Apologetics in sermons?

[RBerman]

Agreed entirely. For most churches, it really isn't feasible to mandate that the main role of the senior pastor be that of theologian or apologist - it's one of a constellation of key roles. The role of a pastor is, I would think, to equip the collective body for ministry, and that includes taking the lead in ministry: both the lead in a ministry of teaching and defending the faith, and the lead in a ministry of comforting the afflicted through the resources that that faith provides. Striking the balance is hard, especially in an observer-driven culture that insists on reducing this equipping ministry to a sole ministry. Ideally, as a congregation's understanding of ministry is shifted back to a pastor-as-equipper model (which is no easy feat!), the congregation can take its rightful portion of both apologetics and comforting from the pastor's plate - leaving the latter still quite full, but able to accommodate a portion of each in its due proportion.

We have been working on this at my church for a few years now. The first step has been training the leadership to see themselves as shepherds rather than executives. The first step was to get us out meeting regularly with the people during the week. Then we found that our leadership meetings were getting really long as we shared what we were learning about the people. So the next step was to start making email reports on our shepherding encounters so that we didn't have to consume that time in our leadership meeting. It also helped to keep each other accountable to the metrics we set, that every week we would have at least one substantive interaction with one of the families in our assigned "shepherding group." Not that the ultimate goal is making reports and checking off boxes, but dividing a large task into smaller units is usually a good idea.

[Thoughtful Monk]

Quite possibly, JB, and I apologize to TM...

I had just spent 3 hours at St. Luke's Hospital with one of our young couples, as the doctor explained to the young mother that she has breast cancer, and it is pretty "advanced". When I read TM's post, I couldn't help thinking "how do you get that off my plate"? The answer, of course, is that I wouldn't even try.

As I recall, the post I was responding to did not specify what was on the pastor's plate. Certainly being there for a member in crisis should remain. I was thinking about my experience with some pastors who are busy with anything but the church or the ones that get overcome by urgent and neglect the important (I stuggle with this one at my job, too.) Certainly a pastor needs some space on his plate for study which includes both the Word and related topics like apologetics.

Apology accepted CP.

[Thoughtful Monk]

We have been working on this at my church for a few years now. The first step has been training the leadership to see themselves as shepherds rather than executives. The first step was to get us out meeting regularly with the people during the week. Then we found that our leadership meetings were getting really long as we shared what we were learning about the people. So the next step was to start making email reports on our shepherding encounters so that we didn't have to consume that time in our leadership meeting. It also helped to keep each other accountable to the metrics we set, that every week we would have at least one substantive interaction with one of the families in our assigned "shepherding group." Not that the ultimate goal is making reports and checking off boxes, but dividing a large task into smaller units is usually a good idea.

I like what your church is doing!

How does it handle the necessary admin stuff like pay the utilities, etc?

[RBerman]

I like what your church is doing! How does it handle the necessary admin stuff like pay the utilities, etc?

In our church polity, "elders" are responsible for the spiritual welfare of the congregation, and "deacons" are responsible for the practical issues of the church, based on the division seen in Acts 6. One of the deacons is the church treasurer, for instance, who pays the bills. Other duties of the deacons include upkeep of church property, and making sure the physical needs of the congregation are met-- home repair for widows, gas money for the poor, etc.

[KingsGambit]

In our church polity, "elders" are responsible for the spiritual welfare of the congregation, and "deacons" are responsible for the practical issues of the church, based on the division seen in Acts 6. One of the deacons is the church treasurer, for instance, who pays the bills. Other duties of the deacons include upkeep of church property, and making sure the physical needs of the congregation are met-- home repair for widows, gas money for the poor, etc.

A bit of a side track, but while I think everybody agrees that churches should take care of their own needy congregants, in my town (100,000-ish suburb), most of the Catholic and Protestant churches have joined up to cover various aspects of physical needs for people who walk in needing help. For example, my church helps with gas money, and I think the Presbyterian church handles either coats or has a food pantry. I'm curious if this is a widespread approach.

[Cow Poke]

A bit of a side track, but while I think everybody agrees that churches should take care of their own needy congregants, in my town (100,000-ish suburb), most of the Catholic and Protestant churches have joined up to cover various aspects of physical needs for people who walk in needing help. For example, my church helps with gas money, and I think the Presbyterian church handles either coats or has a food pantry. I'm curious if this is a widespread approach.

Our community has a very active Ministerial Alliance, and we pool resources. We have a restaurant downtown run by our "Faith Mission", that charges normal prices for "regular folks" for meals, but ALWAYS free for anybody who can't (or doesn't want to) pay... and we stockpile food, diapers, and all kinds of stuff. In addition, most of the Churches have gift cards for gas or whatever.

[RBerman]

A bit of a side track, but while I think everybody agrees that churches should take care of their own needy congregants, in my town (100,000-ish suburb), most of the Catholic and Protestant churches have joined up to cover various aspects of physical needs for people who walk in needing help. For example, my church helps with gas money, and I think the Presbyterian church handles either coats or has a food pantry. I'm curious if this is a widespread approach.

My community has a central registry to which multiple churches contribute. When people come to us and tell us that the central group "won't help them," it's a red flag that there's something wrong with the situation, probably that they've been helped several times before and kept coming back under less and less credible circumstances.

[Cow Poke]

My community has a central registry to which multiple churches contribute. When people come to us and tell us that the central group "won't help them," it's a red flag that there's something wrong with the situation, probably that they've been helped several times before and kept coming back under less and less credible circumstances.

Exactly, and there ARE people who simply "work the system" and are not truly "in need". The Bible tells us that he who is not willing to work should not eat*. (2 Thessalonians 3:10)

As I have said before, I think we need to be good stewards with all our resources -- in my experience, most people who are truly in need don't ask, and many people who do ask are not truly in need. HOWEVER, I would rather err in giving to somebody who is not truly in need than withholding from somebody who is.




*widows, orphans, and the truly needy not withstanding