Ministers' Fraternals 05

5. Strengths and weaknessesFinally, I want to say something about the strengths and weaknesses of a ministers’ fraternal. At the beginning I quoted Arturo G Azurdia III regarding the Whitefield fraternal. He also says ‘The challenges of Christian ministry are unique and consuming. Church leaders are expected to provide spiritual motivation, pastoral care, theological insight, evangelistic vision, and forward-looking leadership. But to this end ministers themselves need resources. They need practical tools and continuing education. They need collegial fellowship and intellectual stimulation. They need spiritual refreshment and personal encouragement.’
It was with the aim of providing such resources for church leaders and ministers that the Whitefield fraternals were begun.
In November, 1807 the Eclectic Society discussed the subject of the chief duties of Christian ministers to one another. Some of the duties they mention are to

Love one another
Maintain spiritual unity
Pray for one another
Guard against envy and mutual jealousy
Rejoice in one another’s success
Honour and defend one another, being jealous each for the other’s character
Admonish and exhort one another in love
Enlighten one another
Tenderly help any who are in trouble
Forgive one another
Think the best of one another rejecting prejudice and intolerance
Avoid emphasising minor differences and allow the right of private judgement
Avoid gossiping about one another
Avoid flattering one another

I would be willing to argue that most of these duties can best be promoted through the means of ministers’ fraternals.
On the other hand, it is right that we recognise the limitations of fraternals. In a series of articles for Rutherford House Dr Montagu Barker has been quite critical of fraternals. In an article on The Minister as a member of the fellowship he argues for pastor’s pastor’s pastors.
He says that for most ministers ‘Their sustenance has been the company of other clergy, with fraternals, retreats and conferences. How inadequate they prove; they are the very worst places for ministers to be pastored! Ministers meet and discuss their work, with banal generalities about recent encouragements. I myself have spoken to ministers’ fraternals and seen how little real sharing goes on.’
He continues ‘How can you say you are depressed and feel a failure, that the work is going badly and you feel responsible? How can you share that your home life is in chaos, with your wife having gone off you sexually, and the children acting up mercilessly? All you can share is vague generalities, and exaggerate the spiritual growth of the work.
‘Clergy do not care well for other clergy, doctors care very badly for other doctors and lawyers give terrible advice to fellow lawyers because they identify too closely with the other person. In medicine, we are well aware of this, if a little ashamed of ourselves. When I see a doctor as one of my patients, I have to remind myself that while in my clinic, he is just someone who has problems. I may meet him later in committees, and see many issues in him that I recognise in myself; yet I must regard him as a person who is depressed. I know that my heart is beating faster and my blood pressure rising, but if I make concessions simply because he is a doctor, I will eventually run into trouble. Some doctors find this easier than others; but we do not care well for our kith and kin because we identify in this way.’
In an article for the late Selwyn Hughes’ CWR organisation Allan Cox, in an article entitled ‘Ministerial survival kit’ argues in a similar way. ‘As I meet with other ministers and leaders I am continually struck by how all-consuming the job is. There are so many fraternals, ministers’ meetings and the like that it is so easy to slip into a nodding acquaintance or be business-like with each other. In truth, many of us are lonely. Although we may be accountable in an official sense, unofficially it is all too easy to have no one to whom we can turn with our personal struggles.’
Perhaps the FIEC struck the right balance when on their website they said that although most men find fraternals an adequate means of finding the support they need, others need more.
I suppose there are two factors at work here.

1. How helpful the fraternal that you attend is

2. The extent to which you take advantage of what is on offer
The voluntary principle is at the same time both the great strength and the great weakness of fraternals. The freedom is much appreciated but it means, as we know, that some never join one and others drift off and there is little that can be done to draw them back.
In conclusion, we would say then that the idea of a ministers’ fraternal is perfectly consequent with the Bible, one with much historical and contemporary backing and a potential means under God of great good. However, as with other things, it is not a panacea or an automatic means of blessing. A successful fraternal needs to keep itself under regular review and none if us should suppose that in and of itself a fraternal can prevent all the problems that we know can arise in the Christian ministry. It is only as we look to the Lord that disaster can be avoided and good promoted.