CHAPTER V THE CARE AND FEEDING OF MINISTERS
In the previous chapter we dealt with the relatively tranquil thirties. We now come to the anxious forties. Forty is an age of great fears. Those who have to care for the forty-year-old should have some idea of the stresses that will plague him during this period. He will probably become subject to one or more of the following traumas.
Retreating goals. The greatness for which he felt destined suddenly seems unlikely rather than inevitable. That call to the large urban ministry that was to thrust him in the forefront of the work of the kingdom now seems highly doubtful. For some, goals that occupied their fantasies during the ambitious twenties have become extinct. The missionary-statesman is now as dead as the dodo bird. Coming to terms with these changes in his world can cause a great deal of strain on our charge.
Redefinition of roles. The forty-year-old has to adjust to changes in his role. He is no longer the sex symbol of the parish—he is becoming instead a father figure. In addition, his own children may be old enough to put grand-fatherhood within sight. At home, instead of being a towering, fearsome figure, he is becoming a slightly eccentric fixture to whom the children refer in such kindly but patronizing terms as “poor old dad.”
Increasing responsibilities. While his goals have become more elusive and his role has begun eroding, the forty-year-old’s responsibilities have grown.
Making a change in pastorates (a simple matter a few years ago) is now all complications. His children are old enough to be attached to their surroundings and to resist moving. He must also consider such questions as: If we move to a new state will my son be eligible to attend state college at resident tuition rates?
The forty-year-old sees money flowing out of the checking account as a cascade. The outflow is beginning to exceed the inflow by an alarming margin. The child who was content with an electric train just yesterday now asks Santa for an eight-speaker stereo tape player for his car. And reading the estimated expenses outlined in the church college’s catalogue may be enough to precipitate nervous prostration.
As a result of such stresses, the forty-year-old may suffer a change in personality. His confident, easy-going youthfulness may give way to insecure, indecisive, somewhat irritable middle age.
In handling the minister during this period those around him should take care to remove all unnecessary stress. His wife should avoid reminding him of the successes of his friends and seminary classmates. Major monetary transactions should be treated as lightly as possible and completed as quickly as possible. Minor indiscretions of his children should be kept from him for everyone’s good.
If the proper care is taken, the minister may successfully negotiate this painful part of his development and even be good for another twenty or so productive years.
TEACHER’S AID
[Let me express] my personal appreciation for the ministry of CHRISTIANITY TODAY. I cannot recommend it too highly to my students, especially those studying theology. In a day when the “winds of change” have meant not only “fresh air” but sometimes “foul breezes,” it is a help in my teaching ministry to have a lucid and reliable source of religious news and evangelical conviction to commend to my students.
Associate Professor of History
Capital University
Columbus, Ohio
ONLY HALF TRUTHS
It was with real sorrow that I read the subtly biased and occasionally distorted article by Michael Cassidy, “A South African Christian Confronts Apartheid” (Nov. 19). Although native to that country, it is obvious that the author does not know the inner feelings of his black countrymen, even black evangelical Christians, and that he does not sense the intense frustration and even physical danger that they constantly undergo.…
One of the worst accusations to be made against the article is that it is deceptive. Listed first among the “encouraging factors” is the “authentic concern in the country … and a developing sense of conscience.…” The sole evidence given is the split in the Nationalist party, implying that voices for positive change are becoming powerful. Yet the split really indicates just the opposite: the new party, the “Verkramptes,” is even more extreme than the ruling Nationalists! It is in opposition to even the most symbolic loosening of the apartheid noose. In the Natal election, where the Nationalists were “soundly defeated,” it is left unstated that they were defeated by the United Party, certainly the right of our own George Wallace—a move toward freedom and equality?
It is correctly stated that 75 per cent of the people are given 13 per cent of the land. Incredible figures in themselves! Yet it is not mentioned that the Africans, Coloreds, and Indians are given none of the cities, none of the harbors, none of the land containing gold, diamonds, or uranium, and that much of their land is barely suitable even for agriculture. The theory of self-governing “Bantustans,” or African areas, is given, yet we are not told that these “governments” have no power whatsoever in the areas of international relations, taxation, police, or even the laws governing the movement of persons (in some places Africans may not be outside the fence after 11:00 P.M.). He never even mentions the hated passbooks that all nonwhites must carry at all times! To use the term “unfair” to describe this malapportionment of land and power is incredibly naïve. This is not unfairness—it is gross immorality and exploitation.…
Lastly, because it is most important, I must note the ease with which accommodation has been reached with something admitted to be “unscriptural” and “sinful.” Can you imagine an article in CHRISTIANITY TODAY discussing adultery in the church which accepted as an encouraging factor that there is an “authentic concern for what is going on and a developing sense of conscience about it”? I can only agree with the author that many have not really dared to put political realism to one side and embrace their Christian faith in a life-risking commitment.
Evangelical Committee for Urban Ministries
Boston, Mass.
WHAT EDITORS SHOULD KNOW
Thank you for your excellent report on the prayer amendment (“Prayer Bill Hasn’t One,” Dec. 3). It is the best we have seen with the most comprehensive analysis in terms of what people want to know. The all-out effort of Baptist Fred Schwengel netted him only nine other Baptist votes against the amendment while twenty-seven Baptists voted for it. The merits of the amendment are also reflected in the fact that the Presbyterian, Methodist, and Lutheran congressmen all supported it by a ratio of almost three to one.
This is why we were surprised to see your editorial (“Making No Amends for Prayer”) in which you state: “Even school authorities, congressmen, and clergymen—most of whom should know better—persistently believe that the U. S. Supreme Court decisions of 1962 and 1963 banned prayer and Bible reading from public classrooms. That is simply untrue.” Without wanting to be unkind it seems to us that editors should also know better.
The only issue before the high court in those decisions was voluntary prayer and Bible reading in the classroom, and both were banned. Under the “Facts in Each Case” the Court said: “Participation in the opening exercises (at issue) … is voluntary.” And these “exercises” were banned. For you to say “That is simply untrue” and skirt the real issue not only begs the question but is contrary to fact.
Private prayer and the other types of activities outside the classroom which you discuss were not an issue before the Court and are not germane to the prayer amendment. The proponents of the prayer amendment seek to restore what has been banned, namely: the right to have voluntary corporate prayer in the classroom.
The vote on the prayer amendment was impressive and encouraging even though it failed. Notwithstanding your implied opinion to the contrary, we think the 240 congressmen who voted for it were probably as well informed as the 162 who voted against it. And the public polls tell us that more than 80 per cent of the population still believe that what you refer to as mini-worship (which you and Tom Clark want outlawed) served the public schools far better than the maxi-secularism which has prevailed since voluntary corporate prayer and Bible reading were banned from the public classroom.
Assistant to the General Director
National Association of Evangelicals
Washington, D. C.
The [news story] says that “the stated position of the United Methodist Church was against the amendment.” I wonder where you secured this information. No one officially speaks for United Methodism excepting General Conference, which doesn’t meet until 1972. No bishop, board, or commission has the authority to represent that he or they speak for the whole church.
The United Methodist Church
East Springfield, Ohio
• The stated position was actually that of the United Methodist Board of Christian Social Concerns.—ED.
A GOOD IDEA
The brief editorial, “Settling Educational Priorities” (Oct. 22), contained a gem of an idea, extremely worthy of implementation. I refer to the expressed need to hold an Evangelical Education Congress. It would be laudable if CHRISTIANITY TODAY, with its well-deserved prestige, would take the initiative and convene such a congress. I’m sure that several associations such as the National Union of Christian Schools would participate meaningfully if a congress were called.
Director
National Union of Christian Schools
Grand Rapids, Mich.
NEITHER ADULTS NOR YOUTH
It appears to me that Addison Leitch (Current Religious Thought, “Accent on Youth,” Dec. 3) has not searched the Scriptures very diligently in quest of a precedent for youth emphasis. If he had he surely would have cited Mark 10:13–16 or 1 Tim. 4:12. He might have taken a more positive view toward young people’s less-than-professional contribution to worship had he consulted the words of our Lord Jesus or David (Matt. 21:15–16; Psalm 8:2). I agree with Leitch that there is a cliché attitude toward youth in the church today, but I don’t like his solution. The real heresy of this youth consciousness is that it asserts that “the future of our church depends on our youth.” The future of the church depends only on Jesus Christ. As I read Leitch’s column, he is saying that the future of the church really depends on adults—and that is just as bad.
Ringoes, N. J.
What is so “current” about Addison Leitch’s “Current Religious Thought” (Dec. 3)? It seems amazing to me that Leitch is attacking youth work on the sole basis that it is not scripturally specified. (“If you are a Bible-believing Christian, you might want to look in the Bible for a youth program. I search in vain …”). But he fails to mention that the list of unspecifieds in the Bible also include such things as church buildings, Sunday schools, morning worship services, and Christian news magazines.
Simply because “we know nothing about the youth of Christ” does not license us to deny that he ever had one. The article appears to me to be simply another attempt by evangelical Christianity to eliminate its inadequacies by just sweeping them under the rug. What Mr. Leitch doesn’t know is that he picked up his broom about twenty-five years too late.
Youth Specialties
San Diego, Calif.
FROM TRICKLE TO TORRENT
It is deeply rewarding to observe how many Jewish youth are turning on to Jesus (“Turning On to Jeshua,” Dec. 17). Although they have … been doing this for many years, what was once only a trickle is now a torrent.
(The Rev.) VICTOR BUKSBAZEN, JR. Capital City Greater Gospel Association
Washington, D. C.
