Jesus said, "Do you love me?" - "Feed my sheep". John 21.17
'Vicars as they used to be', was our topic in part 1. Most people in England would still like to have a 'village vicar', and almost no one wants an 'urban vicar'. However, neither type of vicar has prevented the steady decline of the church; and there are now barely enough vicars in England to maintain even the 'urban vicar' system. To try to keep as many churches going as possible, all sorts of new schemes are appearing: non-stipendiary priests, local ordained ministers, team ministries, licensed pastoral workers, and local ecumenical projects. New ministries are still being invented. Most of this, however, is reactive - trying to keep things going. While some initiatives are more successful than others, the general trend remains the same: downwards. There is a lot of stress on 'ministry', but it is not clear how much ministry, in the sense of shepherds (or pastors) tending sheep, is really being done.
Chaplains in Europe were expected to be 'like vicars in England', or (more) often: "like the 'village vicars' we had in England 30 years ago"! Today, with members of St Ursula's coming from all over the world, the chaplain is supposed to be an: English vicar, Episcopalian (USA) rector, Reformed pastor, Catholic priest and chaplain to the Ambassador (the UK one, of course). Then there are various extra duties, ranging from administering hall bookings to cutting the church hedge: are they also part of what we expect from the chaplain, or who should do them? We may not have the same pressures (e.g. funerals etc.) as there are in England, but we do face the same question: "What sort of ministry do we want?" It is not just a question of (shortage of) time, though that can be significant, but of majoring in those things that "feed the sheep" rather than just doing those things that some of the 'sheep' have come to expect.
If we continue with the 'village vicar' model, the size of the congregation will be limited by the number of people a chaplain can relate to at that sort of pastoral intensity. Experience suggests about 90 people for one chaplain, and 140 for two (full time) chaplains. If Thun and Neuchâtel are included with St Ursula's, we are probably above that limit now. Put simply: we are already getting as much out of one and a half chaplains as is possible, and what is not being done now (or not being done well) is unlikely to get done (better). Alternatively, we can try a different model of ministry, where pastoral work is shared between the ministers and a team of trained lay people. This will inevitably involve disappointing those who wish to retain a particular aspect of present ministry, but, if successful, it would allow the whole church to grow
"Pastors and teachers" are a gift from God "for the equipment of the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ" (Ephesians 4.11). If we were to follow that model, all the saints (that means ordinary church members) would be expected to do 'the work of ministry', trained and supported by the 'pastors and teachers'. Such a change could not happen suddenly. To find time to 'equip the saints' would not be simple, and then the training itself would take time, before some of the 'saints' could begin sharing the work of ministry. However, if we are to follow the 'Good Shepherd (Pastor)', then we must begin to review what we are doing to see where we must make changes. The Church Council will be looking at options for improving one area of our ministry, pastoral care, at the 'Oasis' in October, when we have a speaker from the Diocese of Hereford. We shall be exploring the characteristics of 'healthy' and 'sick' churches at the 'New Beginnings' study on September 16th. Who knows, if we begin to follow the New Testament pattern more closely, we might start to grow as fast as they did!
Richard Pamplin