least one chip. Pastors who preach both Sunday morning and evening can double their rate of accumulation. Scintillating sermons on special occasions like Mother's Day and Christmas win double chips because they not only minister to the regular attender but win accolades from visiting relatives and friends. Church members like it when their guests are impressed with their pastor's preaching.

Individual ministry is a slow but sure chip builder. Every counseling session, home visit, phone call, birthday card, and hospital call is another opportunity for a pastor to add to the pile.

Sometimes new pastors become angry when they don't immediately receive the acceptance and honor afforded their predecessor. It becomes an irritant every time the previous pastor's sermons, visits, and sayings are mentioned. But such reverence was won over years of love, care, and individual attention, and there is seldom any way to hurry the transfer process. Criticizing the prior pastor doesn't help. If anything, such criticism subtracts from the newcomer's stack of chips.

Then there are the chip builders that come from individual style. One recent seminary graduate candidated at a church while his young wife was nearly nine months pregnant. When the lay leader invited her to join her husband on the platform, the candidate quickly went to help her up the steps. Everyone thought he was wonderful. They gave him more chips for helping his wife up the steps than most pastors get for a year of first-class sermons.

In The Small Church Is Different, Lyle Schaller compares the expectations of the smaller church and the larger church. While some professional competence and personal relationships are necessary in both, the smaller the church, the greater the expectation of relationship, and the larger the church, the greater the expectation of function. Churches of fifty are more interested in a pastor who relates well to every member, even if the sermons are marginal. Churches of five thousand expect super sermons whether everyone knows the pastor or not.

This is important to remember in winning chips. The pastor of a small church may be perplexed why so much study and so many profound sermons generate so few chips. Likewise, the pastor of a large church may work endlessly to build relationships and get few chips in return because the preaching doesn't measure up.

None of this is to say a pastor should consciously measure every action in terms of its chip-producing potential. That in itself would probably be counterproductive. Pastors must minister as they are able in accord with their call. But they must also be sensitive to the credibility they have in the church, credibility determined by the number of chips accumulated.

Losing Chips

In poker, as in pastoring, every hand is also a potential chip loser. Every Sunday morning can add a chip with a good sermon, but every Sunday morning can also deplete the pile with a yawner. Home calling will win a chip if all goes well but lose a chip if the family is offended.

The old advice "Don't change anything in your first year at a church" recognizes the danger of losing chips too fast and too soon. Something as seemingly simple as changing the order of worship may cost a new pastor half his starting chips the first Sunday and create a misimpression of arrogance, insensitivity, and pushiness. It may take a year of sermons and hospital visits just to get back even.

Some pastors seem amazingly fortunate. They move into new churches and risk all their chips in the first month … and win. Some even bluff, gambling ten times the number of chips they have on account, and they still win! One pastor led his church to change the constitution, replace staff, and undertake a multimillion dollar building program shortly after his arrival. There was no upheaval: the church responded with enthusiasm, grew with amazing speed, and did everything he asked. He raked in the chips.

It doesn't usually work that way. More often, the new pastor who risks more chips than he has loses big and folds. A pastor with a chip deficit cannot lead a church for long. Of course, no one will say, "You gambled and lost. You'll have to leave the table." In fact, a year or more may pass before the pastor senses "a call to another ministry" or the church says, "God wants you someplace else," but it all goes back to that day the pastor gambled away his chips.

One New Jersey pastor forgot a funeral. It wasn't that he was neglecting ministry; he was in a restaurant counseling a man from the congregation. He lost track of time and simply forgot he was supposed to be at the mortuary chapel. After trying to reach him by phone, the funeral director recruited another minister from a different denomination who was a complete stranger to the family.

When the pastor discovered his mistake, he immediately went to the home to explain and apologize. The family rejected his apology, refused to forgive his offense, and left the church. To their reckoning, no number of chips could pay for such an affront. Did he survive in the church? Yes. He survived because he had been there many years and had a huge backlog of chips from the rest of the congregation. But the error certainly cost him.

Jesus' counsel to "count the cost" (Luke 14:28-32) can be applied to pastoral risks. Before making a change, confronting a member, or launching a new program, the pastor needs to figure out if there are enough chips to lose and live. It hardly seems worth losing a potentially productive pastorate by a bet that could have been avoided or at least delayed until more chips were accumulated.

Assessing Your Play

Early in my ministry I wanted to move out of the church-owned parsonage and buy a house. During the inflationary years of that time, it seemed like a now-or-never proposition.

The trustees agreed to sell the parsonage and add a housing allowance to my salary. It was insufficient, but we pressed ahead. A builder in the church helped us find a lot and offered to build for his cost. When a plumber lent his services for cost, it looked like our dream was about to come true. We only needed a final church vote to sell the parsonage and provide the housing allowance.

Although the eventual vote tallied 85 percent in favor, a vocal minority remained highly critical: "The pastor is being selfish. He wants to get rich at church expense. We can't afford it."

Conflicting counsel confused my 26-year-old mind. I didn't understand about chips, but I sensed this decision might affect my whole future at that church. So, after seemingly endless prayers with God and conversations with my wife, I decided it wasn't worth the risk. We dumped the plans and stayed in the parsonage.

Even this cost a few chips, as I was accused of letting the minority rule. But, all told, the church perceived I was more concerned about others than myself, and they piled on more chips. Those were needed some years later when the church relocated, built a new building, and sold the parsonage for the equity. Everybody came out a winner.

How do you assess your standing?

Keep track of your chips. Pastors usually have a sense of their standing in the church. We know how many visits we've made and have a hunch how our sermons are being received. We remember the last episode when chips were lost and how severe the losses were.

A daily journal and an annual review provide two additional practical ways to keep track of chips. Writing a journal is a helpful way to record the ups and downs of everyday pastoral ministry. If an honest journal reveals more defeats than victories, suspect a chip decline and proceed cautiously. If reading the journal shows mostly victories, estimate a chip surplus and be open to greater risk.

A formal performance review by the governing board or a pastoral-relations committee not only communicates how ministry is going but helps tabulate the current number of chips in the pastor's account.

Count the cost. After a while we estimate everyday risks without thinking about them. If Mrs. Folkers isn't visited this week she won't like it, but we can sustain the minor chip loss in order to use the time to keep a more strategic evangelistic appointment. We accept the inevitable loss without much thought.

A major building program, staff addition, or other significant change demands a conscious effort to estimate the potential losses and gains. Usually there will be some of both.

For example, we may need a new building. However, such an undertaking would probably split the church, and a third of the people would leave. If that happened, we wouldn't need the new building. It seems obvious not to build. On the other hand, the catharsis of losing that third and the construction of the new building might result in greater effectiveness and substantial growth.

A firm calculation of potential losses and gains is impossible, since all of the data for any close decision can never be gathered. Neither life nor ministry are that precise. Nevertheless, we can adequately estimate many risks in advance, so that wise choices result. The time to count the cost is in advance.

Know your priorities. Very few issues necessitate splitting a church or losing a job. Such issues reside in the realm of major doctrinal, moral, and ethical stands.

Beyond those few black-and-white choices (which may be comparatively easy to make because they are so clear), most questions are matters of priorities. We learn to prioritize church growth, evangelism, pastoral care, harmony within the body, happiness of old-timers, receptivity to newcomers, and other concerns.

Some experts say that in order to grow, "a church must want to grow and be willing to pay the price." If that is the top priority, losing some faithful members because of changes may be a painful but necessary price to pay.

Whatever the priorities, they should be known and spelled out as a necessary step before undertaking a significant risk.

Trust the Lord. Fortunately, mortals are unable to get all the facts and make perfect choices. We must trust God. It's better that way.

I have often counted the chips, determined the risk, and then laid it all out (sometimes in writing) before the Lord. Since it's his church and I'm his servant, the ultimate decision is his and not mine-win or lose. Most often this leads to a preliminary decision and a prayer: "Lord, I'll proceed privately as if that's the way to go. If I'm right, keep me going. If I'm wrong, stop me before I lose all my chips!"

Decide. In a poker game there comes a time to play or fold. After the chips have been counted, the stakes calculated, and the hopes dreamed, a decision must be made. The player must toss his chips in the pot . . . or get out of the game.

So we decide. Not hastily, not carelessly, but carefully, prayerfully, wisely. We place our cards on the table-our ministries on the line.

When he wrote this article, Leith Anderson was pastor of Wooddale Church in Eden Prairie, Minnesota. He is now president of the National Association of Evangelicals.

Copyright © 1986 by the author or Christianity Today/Leadership Journal.Click here for reprint information on Leadership Journal.

Pastors

LEADERSHIP FORUM

Marshall Shelley and Jim Berkley

Leadership Forum

Referees shoulder the brunt of opposition from both sides. Interjected into the contest to keep peace, they have a job not many envy.

Pastors regularly find they, too, must blow the whistle and make an uncompromising call-but not on sports fields. Pastors end up in the middle of volatile domestic squabbles, where emotions run high and outsiders fear to tread. Sometimes standard counseling procedures may be impossible to apply.

How do pastors best intervene in family problems, which so many professionals consider no-win situations? Are there effective approaches to these delicate dilemmas?

To find out, LEADERSHIP editors Marshall Shelley and Jim Berkley met with four Ohio pastors who know the peril of refereeing domestic problems:

-Don Engram of Church of the Open Door in the Cleveland suburb of Elyria

-Joel Hempel of Prince of Peace Lutheran Church in Cincinnati's inner city

-Jerry Kirk of College Hill Presbyterian Church in Cincinnati

-Paul Tropf of Armstrong Chapel United Methodist Church in the Cincinnati suburb of Indian Hill.

Leadership: Police officers rue getting enmeshed in "domestic disturbances." With such supercharged emotions on both sides, anyone stepping into the middle can get shot. Yet when they do intervene, the abused person will often drop the complaint the next day. It's frustrating because it's only a matter of time until the phone rings again. Do you, as pastors, ever share their feelings?

Joel Hempel: Like the police, I have gone to quite a few volatile situations-usually involving an alcoholic husband and a battered wife who refuses to press charges-and I get frustrated, too.

Parent-child conflict can be messy as well. One girl in her late teens was being physically abused by her parents, and I asked her how she was able to put up with the pain. She said, "My mom is sick-I know that-but it's all the love I get."

Jerry Kirk: I find that before the problems come to me, they have usually gotten so bad-the depth of alienation, the scars, the patterns of saying they're going to change and then not changing-that the people are programmed for failure. The longing of my own life and ministry is to work for prevention, because remedial work is so difficult.

Paul Tropf: It's going on in the suburbs, too, but at a different level. One woman hardly had my office door closed before she was showing me the bruises from where her husband had thrown his attach‚ case at her and knocked her down. Both of these were highly educated, intelligent people.

It ended finally with a deposition being taken in my study. He brought his attorney; she brought her attorney. I was to witness to what I saw.

But all the way through, I was the guy being pushed to the wall, because I couldn't take sides. Each party was trying to take from me something to fortify his or her own position. I was being torn in both directions.

Leadership: All of you have been in ministry ten years or more. Are these kinds of situations becoming more frequent?

Don Engram: I think so. In my early ministry, people in the church didn't want you to know anything was going on at home because their halo might be tarnished. Now they're willing to say, "Hey, I've got problems!" Maybe it's because we ministers are a little more transparent than we used to be-our halos don't blink all the time.

Kirk: The Gallup Poll reveals that people are much more prone to go to a pastor than to a psychiatrist or other counselor. I believe this grows out of the fact that pastors no longer feel they've got to stay on the pedestal.

Engram: Not only that, we work for free! (Laughter)

Leadership: There are some differences between pastors and counselors. Pastors sometimes feel they must intervene in a situation where they have not been invited, or perhaps where one person in the family asks them to confront another member. Have you ever felt obligated to intervene?

Tropf: I had one experience I don't recommend to anybody. As I look back, I don't know where my brain was when I started. (Laughter)

A mother of two teenage boys began telling me tales about her nineteen-year-old son (we'll call him Jon), whom she said was on drugs. Because of his age, the police could not step in, nor did the mother want to press charges. We had tried to talk him into going to Straight, a drug rehabilitation program, but without success. Finally, at her request, my associate and I decided to intervene directly.

We went to the house at 8 A.M., because that's when we knew he would be home-asleep. We went to his bedroom and I shook him. "Jon," I said, "this is Pastor Tropf. Do you know who I am?"

Groggily he said, "Yeah."

"Jon, the last time I was with you was in the intensive care unit after your overdose. I would like you to get up. I'm going to take you to Straight."

He opened one eye and said, "Are you kidding?"

"No," I said. "We mean business. You're much too intelligent and talented to waste your life this way."

Legally, I had no authority, but we were committed to do what we could. When we started removing nearby liquor bottles and glassware, he began to realize we were preparing for battle. And there were two of us and only one of him. My associate, by the way, is young and very athletic, which I would recommend if you're going to do this. (Laughter)

He got angry, jumped out of bed, and called his psychiatrist. Fortunately, the doctor wasn't in yet, so he left a message: "This is an emergency. Have him call me immediately." Then he went into the bathroom, and we heard several flushings. We pulled the plug on the phone and started looking for drugs. We found stuff stashed everywhere. We never laid a hand on him but when he came out we simply said, "We are going to Straight-today!" Since we had the evidence, he began to realize we were serious.

He went to his mother's room and started berating her-"You have really done it now. My psychiatrist tells me I'm finally beginning to make progress, and now you've blown the whole thing."

I said, "Jon, all you have done the last three years is blame your mother for what you are doing. Now it's time to face the fact that you are the person who has to make some changes!"

Two things began to happen: (1) he sensed he needed help; (2) he sensed his helplessness. We continued to remind him of his tremendous potential as a student and a leader. We told him he had no place to go but up if he decided to turn his life around.

About eleven-thirty he finally agreed to go with us. So we took him to Straight-in the back of my two-door car with my associate beside him.

At Straight, it's peers that make things happen, not the adults. Jon stayed on and became a member of the staff, until he eventually realized he wanted to go back to school. He entered the university and was on the dean's list the first year. As soon as he got back on the street, he came over and wanted to join the church-and professed his faith in Christ.

His life was turned around because, luckily, nobody questioned what we were doing.

Leadership: It sounds like a calculated risk.

Tropf: It worked for us, but believe me, there was a lot of prayer given to it before we made any move.

Engram: One of the most difficult situations I've faced was when a wife had some circumstantial evidence of her husband being unfaithful. She came to me and said, "Now look, you've got to confront him."

I said, "OK, let's get together."

Now, what's my role? If we're dealing with two Christian people willing to live by biblical principles, then, in Christ, these problems can be solved. So putting their marriage back together is really not my immediate objective. My role is to talk to them concerning their relationship with Jesus Christ.

I brought them together on numerous occasions and considered the evidence she had. Well, he had answers for everything. But she refused them.

Leadership: So there never was agreement over the facts of the case?

Engram: No. I talked with them. Prayed with them. Asked them to confess. But they both hardened their positions, and there is no solution to that. Many times you become the bad guy. They both turn on you because you don't take their side of the story. Whenever you get involved, you lay yourself open.

So many times I've said, "Before this is all over, I'm going to be the bad guy." And it happens!

Hempel: There are ways of staying neutral, but if you refuse to take sides, it does make you the bad guy.

I think here is a key attitude: an understanding spirit, an attitude that will hear the different sides without making the kind of judgment that rejects one and accepts the other. It means remaining calm, not getting as excited as either party will be.

Leadership: Are there times when you should not intervene?

Hempel: Yes-the very volatile, violent situations. I trust my fear level. When fear moves up and grabs me around the throat, I know to pull out of the situation. Another thing is psychosis, when reality doesn't seem to affect the person. I'm not trained for this.

I'm involved now in more family counseling and fewer family crises because I go less. I used to think I had to rescue everybody. Every time the phone would ring, I was gone.

Leadership: How do you walk the line between thinking you're God's savior for families-a superintervener-and getting callous because you've heard that phone ring too many times before?

Hempel: Sometimes I mess up and don't go when I should. Other times I go when I didn't need to. That's a reality, and God is teaching me to give myself the grace he gives me.

But I'm finding a growing intuition about these things the longer I'm in ministry, an ability to trust the Spirit.

Kirk: One of my primary concerns is knowing when I have reached the limits of my ability and I need to refer. Referral has become a primary part of my approach. I open things up and allow persons to begin to listen to one another, but then I get them to others for long-term help.

Leadership: How do you know it's time to refer?

Kirk: Two ways: Either I can't make the necessary time commitment, or I lack the necessary knowledge and skills. I believe I have a pastoral role rather than a counseling role. I used to counsel people over a length of time, but now I believe my unique role is pastoral.

Leadership: How would you distinguish between the counseling function and the pastoring function?

Kirk: Being pastor is a God-given mantle. It means representing God to the people and the people to God. My primary function is caring, listening, seeking to bring grace into the situation.

Counseling demands a listening approach rather than a directing approach.

Hempel: A counseling relationship is contractual. In a pastoral-care relationship I often use the same skills, along with prayer and other kinds of spiritual resources. But what's not there in a pastoral relationship is the contract that says if you present a problem to me, we agree to bring our best to its solution. The contract grants you as a counselor what you don't have as a pastor: the right to bring a person back to that commitment.

Engram: Our opportunities are great but also very frightening. We're in people's lives, and they're listening to what we say. Every morning I pray for wisdom.

Leadership: What are some of the family situations where you've had to take a pastoral rather than a counseling approach?

Kirk: The hardest thing for me is ministering to a marriage where one of them has really become "married" to another person through an affair. You have to cut that relationship in order to rebuild the original relationship.

Leadership: How do you make yourself move into these situations when your natural tendency is to hide? How do you handle the anxiety?

Hempel: I think we do have to confront people with objectivity, with something more than hearsay. We need to go with objective evidence. We must also admit our own reticence-not only with God before we get there, but also with the people we confront. It presents us as human so we don't overpower them.

Leadership: When a person comes with an accusation, how do you determine the validity of the complaints?

Tropf: I had a woman tell me she ended up in the hospital because her husband had thrown her out of a car going fifty miles an hour. That would be quite a feat to maintain control of a car while forcing someone out the passenger door!

When we talked a little more, it turned out he had actually stopped the car on the exit ramp, she was getting out, and he started the car before she had let go. It spun her into the dirt, and she got a few stitches at the hospital. But to hear the first explanation, I pictured her being ejected from a racing car.

You have to ask what seems plausible before you begin to deal with the accusations. In that case, she had an alcohol problem she was unwilling to confront, and she wanted me to fix her husband. When I began to deal with her alcoholism, she suddenly lost interest.

Kirk: Say a young woman comes in and says her husband is really knocking her around. Certainly I detest that. So I start counseling with both of them. Often I find she knows exactly how to bait him. Then he loses control and hits her, and she screams, "You hit me! That shows what kind of man you are!"

Hempel: I think listening is the important part, not jumping to conclusions and judging them. Beyond that, you look for evidence you can validate. We're not police; we're pastoring a family. If a family member is being abused, it cannot be tolerated.

Leadership: How do you listen with empathy, yet seek validating evidence? When people say they're being abused, isn't it cruel to say, "Do you have any evidence?"

Hempel: You take people seriously without judging. I need to receive their anger or tears in such a way that people feel welcomed and held. I can do that without getting on their side or the other's.

Leadership: What do you say when people want you to take action?

Hempel: I ask, "What kind of action do you want?" I can't call the police; I have no evidence. So I say, "Let's go talk together." Now a woman needs to realize the risk. She possibly subjects herself to additional abuse by making that confrontation.

Another action I suggest, if the situation is that severe, is for her to leave, at least temporarily. Once she and the children are safely away, then you get people together and start talking.

Kirk: It is crucial that we take them with such seriousness that they know they've not only been heard but understood. It's also crucial that we not own their problem, that we believe they can solve their own problem. Our role is to enable them to lay hold of the power of God.

Engram: The wife of a man in one of my classes called and said, "He left me for another woman."

I said, "It can't be. Not him! After all, he's right there every week in my class." Frankly, I didn't believe he would walk out on his wife and two children.

Anyway, I met him and I said, "First, I want to tell you I really care about you. You're a friend. But your wife called me. … "

He said, "Yeah, it's true."

I said, "Now, you know what you're doing is contrary to the Word of God, don't you?"

"Yes, I do."

"And you know God will discipline you for this."

"Yes, I do."

"Can I ask you to rethink this?"

"I'm going to do it anyhow because I have found happiness in the last three weeks I've never had before," he said.

I wanted to cry with him. He'd been growing as a Christian-and now he was making a mistake he'd live with forever.

So I told his wife, "Whatever you do, don't give him a divorce, because he's only known the woman for three weeks. He's going through a high school affair."

Four weeks later she walked up and said, "I gave him his divorce."

I had taken action. I had pleaded for time, but she wouldn't wait. It was another case of their coming for counsel but not doing what you say.

Kirk: I've learned from many experiences that when I did not press a couple to open up to one another, they have often gone down the tubes. But where they opened up and brought integrity and God's grace into the picture, healing usually happened.

You see, when persons share with me they've had an affair, as long as that's only between them and me, we've got a secret than can produce a closer bond than they have with their spouse. Until things are opened up to their spouse, I'm not really ministering to the deepest roots of the problem.

Tropf: I have a concern, however, for confidentiality. When you say, "Open these things up," what confidentiality must you maintain? Suppose this woman says, "You mustn't tell my husband."

Kirk: Without her permission, you can't. I have only moral suasion, no authority. One young couple had come for marriage counseling, and I asked to talk to the wife alone for a bit. She poured out her heart and said, "Jerry, I am having an affair at work. I want out of my marriage to marry this man."

"What got you into this?" I asked.

"Spending time together on the job. I had an affair about four years ago, and that kind of opened the way to this one."

"Have you ever shared this with anybody?"

"No, never."

"Was that last affair your first experience?" I asked.

"No, about five years before that I had another affair, and I've never been able to tell anybody."

I got her permission to tell her husband. Then I got their permission to call the guy from work right then to say, "I want to see you." When we got the bond broken between the wife and the guy at work, we started rebuilding that marriage. Because she never told anybody about the first affair, she was more vulnerable to the second.

God has given us tremendous clout through moral suasion. Of all the persons I have asked to follow this process, only one person in my recollection said no.

Tropf: Sometimes confrontation gets complicated-intervening, for instance, with powerful people like corporate presidents and business leaders. They could cause heads to roll if they wanted to retaliate. One businessman I know could, if he were angered, simply wipe out the careers of a half dozen church leaders in one stroke.

Kirk: We have found in high-level confrontation we're dealing with people who have had authority all their lives, who have used temper tantrums to get their way. I've seen the alienation that results. And the persons involved in the intervention were social peers-no pushovers-but they had never tried to hold people accountable at that level. In one instance it was gambling-I mean, more than a $10,000-a-day habit.

I don't think we understand this very well. I don't even believe we know how to call pastors to accountability very well. Calvin said discipline is one of three marks of the church, but I believe we've almost totally abrogated discipline in the church today. We have to face it. It's easier with certain persons than others in our congregation.

Engram: That puts tremendous responsibility on us to be men of God in our conduct. A pastor can't be the dictator; we are servants. That's why we're here. Being a leader, however, makes discipline necessary out of a heart of love for these people.

Kirk: I agree. The key to counseling is how much we love, how much we care, how much we are centered in the other person rather than ourselves, how we ask questions that communicate acceptance.

I've counseled over a hundred homosexuals. Once I dealt with five of them together and asked, "Why do you come to me?" Frankly I needed some insight into myself.

They said, "There are three reasons. One, we know you'll love us no matter what. Two, we know you know you're as big a sinner as we are." Those two reasons I had hoped and expected to hear, but the third caught me by surprise.

"Third, we know you will call us to repentance because you call everybody to repentance." They were saying, We want help, and we know you're a person who will give us help.

It is not technique. It is: Do we love in such a way that they know they are accepted and yet called to accountability? We open the gates, then they open up more and more.

Leadership: Do you ever use lay leaders to minister to families?

Engram: Two of the best programs in our church are lay-inspired and led. The wife of an alcoholic, a lovely Christian woman, wanted to help families with alcohol or drug problems. I kind of resisted because I didn't think of it. (Laughter)

I thought only a few might respond, but it's amazing who's come out of the woodwork! It's one of our greatest ministries.

The other program originated with a fellow who lost his son and wanted to know if he could start a comfort center for those in grief. Now, that's gone way beyond our church. It's been a tremendous encouragement. The lay leaders do what I cannot do.

Leadership: So this is almost an "experience bank." People who have had certain experiences use them to minister to others.

Engram: I have a secretary who, when I first met her, had tried to commit suicide twice. She was a drug addict, an alcoholic, and her marriage was breaking up. Interestingly, we started her recovery by having her come into the office to put stamps on envelopes. She just needed to be around some Christians. Eventually she came to a knowledge of Jesus Christ, and her husband accepted Christ.

If a person with drug or alcohol problems comes in for counseling now, I bring her in. I say, "You can talk to them like I can't." She never thought she could amount to a thing; yet look at how many people she's helped.

Tropf: Something happening in our church is exciting in terms of prevention. It's a course called "Gentle Parenting" designed by a lay woman in our church. She worked in the central city and began to realize she was getting people too late. So she created this course as an alternative to the yelling and screaming going on in most families.

We're offering it to our own people but also to other groups. One of our outreaches is to Appalachian people who live just across the river from us. We're hand-picking couples for this program. Instead of waiting for a crisis to erupt, we hope to be able to do something before it gets that far.

Kirk: I was praying recently, and I stopped to hear what the Lord had to say. I don't hear voices, but the thought came to me: Jerry, I have difficulty speaking to you because you have such a noisy heart. And you have a noisy heart because you have a noisy, busy life.

So many things in a day make it hard for me not to have a noisy heart. I need to simplify my life and ministry, to get more focused. When I shared with my people what the Lord said about my noisy heart, I touched chords all over the congregation. Families have noisy hearts.

Maybe the greatest need of pastors ministering to families is to cultivate a quiet heart, so ministries can bloom out of the center of God's grace.

Tropf: I went with our choir to England for two weeks. When the group hit the street, I ran out ahead of everybody. I didn't want to be with them.

This bothered me. Presently I began to discover that it had been seven years since I was able to get away. I finally realized I needed to be alone. I'm not a person who wants to be alone; I need people. But in some curious way this told me I need to quiet a noisy life.

Kirk: Paul, you have a tremendous ministry to families simply by your example amidst suffering in your own home. Why don't you briefly share your story?

Tropf: Five weeks after we moved to Cincinnati, my wife got viral encephalitis, which reduced her to infancy. She's come back some, but she does not know who I am. She's able to live at home, for which I'm grateful, but sometimes when I walk in, she looks at me and says, "Who are you?"

The congregation has been incredibly kind, because I foundered for a while. They ministered to me until I began to find a footing again. My wife comes to church now and stands with me to shake hands. While I have a robe on, she seems to know I'm her husband, but as soon as we go downstairs for coffee, she becomes confused and doesn't recognize me.

At home, I pray with her at night and she says thank you, but I don't know what's going on in her head. She hallucinates 70 to 80 percent of the time. Still, I can't bring myself to put her in an institution.

I have committed myself to my ministry, and this church is where my whole life is. That's why it's important for me to maintain this ministry, to take care of myself, to quiet my life. I would hate to have to move her.

Leadership: How has this situation affected your ministry?

Tropf: About three months into this, a man asked me, "Have you been able to thank the Lord for this affliction?"

I was irate, and I said, "No, I'm not there yet." That was seven years ago.

About a year ago while praying, I heard myself saying, "Thank you for Joanne." That shocked me. I hadn't been able to say that for six years. Then I stopped and said, "I'm finally able to say that!"

So it has affected me in a lot of ways: It's made me realize that God and the church are all we really have. All I need.

Kirk: There isn't any preaching as powerful as that kind of model.

I believe there are two keys for ministry with families. One is our own family life, where we've got all kinds of hurts. If we have not paid the price to heal them, roots of bitterness grow. I have to seek forgiveness from my family when I have blown it.

The second is whether or not we as pastors have any group with which we can be genuinely vulnerable, transparent, and accountable. Most pastors need such a group, and if they don't have it, they're going to burn out. They'll be performing rather than ministering.

Hempel: I can't agree more. Family time is very important. My wife helps me retain some sanity and perspective. She affirms me, but she also holds me accountable. She says, "We need you at home." That's been very good. When I'm home, I'm home.

Engram: God instituted the family first. Sometimes I have to watch that I don't get so busy producing a church program that I miss the family. We can overprogram and tear families apart rather than pull them together. That's why our church tries to bring everybody together on one night and leave the other nights free.

We also offer marriage retreats and seminars for couples. It's not just Sunday morning that solves all the problems. Thank God the church is waking up-maybe late, but we have been shaken. We are now laying a foundation to build biblical principles into our marriages.

Leadership: Where are the rewards in family ministry?

Hempel: Actually, some days they're hard to find. But then you see people change.

Six years ago I took a woman home from our evening fellowship and walked into her third-floor apartment downtown, where her husband, a drug user, was basically holding her hostage. He was irate that she had gone out; he threatened her life and mine. He had been spending her check on drugs, neglecting the children, keeping her in such a state of fear that she would literally shake in his presence.

It has taken six years and countless hours from a lot of people, but she has moved to the point of receiving Jesus Christ in her life, leaving that abusive relationship, getting a job, and becoming a leader in the church.

That kind of movement is very rewarding.

Kirk: Recently I was postponing having to call a man who had lost his job. It was several weeks before I got around to it. I said, "I'm so sorry to hear about your losing your job."

"It's no big deal," he said. "You seem more concerned about it than I am."

"I'm sure thankful to hear that," I said, "because it's been on my heart now for a number of weeks."

Then he began to pour out five other major crises of the last six months that were all worse: "My wife's father had a heart attack. Our daughter is having a baby, but there's a tumor growing in the uterus along with the baby. … " Thing after thing after thing. I just wanted to weep.

I said, "Jack, please forgive me for not having been in touch with you."

He says, "That's OK; we've got so many people in the congregation ministering to me, the thought never occurred to me that you ought to be involved. And, by the way, I've been walking with the Lord, and the Lord has ministered. Tomorrow morning when I'm in church, I'm going to be praying for you." That made my day.

Copyright © 1986 by the author or Christianity Today/Leadership Journal. Click here for reprint information on Leadership Journal.

Pastors

SHOULD WE MARRY THE UNCHURCHED?

Douglas G. Scott

The difference between marriage and a Christian marriage.

The pattern is familiar: a couple calls the church office to say that they are planning to be married and want to arrange a wedding in the church. They are not members of this church (or perhaps they were members years ago but haven't been to church since confirmation). They may not even be members of the denomination, but they "knew someone who was married at St. Swithin's two years ago."

How should we respond? What are the pastoral possibilities inherent in these situations?

Many clergy dismiss such calls immediately, explaining that they perform services only for members of their own congregation. Others may see some of the couples and make a decision to perform the ceremony on the basis of the couple's rudimentary understanding of the Christian faith. Still others act as ecclesiastical marriage brokers, performing the ceremony for any and all who ask, usually beefing up their discretionary fund in the process.

After struggling with these questions for some time, I have devised an approach, based on a number of theological suppositions, that seems to work well.

Why Are They Here?

My primary assumption about all the individuals who call is that they have been prompted to call by the Holy Spirit. To be sure, they are probably unaware of this prompting, but in each of these situations, I assume that God is giving me an opportunity to do some serious examination with the couple about the nature and quality of Christian marriage.

The couple may have their own reasons for calling the church, and each of them is woefully familiar to every minister:

"Your church is so pretty."

"Your church is close to our reception hall."

"My second cousin was married here by the minister who was here before you."

Their initial reason for calling is unimportant. The Holy Spirit has prompted them to call your church, even if yours is the fourth or fifth on a list of possible places. You have been presented with an unparalleled opportunity to reach out with Christ's love to two people who may have never before experienced it in all its fullness. I don't dismiss such opportunities quickly.

My second assumption when the unchurched call is that this may be the first time they have ever turned to the church for help. If they are a young couple, both sets of parents are probably still living, and there is a good chance, given increasing rates of longevity, that the grandparents are living as well. Consequently, this couple may never have had an opportunity or the need to turn to the church in time of crisis. While they may have attended Sunday school in childhood, their most recent experience of church was probably a Christmas Eve service a number of years ago. For the first time in their lives, they want something from the church, really want something.

Our initial response to their call will determine whether they see the church as cold and unresponsive, or open and responsive to those outside as well as inside its fellowship.

My third assumption is that there are some shreds of spiritual awareness which prompt them to seek marriage in the church. To be sure, a certain percentage of the couples who call want a church wedding only because "it's traditional," or because their parents insist. However, we must also recognize that for others, there are certain events in their lives which they see as "religious moments." While they may want to confine their experience of God to controlled and predictable encounters, there are moments when they feel God should be included.

My fourth assumption (especially if they have no prior connection with the parish I serve) is that there may have been a problem with a previous church affiliation. Perhaps one of them is divorced and is not permitted to remarry in his or her own denomination, or perhaps one was treated harshly by a former pastor. Perhaps they themselves were difficult and alienated themselves from the life of their initial church home and have not since been affiliated with a community of faith. In any event, they may well be spiritually homeless, and they have turned to your church. They may not be looking for a church home, but they are asking to use the house.

On the basis of these assumptions, I have determined to consent to at least meet with each couple that calls inquiring about marriage.

The Initial Telephone Call

I attempt to do some initial screening on the telephone, and I include a very clear explanation of what can be expected from me. I determine where both parties live, their ages, and previous religious affiliation, if any. I ask if there were previous marriages, and if so, how long the divorce decree has been final, and where it was granted. Is at least one of the parties baptized? Have they sought to be married by another member of the clergy and been refused?

I explain to the caller that I will be glad to see the couple but that my consenting to see them does not mean I will guarantee to marry them. I insist that the interview be with both bride and groom, and that no other family members be present or accompany them. I explain that the purpose of the interview will be to determine whether we can speak seriously about being married in the church, and that at the conclusion of the interview, I may consent to marry them, but in all probability, no decision will be reached for some weeks. I then set a mutually convenient time when the couple can meet with me in the office, explaining that they should expect to be with me for at least an hour.

One postscript: I do not make appointments on the basis of a mother's telephone request. When a mother calls, I simply explain that I will be glad to discuss the possibility when her daughter or son calls, but that they must take the responsibility themselves for arranging the interview.

The Initial Interview

The attitude of most couples with no parish affiliation who come for an initial premarital interview falls usually into one of two categories-apprehensive or arrogant. They are either nervous, not knowing what to expect, or they are openly disdainful of this situation, which they consider a necessary evil. In any event, they are rarely comfortable. While many clergy might not try to dispel this feeling, thus retaining an edge or advantage, I try to make the couple as comfortable as possible, remembering that they will probably judge this "church business" by their impressions of who I am and how I respond to their presence.

After pleasantries have been exchanged, I turn immediately to the form that catalogs all necessary information required by the state and my denomination. I do this simply in question-and-answer form, and include questions of the date they had in mind, the names of their witnesses, and their permanent address after marriage. The last piece of information allows me to contact the church of my denomination closest to them for the purpose of referral, should they be moving some distance from this parish.

Unless the couples are very young, or there is a great difference in their ages, I do not ask why they want to be married. After interviewing hundreds of couples, I have never found one that gives me an answer other than "Because we love each other." Obviously, the age of the couple may make it necessary to determine whether this in fact is intended by the couple as a marriage or as an escape from a difficult family or personal situation. However, if they are both of reasonable age, and there are no legal or ecclesiastical impediments, I turn immediately to the meat of the interview.

My initial presentation usually runs like this:

"Let me say at the outset that I am not here to sit in judgment on you. You have decided that you want to marry each other, and since there are no legal impediments to marriage that I can determine, you have every right to do so. You have decided to marry, and I am not going to try to change your mind. Our purpose today is simply to determine whether or not this marriage should begin in the church. Now the state and the church view marriage very differently. In the eyes of the state, marriage is little more than a contractual agreement-the two of you agree, by contract, to do certain things for each other, and make promises about how you will conduct your life together. The contract is witnessed by two individuals of legal age. At any point in the contract, you may choose to seek to have that contract dissolved through the process we call divorce. That is how the state views marriage, and this can be performed by a judge or a mayor.

"The church's view of marriage, however, is very different. So let me begin by asking: What do you really want? Do you simply want to be married, or do you want to commit yourselves to the unique responsibilities of Christian marriage?"

This presentation is usually followed by a silence of considerable length as the couple look at me with a blank stare. I have on occasion had a couple respond that they simply want to be married. At that point I reply, "I'm sorry, I don't perform weddings-I preside at the services of the church. If I had known that was all you wanted, I could have saved you the trip in. Thank you for coming." On those occasions, the couple, flustered by the swiftness of the dismissal, invariably back down and begin to explain what they meant by their prompt response. The door remains open.

More often than not, however, the couple, after sitting in silence for some time, ask what I mean. The opportunity for a teaching dialogue between clergy and couple has been presented. I usually proceed in a question-and-answer format designed to get the couple talking about the nature and depth of their personal spiritual development and the impact of that development on their common life. Some of the questions might take the following form:

How would you define your relationship with God? What role does God play in your daily life?

What does God expect of a couple who begin their married life in the church? Have you discussed your mutual responsibilities as a Christian couple?

How would you say Christian marriage differs from other marriages?

Do you worship together? Do you feel comfortable with the idea of praying together? Why or why not?

To be sure, most unchurched couples I've met with take the attitude "I try to live a good life and be nice to people," but this avoidance of the issue must be pointed out. I make a clear distinction between being a Christian and being "nice" (or altruistic or philanthropic or compassionate). What we seek from them is a clear definition of their conception of the action of God in their lives, and their response to that action. There are some couples who just don't seem to get the point, and a potential device for clarifying the issue might be: "Your relationship as a couple has a number of different dimensions-there is a social dimension (you date, share common activities and friends), an emotional dimension (you have feelings toward and about each other that satisfy each other's emotional needs), a financial dimension (you have made decisions about your common property, how your money will be handled, who will work, and at what job), a physical dimension (the sexual expression of your emotions), and a spiritual dimension. How do you see yourselves as spiritual persons, and how do you relate on a spiritual level with each other, and with God?"

Following this exploration, the couple has usually come up with one of two answers-either they realize there is a neglected aspect of their relationship and are anxious to develop that aspect, or they state that their commitment to the Christian faith is marginal at best and that they have no intention of associating with a church following the marriage ceremony. If the former situation arises, I have an opportunity to provide direction about the development of the Christian faith in this embryonic stage. If the latter presents itself, I usually use the following approach:

"I am not a baseball fan. Understand, I believe in baseball-that is, I believe baseball exists and that there are many people whose happiness depends, in part, on the fortunes of a particular team. They go to each of the home games, wear team jackets, and put team decals on their cars. I can believe all of those things, but I am not a fan. I don't enjoy going to baseball games, and whether the Mets win or lose is of no importance to me at all. It would be strange, therefore, if I wanted to have my wedding in Shea Stadium! You see, when you are married in the church, you ask for the blessing, approval, and support of God's family as you begin your married life because God's family is important to you. During a church wedding, you make promises to each other, and to God, about your life together and your life as members of God's family."

At that point, I discuss the specific expectations of Christian marriage and the commitments made by the couple toward the church in that ceremony. Then, "Since you have made it clear that you have no commitment to the church, do you feel comfortable making solemn promises about your future involvement with the church?"

The device is obvious. Rather than making the decision for the couple, you present the couple with the teaching of the church and ask them to make the decision. Most couples have a sense of integrity and say that they weren't aware that this was what happened in the context of the ceremony. Frequently, they say that they would rather be married in a civil ceremony than make promises they don't intend to keep. Occasionally, they say that they still want to be married in the church, and at that point, you can justifiably state some expectations.

For instance: "You say you want to go ahead and make these promises to each other and to God. Each of you is willing to make these commitments to each other because you have seen some evidence that those promises are already being fulfilled. If you are serious about making these promises to God, why don't you start fulfilling them now, and see how you feel about making a long-term commitment later. That is, let's say that you are faithful in attending church and working at your Christian relationship, and forgo making a decision about marriage in the church until you have had an opportunity to see how it 'feels.' In two months, after you have attended church together for a while, let's get together again and talk about the next step-making a long-term commitment to establishing a Christian relationship."

At that point, some couples say they have no intention of adhering to those expectations. In that event, they have made the decision: they do not wish to be married in the church if it entails attendance and support. I then thank them for their time and wish them well in their life together. They may, on the other hand, agree to those conditions, at which point I have provided the couple with an opportunity for a deep involvement with the community of faith.

Every attempt should be made to integrate the couple into the life of the congregation as soon as possible. Usually, their involvement leads to commitment.

The Second Interview

The content of the second interview is determined by the response of the couple to the conditions established at the first one. If they have expressed a desire to explore the spiritual aspect of their relationship and have agreed to a "trial period" of church involvement, we then discuss how they feel about their involvement thus far.

On occasion, couples have determined that church life is not for them, and they decide to forgo a church wedding in favor of a civil ceremony. More often than not, however, they have, through the movement of the Holy Spirit, found the richness inherent in Christian living and want to pursue their faith even further. A small percentage of couples agree to a period of church involvement but fail to fulfill that agreement. If that is the case, I express my confusion, saying, "You are ready to make lifelong promises to your partner because he or she is already, in a partial way, fulfilling those promises. If you didn't see those promises being fulfilled, you would be skeptical about them being kept after the marriage ceremony. You have not demonstrated to me that you are ready to fulfill the promises you would be asked to make in a church wedding. Let me ask you again, are you ready to commit yourselves to a Christian marriage?"

I have rarely had to refuse a couple. Usually they decide on their own either to commit themselves to the church or to seek a civil ceremony. From their response to the situations presented them, I tell the couple, in effect, that they have already made the decision about whether or not they really want to be married in the church, and that I agree (or disagree) with their decision. We then can plan the wedding itself, including a time for in-depth marital counseling.

The Counseling Phase

A significant portion of the premarital counseling process involves directing the couple toward full involvement in the life of the congregation. Pastors of other denominations might use a different approach, but I invariably urge the couple to attend adult inquirer classes that lead to confirmation. If they are lapsed members of my denomination, I suggest that they request to be transferred from their home parish.

But more important, I emphasize not only technical membership in the church but active involvement as well. Themes centering on stewardship of their time, talent, and treasure fit naturally into the premarital program, and I see that they are directed toward programs or service groups within the congregation that would further heighten their interest and participation. In planning any fellowship or social function, I make sure the couple in question receives a personal invitation, either a handwritten note or a telephone call, from another member of the congregation, thus making them feel more a part of the parish family.

The congregation I serve is open and responds warmly to the presence of newcomers. The couple quickly feel at home. Should they be moving some distance from my church following their wedding, I contact the nearest church of my denomination and refer them to the pastor.

By using an approach that places the onus of the decision on the couple rather than the minister, I feel I fulfill a number of desirable goals. This approach provides an attitude of openness and caring; offers an opportunity for growth, teaching, and commitment; and most of all, allows the couple to have equity in the nature of their commitment to each other and to God-they make the decisions and, having made them, are far more likely to fulfill the obligations inherent in Christian marriage.

Douglas G. Scott is rector of St. Martin's Church in Radnor, Pennsylvania. Reprinted by permission from the January 1983 issue of The Christian Ministry, (c)1983 Christian Century Foundation.

Copyright © 1986 by the author or Christianity Today/Leadership Journal. Click here for reprint information on Leadership Journal.

Pastors

IDEAS THAT WORK

Aileen Vincent-Barwood

Getting church news in print

My good friend-a local pastor-arrived in the newsroom at presstime, the height of chaos at any newspaper. Reporters rushed to complete stories, phones rang, and I, as editor, was trying to extract a quote from the district attorney, quell the noise, and get my paper out on time.

The pastor held out a handwritten page and said, “I can see you’re busy, but would you mind . . .?”

I had to tell him, “I’m sorry; there’s nothing I can do. The paper’s been put to bed.” I shared his disappointment; my readers would miss his interesting news that week.

None of us likes to have our news stories relegated to the press room floor. It is not only frustrating; it can mean the difference between success and failure for an event. Good press builds the image of a congregation and informs the community of worthwhile events. Pastors and church publicity chairpersons want the best coverage possible, but often don’t know the proper procedures. Actually, they aren’t all that difficult.

What’s news?

First, let’s take a look at that handwritten page the pastor is proffering. Is it news?

Briefly, news is information with immediate value to the community. The more informative, interesting, and important, and the broader the audience, the better news it is. For a local paper, newsworthy church events include:

-A controversial sermon or stand taken on a current issue.

-Members involved in civic, local, national, or world affairs.

-New projects, exhibits, displays.

-Competitions entered, awards won or given.

-Placement of officers on church or denominational boards.

-Resolutions on matters of wide public interest.

-Educational, cultural, or artistic programs.

-Outstanding guest speakers or performers.

-Benefit functions deserving of public support.

-Athletic, fund-raising, or entertainment events.

-New and innovative ideas or methods.

Church publicity aims to make information public to change opinions and actions, to influence people to attend the meeting, understand the church’s position, support the cause.

The story, however, need not be straight news to interest an editor. Features, too, are welcome, primarily because they can be used whenever the editor has space. Their appeal comes not from their immediacy but from their human interest-perhaps the history or background of an event, or its color, drama, or uniqueness. Features appeal to the heart as well as the mind.

For example: For the tenth year in a row, the church will be staging the Homemade Strawberry Ice Cream Festival on the town green. The event has grown into an area-wide attraction. Its dates, program, menu, and entertainment are news items. But when the event ends, there will be no more news about it until next summer unless feature angles are explored by an imaginative church publicity person:

-A photo essay of the group who made the ice cream.

-A story about the farmer who donated the strawberries.

-An account of the funny accident that happened to the ice cream in transport.

-A descriptive piece about where the proceeds are being used.

-An item about the teenagers who donated afternoons to paint the banners.

-A story and early photos of the church’s first festival.

-A biographical sketch of the member who originated the idea.

-A report on the VIP who arranges every year to attend.

Since features demand greater writing skills, many editors prefer a staff member to write them. However, editors are always interested in them. A phone call or one-page letter outlining the idea is usually well received. A well-written feature-with photos if possible-is seldom rejected.

Examples of what editors don’t want include notices of interdepartmental meetings and announcements for church members only. Such matters are better communicated by a church newsletter or bulletin.

Newspaper nuts and bolts

How should you write for a newspaper? Format can be learned by studying the paper’s news, features, editorials, and columns. Simply write the way the paper’s contributors write. Remember the Five W’s: the Who, What, Where, When, and Why of a story. And sometimes the How. Tight, well-organized, significant copy soon earns a reputation for the writer and meets with better-than-average acceptance.

The key to a well-written story is the opening, or lead. It must grab attention and lay out the essential facts. Most editors (and readers) will sample only one or two paragraphs before deciding to stay with the story. The Five W’s need not be crammed into the lead; instead, determine which question is most important to the story and answer it first. That makes the story gain interest. The lead should be short, interesting, and pertinent. It might include a quotation, an anecdote (as in this article), a descriptive scene, some background facts, or a “this is the situation at the moment” build-up.

The body of the story follows. Arrange the essential details in descending order of importance as in an inverted pyramid-with miscellaneous or least-important facts last. Short, concise sentences, three- or four-line paragraphs, and no more than two pages of doubles-paced copy is preferred.

Some of the basic rules are: use simple language; double-check all dates, days of the week, times, and locations; list the address as well as the place of an event; verify spellings of all names and titles; never begin a sentence with a numeral; leave out editorial comments, unnecessary adjectives, and personal opinions; omit mention of door prizes, raffles, or lotteries in news stories (it’s illegal); and proofread carefully for typographical errors.

Releases should be typewritten on plain white 8/2 by 11 paper, with the church and the contact person’s name and phone number typed in the upper-left comer. In the upper-right corner, indicate when the release may be used, normally “FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE.” Otherwise, give your publication date: “FOR RELEASE ON OR AFTER WEDNESDAY, MAY 4, 1986.” If it is for one paper only, it may be marked “EXCLUSIVE.”

To make editing easy, copy should be double-spaced with wide (inch and one-half) margins on either side. Successive pages require the church’s name followed by the page number in the upper left-hand corner. Headlines are written by the editor to fit the required space.

Often, a single photograph provides more publicity than an article. Editors relish good photos and may run a photo of an event that lacks newsworthiness as a story.

Some editors prefer to take their own photos. In this case an editor has to be convinced the story is important enough to assign a photographer. For straight people shots, the subjects may visit the newspaper office. If the church is responsible for the photography, it pays to hire a pro or get an experienced member to do it. The picture will be of higher quality and therefore more likely to make it into the paper.

A good picture includes no more than four people, they are doing something, and the background is light-colored. Photo captions identify everyone correctly and describe what is happening in the photo. Captions should be typed on a separate sheet and taped to the back of the black-and-white glossy. Using paper clips or staples, or writing on the back of a photo, may make it unsuitable for reproduction. Name the photographer.

Tips

Here are eight tips for a successful relationship with editors:

1. Appoint the best person to speak for the church and handle all publicity through this person. When the church speaks with one voice, editors know whom to call, and one-on-one trust is nourished.

2. Build a reputation for prompt, courteous replies to requests for information. Say thanks when a particularly good job is done.

3. Cooperate by observing deadlines, correct style, and format. Ask for guidelines. Distinguish between the needs of daily, weekly, and Sunday papers.

4. Give copy to the editor well in advance of deadline. Learn the best days to release stories.

5. Use restraint. Don’t overwhelm the papers with floods of copy.

6. Get to know your editors and reporters by name. Go and introduce yourself-at a slack time! Build trust.

7. Be fair to your hometown weekly by giving it the story at the same time as the big-city daily.

8. Ask if photographs are wanted, what kind, and how many.

Once a particular church is known as a reliable source of lively, well-written news and features, the editor becomes a church ally. And good publicity is one way for a church to reach out to the community.

Aileen Vincent-Barwood is a career journalist living in Boston, Massachusetts.

PLANTING A MISSIONARY

Missionaries are often out of sight, out of prayers. Although not intentionally, people do forget their churches’ emissaries around the world.

Calvary Church in Miami, Florida, used an unusual reminder. At the annual missionary conference, they lined the platform with small potted plants. A popsicle stick with the name of one of their missionaries, written in indelible ink, was inserted in each pot. A florist from the church donated the plants-a type that demand watering daily-and another individual donated the pots and soil. Volunteers potted the plants.

At the closing meeting of the conference, each person was encouraged to take home a plant. As these plants were watered daily throughout the year, the missionary whose name was written on the stick was remembered and prayed for.

Some people actually became so involved with their missionary plant that if it wilted, they prayed for the missionaries all the more until the plant was vibrant again!

Reported by Marjorie A. Collins

REACH OUT AND TEACH SOMEONE

When illness or old age finally creep up on a person, those who have been active in church all their lives can feel terribly isolated and alone-as much “shut-out” as “shut-in.” And despite regular pastoral care, home-bound persons still miss the warmth and fellowship generated in group Bible study.

Pastor Francis Chesson of First Baptist Church in Camden, Arkansas, found an answer to the problem, using the telephone.

Every Sunday morning at 9:30, a telephone company operator begins calling twenty-eight home-bound persons, tying them into a conference circuit. At 9:45, a final call is placed to Heyward Adams, a retired missionary who has taught the Sunday school lesson to his “assembled” class since 1982.

The class members on the other end of the line differ widely. Mostly older people, some are retired professionals and highly educated, while others can barely write their names. Most are members of First Baptist, although about a quarter come from other church backgrounds. Word of mouth has increased the class size.

On Saturday Adams gives the phone operator the class list for the following day, eliminating persons known to be away from home or too sick. The conference call cost runs between nine and ten dollars a week, depending on attendance. Low-cost amplifiers were provided by the church for class members unable to hold a telephone for extended periods. Two families from First Church offered to underwrite the ministry’s expenses, so it has cost the church only Adams’s time.

“Teaching this class is very different,” says Adams. “You only have voice contact, not eye contact, so you have to work harder to communicate with your voice. I try to follow the materials pretty closely, because they have that in front of them.”

Despite all that separates the class members, the weekly conference calls minister in a way radio and television cannot. A rapport is built between them. “As we got better acquainted,” muses Adams, “I realized we are one.”

Reported by Mark Kelly, Arkansas Baptist Newsmagazine

What’s Worked for You?

Each account of a local church doing something in a fresh, effective way earns up to $30. Send your description of a helpful ministry, method, or approach to:

Ideas That Work

LEADERSHIP

465 Gundersen Drive

Carol Stream, IL 60188

Copyright © 1986 by the author or Christianity Today/Leadership Journal. Click here for reprint information on Leadership Journal.

Pastors

LEADERSHIP BIBLIOGRAPHY—FAMILY MINISTRY

Gladys Hunt

Gladys Hunt is associate director of the Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship Training Center in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and she and her husband, Keith, have focused much of their ministry on family relationships. LEADERSHIP asked Gladys to identify the books she would recommend for those ministering to families.

Involvement: Social and Sexual Relationships in the Modem World by John Stott (Revell).

In this second volume of a two-volume set, Stott deals with sexual issues, taking us into the center of family ministry. With his careful use of language and his typically lucid handling of difficult subjects, Stott gives fresh thinking on a variety of topics: Women, Men, God; Marriage and Divorce; The Abortion Dilemma; and Homosexuality.

The chapters are packed with good ideas. He speaks of “marriage as an adventure in reciprocal self-giving through which parents and children grow into maturity.” Whether or not you agree with his conclusions, Stott sharpens our study of Scripture and stimulates our Christian perspectives.

Traits of a Healthy Family by Dolores Curran (Winston).

Curran writes some of the finest, most down-to-earth wisdom about family life I have read. Her approach is positive and practical. Someone called this book “an unhackneyed mix of old-style values and current insights.” It was written while she was developing a program for enriching family life in her church.

She isolates fifteen traits of a healthy family, developing each of them in detail-not for fantasy families, but for real people.

People of the Lie: The Hope for Healing Human Evil by M. Scott Peck (Touchstone).

This may seem a strange choice, but we’ve been psychologized out of recognizing raw evil when we see it. Peck speaks forcibly to this failure. His observations about encountering evil in everyday life will likely point out parallels in your own ministry.

Yet he is cautious, and we must be, too. Evil is not as transparently obvious or as illusive as some may believe. Nevertheless, the evil existing in some family structures needs to be exposed. This stimulating, highly readable book begins the process.

Single Parenting: A Wilderness Journey by Robert G. Barnes (Tyndale).

The increasing number of single parents in the church calls for great sensitivity by the pastor, whose language cannot reveal his equating “family” with two parents. Beyond sensitizing pastors, this book also gives a handle on the practical problems of single parenting.

The author divides the book into two sections: “Finding Yourself” and “Leading Your Children.” The final chapter, “No Longer a Crisis Parent,” shows the book’s progression of thought.

Pastoral Care with Children in Crisis by Andrew D. Lester (Westminster).

Children are parishioners, too, urges Lester, who points out ways pastors may neglect these little people. He discusses the needs of children in crisis and provides principles for their pastoral care. The book also suggests methods, such as the use of play to promote conversation, or story-telling. This small book provides awareness and help in an area not frequently talked about.

Parents in Pain by John White (Inter Varsity).

I am a fan of White’s writing; it has a godly practicality. And since White has been a parent in pain, he knows what he is talking about. This book belongs in your library-to read and to share with others. This book will transform family life if we follow his principle: “As God has been to me, so I must be to others.”

Not Alone: The Necessity of Relationships by Keith and Gladys Hunt (Zondervan).

My husband and I (I blush modestly) take on a theology of relationships. Our thesis: We were made to relate to God and to each other, and this is often the thing we do least well. The book investigates why, along with such questions as “How does our sexuality affect our relating?” and “What makes personal intimacy so difficult?”

We cover a variety of relationships-friendship, marriage, the family, the church as the family of God-as well as the pain of broken relationships.

Although I have a personal investment in hoping you find the last one helpful, you will benefit from each of the above books. We need every available tool to build our own family life and to shore up sagging family relationships through our ministries.

WINTER 86 QUARTER 31

Copyright © 1986 by the author or Christianity Today/Leadership Journal. Click here for reprint information on Leadership Journal.

Apple PodcastsDown ArrowDown ArrowDown Arrowarrow_left_altLeft ArrowLeft ArrowRight ArrowRight ArrowRight Arrowarrow_up_altUp ArrowUp ArrowAvailable at Amazoncaret-downCloseCloseEmailEmailExpandExpandExternalExternalFacebookfacebook-squareGiftGiftGooglegoogleGoogle KeephamburgerInstagraminstagram-squareLinkLinklinkedin-squareListenListenListenChristianity TodayCT Creative Studio Logologo_orgMegaphoneMenuMenupausePinterestPlayPlayPocketPodcastRSSRSSSaveSaveSaveSearchSearchsearchSpotifyStitcherTelegramTable of ContentsTable of Contentstwitter-squareWhatsAppXYouTubeYouTube