- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Iately I’ve been questioning the wisdom of this phrase. You hear people being advised or thinking they have to “see your Bishop” for a huge range of things. Those three words are oft-repeated. I think Bishop’s are largely over their head with the problems people bring to them. They can help with administrative matters, or welfare matters, or sometimes, they bring a unique expertise to their position, but I hear a lot of people indicate meeting with their Bishop or SP doesn’t help much. Why is is that we always repeat the phrase “See your Bishop” when they are not really qualified to do much other than Church administration, layman’s advice, or share the sum of their life’s experiences like the next person?
I’ve often wondered the same thing. Bishop is just a calling like Sunday School teacher or Choir director. It’s just us regular folk in every position at the ward. My Bishop is a 28 year old lawyer. I suppose if my problem is that I need some contracts drawn up, he could be the guy. But I am sure he is no more suited to handling marital stress or personal addictions than the garbage man. A few thoughts about why members say that so much: 1) Many people want to be able to give the responsibilities for their choices to someone else. It’s a very natural inclination.
2) Many members are converts who grew up with a model of pastoral / ministerial / priest care that makes them see the Bishop as the ultimate advisor / counselor in everything.
3) Too many members see the Bishop as the “father of the ward”. I really dislike that idea, especially since it’s not supported in any of our canonized scriptures.
4) There is the mistaken idea that being a leader entitles someone to revelation for the individual people within the organization being led. That’s wrong, but it’s ubiquitous in the Church.
I see the Bishop now, as primarily a business manager. There is a visionary component to it for some Bishops (as in direction-setting for the Ward) but usually that gets lost in the day-to-day operations of the Ward. I think the ratio of business management / inspiration / pastoral care varies widely among Bishops, based largely on the personality and inclination of each Bishop. The ideal is that each one gains in each area in which he is not naturally strong, moving toward being a “perfect” Bishop (whole, complete, fully developed – NOT mistake-free) – but that obviously doesn’t happen in many cases. I have seen it happen with some Bishops (not fully, but with real movement toward the ideal), as well as other leaders and regular members serving in various callings. It’s really inspiring when it happens the way it’s supposed to happen.
Recently the Stake President came to our Ward. At the close of the meeting, he tried to give our Bishopric a complement by saying to the congregation: “These men are spiritual giants.”
I could almost see a nervous “cringe” on the Bishop’s face.
I’ll bet his appointment schedule increased significantly after that.
I know that our Bishop is a good man who tries very hard to magnify his calling. (Whatever that is.)
There is only so much a Bishop can do within a Ward.
I wouldn’t want his job.
(Assuming of course, I was qualified.)
To stay on topic: traditionally it has been said that the Bishop is the Father of the Ward. As a result many members feel that if they have a problem or even a question, go to the Bishop. I would rather go to my Home Teacher or a good friend. Even when I was active, I would rarely go to the Bishop with a question or problem.
Mike from Milton.
Old-Timer wrote:3) Too many members see the Bishop as the “father of the ward”. I really dislike that idea, especially since it’s not supported in any of our canonized scriptures.
4) There is the mistaken idea that being a leader entitles someone to revelation for the individual people within the organization being led. That’s wrong, but it’s ubiquitous in the Church.
Are you saying that the leader of the organization can receive revelation for the organization but not for the individuals within the organization?
If this is so, it presents a new dynamic for the “callings are inspired of God” scenario. Perhaps they are inspired from the organizational perspective, there was a need and they were inspired to fill it with semi-qualified and faithful individuals.
I guess I was always a little bitter that my wife was consistently (almost like clock-work) placed into a presidency role every time we became pregnant. As time went on and we discovered that a period of post partum depression would follow the birth of each child, the bitterness deepened. “Why would God place these burdens on our family just at the worst moment?” “Why wouldn’t the Bishop enquire about our family situation before issuing the call?” “Should God have inspired the Bishop to know our situation as the ‘Father of the Ward’?”
So a calling may be inspired from the organizational perspective and still not meet the needs of the individual. The individual has a duty/opportunity to receive personal revelation and perhaps indicate to ward leaders where they feel personally called to help out.
Also as a Father, I may receive revelation (together with DW) for my family as a whole, but I should not expect to receive revelation for my individual children in the course they should take. Perhaps I should act as a guide or mentor in helping them to chart their own paths.
Finally, in facing personal challenges I could talk to my Bishop and receive either advice or resources – but I should not expect to surrender the “keys” of my situation (my accountability for my actions) nor expect that any advice given would be a divine substitute for personal pondering/revelation.
Is this how you see it?
Quote:So a calling may be inspired from the organizational perspective and still not meet the needs of the individual. The individual has a duty/opportunity to receive personal revelation and perhaps indicate to ward leaders where they feel personally called to help out.
Exactly. Although I’ve found it’s never been well-received when I suggest a calling for myself. It’s as if the culture is so strong of “do what you are asked” that it’s not appreciated. Ultimately, if you drop the whole “inspired men”, “spiritual giant”, “divinely empowered because of the mantle of their calling” logic, this whole thing makes a lot more sense. I prefer to view it as they have needs and goals for their organization, and if they can get someone committed to do the calling, then often, they will try.
Now, there are some that will put the individuals first, but I’ve found that’s by far the exception, not the rule in my Church experiences.
Essentially, you have to consider what they want, and then let your own clock do the ticking from there. I’m of the mind that if I’m miserable in a calling because I’ve been in it for too long, it’s my own fault for not getting out of it — or accepting it in the first place if I knew I didn’t want it.
The challenge is how to get out of it without causing hard feelings.
****
Personal experience. I was burned out as a HPGL. After they finally released me, my Bishop asked where I would like to serve. I said to myself — “now they are getting it!!”. I gave them three different things I would like to do. Guess what they asked me to do? Early morning seminary teacher!! Talk about extending the burn-out. I refused politely and ended up as a Gospel Essentials teacher for a year, which wasn’t on the list I gave. Worked out OK though. Next time you’re pregnant and they want a hefty time commitment, I would imply speak up and indicate that’s happened a few times before, and you don’t feel you can shoulder the time this time around.
I think a Bishop should be a “spiritual advisor” on our individual journeys. However, I agree with your SD, most of the time they are too busy filling callings and being in meetings. Quote:Are you saying that the leader of the organization can receive revelation for the organization but not for the individuals within the organization?
Yes, Roy – that’s exactly what I’m saying.
Let me give you a real example:
My wife was the YW President. She prayed about who she should suggest to fill positions within that organization, then she gave those names to the Bishop for consideration. The Bishopric talked about each suggestion, then he Bishop told her whether or not her suggestions had been ratified by the Bishopric. Sometimes they were; sometimes they weren’t – and how strongly she felt she had been inspired had nothing to do with the result. (The same thing happened when she was in the Primary Presidency.)
Why the apparent disconnect?
I don’t see a disconnect at all. I see someone praying for inspiration about who would be the best person for a particular position within a particular organization, and then I see another person praying about whether that person would be the best person for that position given the broader perspective of the entire ward – and then I see that person being responsible to determine if that position is one in which she believes God wants her to serve, given her own position in her own “organization” (whether that be only herself or that be her family). I see three different spheres of revelation, if you will, with three different people approaching God for confirmation as to whether a person would be the right “fit” for the calling – and I see the possibility of one or two people receiving a “Yes” answer and one or two receiving a “No” answer – and ALL THREE being “correct”.
The person my wife suggested as her 1st Counselor might or might not be the best person for the YW organization; she might or might not be the best person given the dynamics of the ward; that calling might or might not be the best position for her at that time, regardless of the answer to the larger organizations. Three people; three stewardships; two possible legitimate conclusions each and every step along the way.
On a related note:
If I am married, I believe we must act as one in the decisions we make that have ANY degree of importance – that neither she nor I can receive unilateral revelation for the other or for our family, unless there is some kind of limitation on one of us that renders that one incapable of participating in such decision-making processes. My parents’ situation was one such exception, due to my mother’s schizophrenia, but most marriages don’t have that type of limitation, imo. Many, many marriages default to one person making most of the decisions, but I believe that’s because, primarily, our culture allows the apostate assumption that it is OK to be accepted.
I think it depends who he is and where you are. If you live in a quiet country ward, then it might be a good idea (if you get on with him). In inner city wards though, bishops are often snowed under.
Brown wrote:My Bishop is a 28 year old lawyer. I suppose if my problem is that I need some contracts drawn up, he could be the guy. But I am sure he is no more suited to handling marital stress or personal addictions than the garbage man.
Presuming he’s not in property law or something like that, a general lawyer has to deal with marital issues (usually divorce) all the time surely.
A few possible advantages to “see your Bishop”: 1. They are in fact the head administrator for the ward you are in. So all else aside, they generally know who does what and how that is functioning (good/bad).
2. They are generally men with some life experience, are married, have kids, etc. They might have good advice.
3. They’ve proven themselves to be stable, contributing members of the Church. They tend to be familiar with the ins and outs of how things run.
4. I think there’s something to be said for listening to the advice of someone who BELIEVES they have consecrated their life to counselling people or being a spiritual leader. It doesn’t mean they are always right, but hey. They at least spend a good deal of time focusing on building the spiritual lives of others. That deserves some level of respect in my book.
Well said, Brian. Very well said.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.