Hi rishi,

There are complimentary dysfunctions at work.

The first dysfunction is the "Need to be important."  It may not be characterized that way as such dysfunction sounds selfish.  Nonetheless, the dysfunction is selfish.

The second dysfunction is the "Need to be served" it may not be characterized that way either as that dysfunction also sounds selfish.  Nonetheless, the dysfunction is selfish.

Combined, they are the perfect storm of dysfunction.

One with the need to be important gets to do everything to be important because others with a need to be served are happy to be served and only grow critical of the service when it fails to live up to the heightened expectations of service.

At core of both dysfunctions is a faliure to recognize boundaries.  The clergy doesn't recognize theirs and the laity don't recognize theirs.  Until someone gets the stones to say no there will be increased frustration and fatigue until the system collapses on itself (typically in spectacular fashion setting fire to bridges that ought not be burned).

Clearly we are not actually turning out "super-pastors" as there is nothing pastoral about not recognizing or respecting boundaries.  We are producing spectacular trainwrecks and accidents waiting to happen.

Grace and peace to you.

John 

No.

Hi rishi,

The bulk of my time is spent studying, preparing and delivering sermons.  It is expected I spend some time visiting, and my admin responsibilities here are very, very light.

Grace and peace to you.

John

It's not quite the rabbinic model, but in my experience, UU ministers are generally expected to provide leadership for ministry rather than simply do ministry. So, we have a pastoral care team that does much of the visitation work, tracking who needs care, sending out the shawls that our knitting team makes for people who need some kind of warmth or comfort, and so on. We have the lay chaplains to provide services for non-members (weddings, memorials, funerals, etc.). And we have lay leadership in worship. Even the minister's services are generally shared with the lay service leader to some extent. That said, I'm not sure it's so much a scholar-preacher model as a "helping us to minister to ourselves" model, with the scholar-preacher as a key part of it.

Mendalla

Mendalla and waterfall said it: A competent pastoral team can take care of many pastoral duties. Also, some competent lay people can take turns doing some of the ministerial teaching, preaching and guiding. This will prevent minister burnout and make for a more cohesive congregation.

The perception that the minister has a cushy job is always there. My ideal congregation is one that consists entirely of volunteers, including the minister.

Why are you asking us these questions, Rishi? You are not burning out yet, are you? You just started.

On the whole, everyone, ministers included, should find out what they love doing and do it. Burnout frequently happens when we force ourselves to do things that we don't love doing.

John, as long as everyone was wearing a pressure suit with a good oxygen supply, it is quite possible to grow disciples in a vaccuum.

Christ's peace - rb

Most charismatic preachers I've listened to, talk about how God can be used to bring relevence to our own lives (because it appeals to our egos), rather than speak of how God has included us in HIS plan. I would think charisma has the potential to become dangerously close to self serving rather than God serving. But I do think we shouldn't confuse charisma with being filled with the Holy Spirit.

I'm not sure I would choose charismatic as an adjective to describe Jesus.

Rishi,I have never heard Jesus speak, I have only read accounts of Jesus and what he is supposed to have said. So assuming he was charasmatic might be my own invention when I only have the written word as to what he said.

He seems to be more of a radical and that can be quite offensive to some and very alluring to others, depending on where one stands.

Hi Rishi:

I agree with you there. Genuine charisma, to me, is the christly or godly love that was described by Paul as agape. It is universal, unconditional love: a flood of love. Agape is the Greek name for it, the Latin name is charisma. When we meet a person with genuine charisma, we feel her charisma radiating forth from her and envelope us. Genuine charisma is not the phoney charisma that some people associate with "charismatic preachers" or "charismatic politicians."

It too have experienced this charisma in mystical experience. I sometimes describe it as "unitive love." It is utterly irresistable. People who have perceived it and are able to express it are truly graced. They would indeed make ideal ministers. To tie in with your post on friendships in congregations: powerful and unbreakable friendship bonds arise in the presence of such love.

And you want to travel with him,

and you want to travel blind,

and you think that you can trust him

'cause he's touched your perfect body

with his mind.

-from Suzanne takes you down by Leonard Cohen

Ah, the depth of vite all ...

If only people could get beyond themselves and be cognizant of the fact we're in this stinking pool together ... whether we know it or not. Then in an ancient Roman time it was expressed the plebs shouldn't know anything ...

PM Harper, is that a contageous disease if you impose it on you clan? Does dirt rise in the pool ... or only el gassy (legacy) as the two might be alloyed ... on old metaphor of "-ite" seldom recognized today as an underlying word in the English spin ...

They wished to not know ... and appears we're successful ... then there are the fringe group considered crazy by the emotional.

Do such things reflect as eccos (Ich-Oz) the power of emotions coming back at cha? Yah gotta love the metaphor of it just doen't come to yah ...

Hi rishi,

That would appear to be the best way forward.

Fair point.

I believe that the Gospel accounts indicate division among Jesus' audience as to the value of his credibility, charisma and authority..

I think it is fair for us to take them as givens only as far as the narratives allow us to go.

With respect to Jesus' credibility even the apostle's struggled with that.  Peter goes from being "the Rock" upon which the Church is to be built to "Satan" in less than seven verses.

It is clear that some of the stuff that Jesus taught was far easier to swallow than some of the other stuff that Jesus taught even for his closest and most loyal followers.  Jesus' credibility is regularly challenged and some never embrace it fully.

I think that the same can be said for his charisma and his authority.

That we think only of Jesus using these attributes for good does not allow us to ignore that others had a very difficult time with his use of these attributes even to the point of finding his ability in this regard dangerous.

I do not deny that Jesus is credible, charismatic or authoritative.  At the same time I find these attributes and our understanding of them to be narrow and constrictive.  Jesus is certainly all of this.  Jesus is also certainly more.

I would agree with this provided we do not go into any discussion which seeks to place a value on the "share" be it 75%, 50% or 33%.  The reason why I wouldn't want to do so is because it leads to the commodification of attribute and lifts the value from the total package to the bits and pieces.

This is also a fair point and I am inclined to agree with it.  Where I would qualify is that virtue can be transmitted without the end result resembling the original transmitter.  Otherwise we fall into the cookie cutter trap of believing that one student is identical to the next.

Examining the attribute of credibility it would appear that the credibility of Jesus is not matched by any of Jesus' disciples.  They still managed credibility of their own.  And the disciples of the disciples may have matched or even exceeded their master's credibility though we have no fair way to measure  that kind of success.  Clearly some credibility existed because the Church still exists.  It is also just as clear that the church will continue to exist as long as there are masters and disciples who still manage to demonstrate credibility in some fashion.

I would not argue that there is more or less credibility within the church now than there was then.  I imagine that the level of credibility is roughly the same.  What differs now from then is the way credibility is championed and the way the failures of credibility are displayed, as well as, the implication that one is more normative than the other.

While I think you have outlined a perfectly valid general understanding of the disciple forming process I think it bears repeating that normal processes vary from individual to indiviudal.  It can take quite some time, even for healthy trees, to develop to the point where they actually bear fruit.  A certain "maturity" is required.

It may be that maturity is a process in which attributes like credibility, charisma and authority percolate or are refined.  If so then it belongs to the disciple-forming process and is a variable that neither the master nor the student has control over.

I'm not sure how you are employing extraordinary here.  

It would appear that forming disciples is normative for the Church and very ordinary.  There might be masters/teachers who have extraordinary ability to disciple others.  I am reasonably certain that making disciples is ordinary work of the Church.

Amen.

Trust between individuals is built in myriads of ways.  So many so that there is no one right way though a multitude of many wrong ways to go about building trust.  I have no doubt that credibility, charisma and authority must be present to some degree.  I'm guessing the minimum degree is what a master's students initially grant and it builds from there or not, as the case may be.

I do not think that the plastic bag is unable to transmit the Gospel to a person simply by observing how the wind is able to toss it about.  Such an observation may be a useful illustration it still requires a specific lense to see how such activity points to the Gospel.

That said, when it comes to making disciples and formators being called to making Chirst present in the world I don't see that as being something extra to or different from  any Christian's responsibility to manifest  (as the body of Christ) Christ in the world.

I think that is fair, for the sake of discussion.  At the same time I don't think that the discussion can happen without having an eye for the fact that there are vicious applications of attributes we would tend to lift up as benevolent and the experience of others who may participate in the conversation may, or may not be shaped by individuals who have used these attributes abusively.

Grace and peace to you.

John

[/quote]