Last month we looked at Jesus the Good Shepherd as a model for pastoral care. Various pastoral care schemes have been tried out in different parts of the world. Some churches expect total commitment to a 'Discipleship' model (as in South America), while others have simply given up trying to offer any pastoral care except what might be occasionally provided by the minister (who usually is responsible for too many other things to do it as well as would be liked). An example of the former is described in Juan Carlos Ortis' book Discipleship. All too many Anglican churches provide an example of the latter. A few English churches have tried the discipleship model, but this does not seem to suit the British character. In a more limited form, it has proved successful in some Pentecostal churches in the USA. Some churches experimented with so-called 'Fish schemes', but virtually all of these collapsed, mainly because their scope was too ambitious for the resources they could deploy.
Pastoral care schemes are not new. In Romans 16, Paul greets a lot of 'church workers' and seems to assume that the local church included 'house church' sub-units. Unfortunately we have no more information than this. Richard Baxter (1615-91), Vicar of Kidderminster 1641-60, and John Wesley (1703-91) both produced successful systems which have been copied elsewhere. All schemes tend to become unsuccessful in the end, as people, being human (!), tend to forget the purpose of what they are doing.
From the Good Shepherd model we established three prerequisites: a flock who know and follow Jesus (point #1); knowing who the flock are (#2); and having some pastors to care for them (#3). In addition we noted that Jesus' idea of shepherding specifically focussed on 'the lost sheep' (#4). Also present in the Good Shepherd model is the idea that sheep need feeding (point #5, & see Jesus' words to Peter, "Feed my sheep" (John 21), Psalm 23, etc.)
As long ago as the book of Exodus, the problem was acknowledged of organising the care of God's people, and a solution was adopted, which would not be out of place in a modern business management course (read Exodus 18 for the full story). The consequence of not getting it right (and the reason for so many schemes failing) is also spelt out (verse 18) "You and these people who come to you will only wear yourselves out." (point #6)
The outlines of a possible Pastoral Care scheme for St Ursula's:
1) As a scheme cannot care for everyone, it will be limited to those existing church members who choose to enrol in 'St Ursula's Pastoral Care Scheme' (# 1,2, & 6).
2) There will be conditions of membership (# 1). These are not yet fixed, but, as an example, all members should: be baptised, be on the electoral roll, pledge to support St Ursula's, be regular attenders at Sunday worship, and participate in at least one church-linked weekday activity (House group, Bible study, Prayer group, etc.).
3) There will be benefits of membership (# 5). These also are not finalised, but, as an example: free magazine, regular 'helps for prayer' leaflets, knowing members are prayed for regularly, having someone who has pastoral care for each member, clergy visits, sick communion, etc.
4) There will be obligations of membership (# 1): to keep to the conditions of membership [though no-one will check up - this is "not to please mortals, but to please God who tests our hearts." 1 Thess. 2.4], and to pray daily, for each person on their prayer list (i.e. the other members of their 'cell', their pastors, and a further 2 people who are not part of the scheme (#4)).
5) There will be a care structure (# 2, 3 & 6).
(a) A 'group pastor' for every 8 members of the scheme, whose job is to know their 8 members, to pray for them, and to report to their pastoral elder (see below) any pastoral action needed (hospital visit, sick communion, etc.). There will be no obligation to 'visit', though they will be free to do so if they wish. They will also meet regularly, but not frequently, with their pastoral elder. Cells can expand to 10 but not more.
(b) A 'pastoral elder' for every 5 'group pastors', whose job is to know their 5 group pastors, to pray for them and meet with them (as above), and to act on matters brought to them by the group pastors.
(c) The pastoral elders will meet together with the clergy, and will be responsible with the clergy for the pastoral oversight of the whole church. [All pastors, elders, and clergy, will be individual members of the scheme, with their own group pastor. They will have the same prayer obligations as all other members.]
(d) There will be teams of trained volunteers (please pray that we shall get them), who can undertake specific pastoral tasks (visiting, sick communions, prayer ministry - for healing, etc.)
6) As a logical extension (a phase 2) of the basic scheme, a Friends of St Ursula's could be added. This would be for those who wished to be linked to St Ursula's but were not able to make the commitment expected in the full scheme. It too would have conditions, obligations, and benefits of membership, but on a reduced scale.
How would we go about it? We would ask the whole congregation to nominate pastors (similar to nominating Assistant Wardens), and to sign up for the scheme. Then we would allocate members to pastors. There would be a dedication service and then the scheme would begin.
What still needs to be decided? Well, all the questions from last month, and a few more (including: who decides?). Should the cells (& pastors) be geographically based? What about different age groups, families, and children? Please let me know what you think.
Yours in Christ,
Richard Pamplin