#16
You will be more productive by coming together
- By coming together you will be stronger in your ministry:
-creative ideas will be generated which never would have happened staying by yourself.
-your spirit will be supercharged. You will go back with renewed commitment and passion for your ministry. We seldom lack ideas and projects. It is spirit we need.
-you will get a new perspective on your ministry. You will be looking at it from new angles just by talking about it and/or listening to others. Solutions to some of your problems will burst upon you; ideas of how to improve your ministry will hit you: dormant plans will come alive; what seemed to degenerate to the commonplace, routine or unimportant will be regenerated to significance.
- By coming together you will be more productive. Why? Because you will be acting on a fundamental principle running throughout Scripture: the work of God is done by the people of God through mutual submission. It is not by looking out for our own efforts, but by submitting to the gifts and roles of others that His work is accomplished. One reason the disciples could get the Church going in the world is that they had been together.
- By coming together you will be doing something significant for the larger church, the Church of Jesus Christ in the world. You will be doing to leaders of the churches what I Thessalonians 5:11 tells us to do, “Encourage one another and build one another up.” You will be interpreting I Corinthians 12:7 in a universal rather than a provincial way, “To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit (gifts) for its common good.”
“One another” in the I Thessalonians verse is the NETWORK of those who are pastoral leaders of churches. “The common good” in the I Corinthians verse includes all of us in pastoral care leadership. We have leadership responsibilities in common. Coming together to share our gifts will do us all good! including you!●
COMMENTS
in relation to WHY I OUGHT TO BE PART OF THE NETWORK
Jinsok Park, Korea, says:
DIRECTION & GOAL OF PACE
In order to expand PACE to the next generation, It required to be a clear Direction and Goal. Of course, we are fully aware of the reason. Nevertheless, at this point, we want to check again PACE adaptation into our lives.
- PACE should be “faithful”
PACE can be used as analytical tools for corporate consulting. It can be profitably employed as learning patterns for students. Also, PACE can be used as a powerful tool by counselors to solve various problems of their clients. However, these are not the ultimate goals of PACE.
The most important goal of PACE is to be “faithful.” Though PACE can be applied to many areas and activities, its primary goal should be to attain and enhance “faith.” Hence, it is essential that we utilize PACE as analytical consulting tools to make our “faith” grow and develop.
Simply put, PACE is neither a profit-seeking business tool nor a selfish humanism tool for developing ourselves and become filled with more moisture. We have to apply PACE to our daily lives to become more faithful to God. So, “PACE should be faithful.”
- PACE should be “pastoral”
The main direction of the channel among the “change of mind” (e.g., paradigm shift) is “giving ministry to the laypeople.” This is the paradigm shift of the ministry-centered. It means that the ministry of pastors is transferred to laity to minister or released them to do the ministry.
The view of laypeople who took over this ministry is clear: It gives them important duty. In this “ministry” the laypeople also pastor others. Hence, PACE is minister-centered. Thus, anyone who adapts and does PACE means he or she becomes a pastor. So, “PACE is pastoral.” Thus, the person who does PACE and the spot where it is done should be pastoral.
- PACE should be “educational”
It is expected that education will usher in much more important effect. It will bring profound changes and growth. The changes will be more progressive than now. And that means the development clearly will be an advanced growth, not degeneration or retraction.
To say that PACE is educational means, when applied creatively and wholeheartedly, it will bring much better change and growth. If they are Christian believers, PACE will greatly deepen their personal change and growth. If it is a church, PACE will bring about a rich congregational change and growth. If such positive changes do not occur, then what will be clear is that the means applied are rather insufficient and halfhearted or that they are applied in different and wrong directions. As such, the direction and effectiveness of the educational PACE should not be overlooked. For, if we overlook the educational significance of PACE, the PACER will be spiritless and inefficient and also lose the sense of value. Therefore, when we PACE internally (ideological paradigm shift) or externally (surface paradigm shift), our current practice in the field is expected to grow significantly.
At the same time, this dynamic energy will move both you and others. To apply PACE is not simply confined to ourselves. It is extendable and expandable. Thus, this channel needs to be called “Educational.” To say that PACE is educational means it has the potential to move many areas of your life and that of others, be it in activeness in various activities, development of positive characteristics, and the like. To do this we need to learn and practice.
- PACE should be “theological”
Why do most applying tools in and out of the church and in believer’s life get faded and destroyed? I think one of the reasons is that they are not theological.
To say “theological” is a big bottom line, great Basic. It is like base camp when we are climbing mountains. Being properly founded on sound theology will support and sponsor PACE to climb bigger and higher mountains. In the 21st century, no matter where you are — religious life or shepherding at church — being “theological” is of paramount importance, for this will determine whether one wins or loses in a battlefield.
Most of us are aware of the many challenges and obstacles ahead of us. To overcome them and move on, the most important supporter is “theology.” Without a “meaningful Bible-based theology,” PACE will become a mere technical tool!
PACE has clear technical meaning. Maybe this was the first and more bigger direction. But now we need to ride on the “centrality of theology.”
PACE should be faithful
PACE should be pastoral
PACE should be educational
PACE should be theological■
Jang Jaekwang, Japan, says:
Jesus’ life is a model for all pastors, lay ministers, and all Christians, for he is the Good Shepherd who gives his life for his sheep, and who also gives the rich gifts of the Atonement and the Resurrection to the sheep who belong to him. He had the image of a shepherd who completely emptied himself of all human self-interest and lived for others. In this image of Jesus, we can find the ethical standards of lay pastors and the content of true shepherding.
In this way, Jesus’ sacrificial life in service to and for others is the ultimate goal of pastoral care, and Christ’s death on the cross to atone for the sins of mankind, who deserved to be destroyed in their sinfulness, is the central point and standard of pastoral care. Therefore, the essential core of pastoral care is the sacrificial work of Christ. The person and work of Jesus Christ is at its core. The lay pastor does not serve people for the sake of the people, but for the sake of Jesus Christ, the Head of the church, caring for the people and serving the needy through the PACE ministry, being a servant of the people for the sake of Jesus Christ. ‘For the Son of Man did not come to be ministered unto, but to minister,’ Mark 10:45, and the disciples were told to be servants.
The essence of a shepherd is a servant. This hat is to be worn by the lay pastor, broadly speaking by all Christians, but specifically by the lay pastor as a servant of Jesus Christ and specifically by the members of his body, the church. Oden, Thomas C. ‘Kerigma and Counselling,’ in Lee, Choon Chun, translated by Kim, Sung Min (Seoul: Outlook, 1983), pp. 12-41.
In light of the above, we can see that human selfishness is one of the ugly spiritual manifestations of humanity that is diametrically opposed to pastoral care. The more human selfishness and pastoral care coexist, the less pastoral care can be seen to be what it really is. This is because selfishness, in one form or another, is self-centred and involves the satisfaction of one’s own needs, whereas pastoral care is essentially living for the sake of others.
From the above, we can see that the most basic element of pastoral care is relationality. This relationality is both vertical and horizontal. Vertically, in our relationship with God, we live a ministry of obedience that gives credit to Him alone for His glory, and horizontally, we live a ministry of service that serves others for their souls. This relationship, whether with God or with people, is not with the lay minister himself, but with others, and is therefore not the same as selfishness, which is a way of life in its own right. In this relationship, the person of Christ is manifested, and people experience Christ as their body and skin through his pastoral care.■
Byeong, Melvin University, says:
Whatever you find this is good or bad, we need network. Can you write down why? or why not?
Both individual growing and whole church’s growing is important. Because God’s ministry is just like yeast it should be permeated into the church, then synergy is possible, that’s also pastor’s aspect of leadership. And also it should be good for individual, of course God’s work needed commitment and sacrifice as everyone accepted but also they need to grow in intellectual and skills. Management father Peter Drucker said many time in his writing, every business has to give good first for individual employee than company itself. This is true. Why the company is there? Only for profit? No, I don’t think so. They exist for individual employee and society. I agree with that, so pastoral care has to be good for caregiver themselves. Because they need to grow.
How can we grow? We need real experience. Without real experiences we can’t grow. What is that? We need to experience real difficulty, and wrestling with , to cope with that, also need to see real life and listen life stories, then we can think and grow ourselves, because it gives us challenge and instruction for our future.
And if we look at the Bible, we can find this concept. Jesus said love others, care for others, so on, that is general care, but when he asks to Peter “do you love me,”? then he said take care for my sheep, which means Jesus tells us to be particular caregiver, yes sometimes we need to do general care, but originally individual care is our priority because people out there need individual care not general care, so Lay Pastors Ministry is real ministry and what Jesus commended us to do.■
ADDITIONAL COMMENT
by BYEONG
Theological Schools in the States and in England: I have visited overseas seminaries. Among them, theological schools in the United States and British and were clearly different. While American theological schools were absolutely sympathetic to the church’s real needs and trying to meet them, British theological schools seemed more interested in Bible studies, especially Old Testament studies, than church reality. So American seminaries were interested in church revival and taught students that way, while British seminaries seemed to focus on research itself rather than practical.
Here, I will focus on the two representative schools. First, the Cambridge University Divinity School (CDS) in the United Kingdom. I went to the library of Cambridge University’s Divinity School, but there were fewer books than I thought, and moreover, books in practical fields were almost out of interest. I think each of them will have a book in the central library of the university, and each professor has books in his own office as needs. Anyway, I thought it could be because it is an Anglican-centered school.
I met with Jeremy Morris, dean of King’s College at Cambridge University, and talked more deeply, and Jeremy was able to talk easily because we knew each other a bit before I arrived. He also said that he is also a member of the Anglican Church, so he has no choice but to follow the atmosphere and direction of the denomination, conservative church.
However, it was not without an evangelical seminary. For instance, Ridley Hall College was close to the College of Divinity. It was not a school affiliated with Cambridge University, but it was a specialized institution for training Anglican pastors. Ridley Hall is also famous for the school where Rev. John Stott graduated. He studied there, was ordained as a pastor. It is also well known that he was invited to be the dean of the Ridley college when he was pastor at All Souls Church, and he refused to devote himself to the church ministry.
Oxford University also had a similar atmosphere to Cambridge University in the field of theology. As a result, churches are bound to be affected by this. It will be really difficult for students who have been educated at such universities and have seen sermons in such an atmosphere, to change their minds to ministry and church growth after graduation. In fact, I attended church services where pastors who graduated from such prestigious schools were in charge, and they were not able to escape the framework that they have learned at school. It was a sermon far from the growth of the church, and it was such a pastoral mindset. In a word, it was “teaching” rather than preaching.
As a result, churches that abandoned what they learned and studied on their own were revived and grown, and those churches were doing well because they were good rumored in the region, and hundreds of people attended the Sunday service, and the sermon was evangelical, impacted and motivated.
Oxford also had another Evangelical Seminary, which was Wycliffe Hall College. It was a school affiliated with Oxford University and was a specialized institution for training pastors. In other words, Ridley Hall College on the Cambridge and Wycliffe Hall College on the Oxford produced conservative pastors from the Church of England. I’m just talking about two schools.
On the other hand, Yale University Divinity School (YDS) in the States was very different from the United Kingdom. They were interested in the ministry in line with the church-centered and growth-oriented American atmosphere.
Anyway, looking at these two schools, I understood the church reality and pastoral reality of the two countries, and what kind of education they receive has a great influence on their adaptation, and furthermore, I thought it more meaningful that ministry is not a study but a relationship with God.