Ministers Under Colleagiate Care.

When churches take 'ministers without portfolio' under their 'care,' what exactly does that mean? In some churches it means precious little, though it looks good on paper. The only concern shown to these ministers regards the number of baptisms they adminstered, the numnber of times they officiated at the Lord's Table, the number of marriages they conducted, the number of times they preached, and whether or not they preached outside their own denomination. This is regarded as showing 'care.'

But 'care' in the biblical sense is much more than that, surely. It must include personal care for the individual minister, and for his wife and family, during their time of absense from their normal ministerial work, real pastoral support that provides a non-judgemental readiness to listen empathically to their colleague, supporting them in the courts of the church where necessary, being a good friend to them, ministering to them spiritually, being there for them. They need a 'Barnabas' figure who will give proper time and encouragement to them, and who will work for their restoration to the work of the ministry.

What happens in fact is that such ministers are virtually disowned by their colleagues and ostracised by the very men with whom they had worked. Colleagues just do not want to know! Perhaps they do not know how to care! Perhaps this is not their forte! They are not natural carers - more like career people who want to get on and up within the organisation.

Such a Barnabas figure must also work for changes in church structures and practices that allow such situations to develop. They must also be free to challenge Presbyteries and Sessions, if these are where the trouble emanates from. They need clout. They need not to be establishment men, because this will defeat the whole object of the Barnabas ministry. They must be strong men who are prepared to challenge whatever is contributing to ministers having to leave their work because of work-related stress. And they also need the courage to take on whoever it is is causing the difficulties to Gopsel ministers.

Of course, the need for such a ministry is evident in many churches, but this need is also an admission of the failure of the churches to deal with each other according to Scriptural teaching. For a church to admit to such failure is not a sugn of weakness, but is a sign that it is prepared to deal with the difficulties that arise as the result of the Gospel being preached. That some church members and officers do not tolerate the Gospel being preached clearly is granted; but that such people should be allowed to remain in office and in church membership, is a much more basis question that the churches must address biblically.

I freely admit that ministers' troubles in church are not always because of opposition to the Gospel from unbelievers; quite often they arise because of agenda-driven professing believers who have placed the church and its institution above the very Gospel she is commissioned by the Lords to proclaim. This is a serious problem, and when the very scent of this arises in any congregation, alarm bells must be heard by the discerning in those churches.

Your views and reflections on this crucial issues will be welcome. Just use the comment box to send your 'take' on these issues to me.