Remit 6: One Order Of Ministry

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
I'm pretty sure there's issues here. I'm also pretty sure this wasn't the correct solution. We also voted nay as a congregation.
 
Amaeus ... really as complex debates over amateur ... and professional perspective collide ... something to discuss with Master's on the Pilgrimage to wee know knot where ... record it in the log ... bury it!

Few will question ...
 
Years ago I took a Psychology course on creative problem solving. The main takeaway was that we cannot solve a problem until the problem is properly defined.

I have read over the earlier posts on this thread . . . very informative but I am still not sure which problem the Remit was trying to address.
 
paradox3 said:
Years ago I took a Psychology course on creative problem solving. The main takeaway was that we cannot solve a problem until the problem is properly defined.

I have read over the earlier posts on this thread . . . very informative but I am still not sure which problem the Remit was trying to address.
Click to expand...

A thought-scattering rendering of the enigma ... something the powers would deny? Almost like quince in the 5D beyond the four winds of communion ... overlooking souls? Some say it is the fruit in that dark garden ... c'est la pool/pole?
 
I have not read all the posts, so do not know if the following was raised. Our church has two staff who started as staff associates for their work with children, families, and youth. Staff associate status was replaced by DLM status and they were grand-fathered in. If the remit had been passed, we would have lost 2 staff who have been very effective in their roles, one of whom works with about 250 youth and young adults across the city, because they have no interest in committing to a program of studies that would pave the way to the One Order. I must have been working outside of ministry when SA was replaced by DLM, and do not see value in that change.

It annoys me that, instead of addressing attitude and perception issues, the national church tackles relationship issues with label changes, trying to camouflage the roles that people are choosing. When I was a candidate for ministry, I was disappointed, even angry, because of the attitudes of ordained ministers I witnessed at Conferences, and I was surprised to learn that ordained ministry was a status thing for some of my class mates. It bothers me when we put status recognition ahead of seeing the actual ministry that people are doing. While I am troubled by the intensity with which diaconal ministers protect their status, I realize it is because of how many ordained clergy treated diaconal ministers over many years. I would appreciate more acknowledgement of how too many people have behaved over the years and directly addressing the pain that has caused, and less attention to changing labels as ineffective bandages on that pain.
 
The status thing may have made more sense when Christianity was much more socially universal in Canada. I don't think anyone sees it as much of a "status" thing anymore. I think people generally go into Ministry of various types more for love, than for money or social standing.
 
BetteTheRed said:
The status thing may have made more sense when Christianity was much more socially universal in Canada. I don't think anyone sees it as much of a "status" thing anymore. I think people generally go into Ministry of various types more for love, than for money or social standing.
Click to expand...
Yes, I would agree when it comes to society at large.

But there might still be the question of status within the church and within different church groups.
 
The church sometimes cuts their nose off to spite their face. t seems that because the church

got rid of the staff ass designation, it was like also getting rid of children, youth and

young adult ministry. Take a look around your church , are children and youth

important parts of your church's ministry? Tell the truth.:cry::cry::cry:
 
We have kids but only a few teenagers right now.

Efforts were made to get a youth group going but there was not enough interest.
 
If youth are denied ... do not expect them to gravitate towards church communities ... then with time ... they aren't existent!
 
We had a children's and young family minister, with some pastoral care too. A half time youth and young adult minister, a full time preaching, adult education and pastoral care minister. The position for the children and young families was cut and replaced with 10-20 hours a week of well intentioned leader with some theological training.

5 years later very small sunday school, very small youth group and few young families.
I still feel it was the wrong decision for that church. As I said at the meeting it was made by a group of people who did not have children in the programs being cut.
The argument was it was "cost saving". It was but at what cost.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top