Get trained in a hurry

Posted by Wim Baarschers on December 15, 1997 at 17:19:00:

I have followed most postings concerning the Phipps issue. I am disappointed and concerned.
I am disappointed that this entire debate is carried on by a small group of clergy. Maybe there are only a few ministers that have the time to sit long evenings at a keyboard, but I had hoped for some more interest, particularly among non-clergy. Perhaps the latter is understandable. I have little desire to participate myself, since most of the discussion appears to be "theology in pulpitese." However, one important point must be made.

I am concerned about the qualifications of the clergy. In a guest editorial on Nov.25 (United-on Line) Matthew Penney wrote:

"The United church does it's people and employees a great disservice by allowing them to be hauled apart by the media. Each of the United Church clergy in St.Thomas got a call from the local press for reaction to the story of Mr. Phipps. Each had a somewhat different response. Each was uncomfortable with the result. WE ARE NOT TRAINED FOR THAT VERY HARD WORLD OUT THERE (my emphasis). After 1988 there was an attempt to do some media training in the Conferences. But perhaps Bill Phipps missed that course."

Well, there we have it folks. Ladies and gentlemen clergy, you are not trained for that very hard world out here. I say "here" because it is in this hard, cold, cruel world where the rest of us live. It is here where some real struggles with Faith and Christian Living are going on. And if you don't get "trained" for this real world out here in a hurry, God help the church.
Wim Baarschers, Thunder Bay



Posted by Jay Bigland on December 16, 1997 at 19:34:07:

In Reply to: GET TRAINED IN A HURRY posted by Wim Baarschers on December 15, 1997 at 17:19:00:

: I have followed most postings concerning the Phipps issue. I am dissapointed and concerned.
: I am disappointed that this entire debate is carried on by a small group of clergy.

I agree. I am not trained clergy. I am just a United Church member in Prince George BC. I find the statements by our moderator inflamatory and completly unnecessary. I am condemned to doing "damage control" in my community among christians from other denominations. I will tire at some point. I think people in leadership should take a look around and see the needs of the grassroots. If they can't see it - then find someone who does. From the view where I sit, the rank and file have chosen to ignore the moderator and the younger families are voting with their feet. Good luck on setting things right.



Posted by Nenke Jongkind on January 20, 1998 at 17:43:51:

In Reply to: Re: GET TRAINED IN A HURRY posted by Jay Bigland on
December 16, 1997 at 19:34:07:

I would not ever use the word 'just' before United Church member.

I do not live in your community nor do i share your perceptions. However, when
I do not agree with something someone (including a moderator) has said, I'm not
sure I ever feel condemned to doig damage control. All I need to do is choose
what my role is going to be. That is a life-giving opportunity to share the 'good
news'.

The people who choose to misunderstand what Bill Phipps has said, or who
disagree with his perspective can choose how they respond. I do not need to
defend Bill or the United Church. If others do feel the need to comment or poke
fun or walk away, God will be with them and continue to journey with them in
their quest for a community.

We, as 'grass roots' can discern the needs locally and offer ourselves to help
make community happen.



What is the real issue here?

Posted by Jim Love on December 16, 1997 at 11:11:45:

In Reply to: GET TRAINED IN A HURRY posted by Wim Baarschers on December 15, 1997 at 17:19:00:

> Well, there we have it folks. Ladies and gentlemen clergy, you are not trained for that very hard world out here. I say "here" because it is in this hard, cold, cruel world where  the rest of us live. It is here where some real struggles with Faith and Christian Living  are going on. And if you don't get "trained" for this real world out here in a hurry, God help the church.

First question: Are you trolling? (Def. Trolling - intentionally contributing to a discussion for the purpose of causing dis-ease or upset, in order to satisfy a personal need to cause harm. Or in lay terms ... getting your jollies at another's expense ... in this case the clergy who have been contributing here). If you are trolling then shame on you. If not then I am sorry for raising the question. I have been on the internet long enough to know that such folks exist.

Second Question: Do you think your experience here or other places is enough information for you to make a judgment on all clergy? I don't think so. If you think so, please explain how you are able to know this.

Third Question: What is your real concern? That the theology that is being preached does not adequately deal with the problem of evil and suffering in the world? Is that the issue here?

If you are not satisfied with your clergy, perhaps you should do some reading yourself. With your experience of the world you will have a lot of experience that will help you reflect upon the theology you read. I could suggest some theologians who know about the real world. I can think of about 4 who spent time in war camps and one who died in one. Perhaps these folks would speak a theology that is more meaningful to you. Email me if you are interested in a reading list.



Posted by Wim Baarschers on December 16, 1997 at 13:10:17:

In Reply to: What is the real issue here? posted by Jim Love on December 16, 1997 at 11:11:45:

Jim Love wrote (Dec.16): First question: Are you trolling?
Answer: No

Second Question: Do you think your experience here or other places is enough information for you to make a judgment on all clergy?
Answer: I did not make a judgement on all clergy. I quoted an editorial.

Third Question: What is your real concern?
Answer: My real concern is that the political fall-out about what Phipps said or not said or should have said is not important enough to spend so much time on. I believe there are more important issues to deal with. That is, of course, my opinion. Feel free to agree or disagree.

"If you are not satisfied with your clergy, perhaps you should...."

I did not say I was dissatisfied with "my clergy" I believe it was Matthew Penney who made that suggestion.

Mike Jones (Dec 15) suggested that: "I would suggest that anyone slinging mud at the clergy reconsider these kinds of generalizations." I have trouble seeing the generalization of your editorialist as "mudslinging."

Sorry to see some of the participants in this discussion take offense. Perhaps I don't speak the language, so this will have to be the end of my brief participation in this debate.



Posted by George Hermanson on December 16, 1997 at 17:39:27:

In Reply to: Re: What is the real issue here? posted by Wim Baarschers on December 16, 1997 at 13:10:17:

: Well, there we have it folks. Ladies and gentlemen clergy, you are not trained for that very hard world out here. I say "here" because it is in this hard, cold, cruel world where the rest of us live.
It is here where some real struggles with Faith and Christian Living are going on. And if you don't get "trained" for this real world out here in a hurry, God help the church.

: Jim Love wrote (Dec.16): First question: Are you trolling? Answer: No

: Second Question: Do you think your experience here or other places is enough information for you to make a judgment on all clergy? Answer: I did not make a judgement on all clergy. I quoted an editorial.

: Third Question: What is your real concern? Answer: My real concern is that the political fall-out about what Phipps said or not said or should have said is not important enough to spend so much time on. I believe there are more important issues to deal with. That is, of course, my opinion. Feel free to agree or disagree.
: "If you are not satisfied with your clergy, perhaps you should...."
: I did not say I was dissatisfied with "my clergy" I believe it was Matthew Penney who made that suggestion.

: Mike Jones (Dec 15) suggested that: "I would suggest that anyone slinging mud at the clergy reconsider these kinds of generalizations." I have trouble seeing the generalization of your editorialist as "mudslinging."

: Sorry to see some of the participants in this discussion take offense. Perhaps I don't speak the language, so this will have to be the end of my brief participation in this debate.

AS a clergy I am on your side Wim Baarschers, this whole issue has been blown out of the sky by some who have not kept up with new scholarship... we should never be afraid to speak in any public debate when we are knowlegable, if we donot know something thna remain silent. 



Posted by Richard Fairchild on December 16, 1997 at 23:49:44:

In Reply to: Re: What is the real issue here? posted by George Hermanson on December 16, 1997 at 17:39:27:

Well, I don't know what the real issue is - unless it is the tone we take with one another. But we are adults here and so we can reckon with the medium and express ourselves.

For me the issue is indeed deciding on what scholarship to follow. I have a bit of an academic background - and leanings - and have found that our pre-existing faith and experience determines what kind of scholars we are going to listen to. Indeed, as Dr. James Eayrs, once said "most people come to university to have their biases confirmed and leave that way". As he spoke to us he didn't differentuate between biases. Something to mull over. -- Richard



Posted by Dave Ellis on December 16, 1997 at 19:48:41:

In Reply to: Re: What is the real issue here? posted by George Hermanson on December 16, 1997 at 17:39:27:

: AS a clergy I am on your side Wim Baarschers, this whole issue has been blown out of the sky by some who have not kept up with new scholarship... we should never be afraid to speak in any public debate when we are knowlegable, if we donot know something thna remain silent.

If we don't know something then keep quiet? Everybody has a point of view and we learn more by speaking our minds. Others will reply and we can then decided whether to modify our opinions or not.

As far as keeping up with current scholarship goes... Give me a break! There is a world full of scholars out there who disagree with each other. Whats current is not necessarily true or right.. its just current. Its deciding what scholarship to believe. If you think that the scholarship you follow is the only scholarship out there - well your limiting your reading.

I don't think there are easy answers here. You can't just say keep up with the scholarship and you'll find the truth.



Posted by Jim Love on December 16, 1997 at 19:38:22:

In Reply to: Re: What is the real issue here? posted by George Hermanson on December 16, 1997 at 17:39:27:

: AS a clergy I am on your side Wim Baarschers, this whole issue has been blown out of the sky by some who have not kept up with new scholarship... we should never be afraid to speak in any public debate when we are knowlegable, if we donot know something than remain silent.

What do you mean by recent scholarship ... the Jesus Seminar stuff? I wouldn't consider that stuff recent. I've read that theology and find it quite weak. I have real concerns about Bill Phipp's weak theological expressions. I also have real concern about Jesus Seminar theology. My concerns come from a post-liberal/postmodern Orthodox perspective (Frei, Linbeck, Oden).


Posted by George Hermanson on December 17, 1997 at 18:02:35:

In Reply to: Re: What is the real issue here? posted by Jim Love on December
16, 1997 at 19:38:22:

: : AS a clergy I am on your side Wim Baarschers, this whole issue has been
blown out of the sky by some who have not kept up with new scholarship... we
should never be afraid to speak in any public debate when we are knowlegable, if
we donot know something thna remain silent

: What do you mean by recent scholarship ... the Jesus Seminar stuff? I wouldn't
consider that stuff recent. I've read that theology and find it quite weak. I have
real concerns about Bill Phipp's weak theological expressions. I also have real
concern about Jesus Seminar theology. My concerns come from a
post-liberal/postmodern Orthodox perspective (Frei, Linbeck, Oden).

Jim; If you were to sumbit your list as coherent group I would say you do not
understand the differences in post modern-liberal thought... Oden doesn't belong
in teh list as he is a move back to orthodoxy... the ost liberals from yale would be
upset to put in the same list... dso you don't like the jesus seminar... I have
studied at Union virigina... as well as Claremont.. as well as read in the anti jesus
seminar.... as well as the jesus seminar... read the aearly dead sea scroll stuff
from the 60's or the chicago school than make your comments



 Posted by Jim Love on December 18, 1997 at 00:08:18:

In Reply to: Re: What is the real issue here? posted by George Hermanson on
December 17, 1997 at 18:02:35:

: Jim; If you were to sumbit your list as coherent group I would say you do not
understand the differences in post modern-liberal thought... Oden doesn't belong
in teh list as he is a move back to orthodoxy... the ost liberals from yale would be
upset to put in the same list... dso you don't like the jesus seminar... I have
studied at Union virigina... as well as Claremont.. as well as read in the anti jesus
seminar.... as well as the jesus seminar... read the aearly dead sea scroll stuff
from the 60's or the chicago school than make your comments

Funny thing that the 1996 "New Handbook of Christian Theologians" lists Frei,
Lindbeck and Oden as post-liberals ...



 Posted by George Hermasnon on December 19, 1997 at 12:16:22:

In Reply to: Re: What is the real issue here? posted by Jim Love on December
18, 1997 at 00:08:18:

: : Jim; If you were to sumbit your list as coherent group I would say you do not
understand the differences in post modern-liberal thought... Oden doesn't belong
in the list as he is a move back to orthodoxy... the ost liberals from yale would be
upset to put in the same list... dso you don't like the jesus seminar... I have
studied at Union virigina... as well as Claremont.. as well as read in the anti Jesus
seminar.... as well as the Jesus seminar... read the early dead sea scroll stuff
from the 60's or the chicago school than make your comments

: Funny thing that the 1996 "New Handbook of Christian Theologians" listsrei,
FLindbeck and Oden as post-liberals ...

The Yale school, which includes Frier and Lindbeck were given the name post
liberal, of course Willamon and Some at Duke now claim this.... Oden began as a liberal neoorthodox and in his works now claims to be orthodox and is a leading
theologican in the new conservatism, like Scott in this country...post liberal in the
sense they have rejected liberalism... where as the yale school is not a return to
orthodoxy but are concerned with language and culture... post liberal in the sense
they move beyond liberalism and are radical contextualists or relativists... We
work only with in our cultural/language group and can claim no truth beyond our
own language or doctrinal system... all is interpretation... where as Oden beleves
in revelation... a big difference... I am a post modern recontructionist out of the
Process School, which is post liberal in its roots are liberalism (as is yale) and
have not rejected liberalism, as has Oden bu not the yale school (as part of its
historical route to a post modern position, a non supernaturalist, non special and
unigue revelationists - It is (Process) Panentheistic historically Christian position.



Posted by Peter Smith on December 16, 1997 at 07:35:19:

In Reply to: GET TRAINED IN A HURRY posted by Wim Baarschers on
December 15, 1997 at 17:19:00:

: Well, there we have it folks. Ladies and :gentlemen clergy, you are not trained
for that :very hard world out here. I say "here" because :it is in this hard, cold,
cruel world where the rest :of us live.

Those words of the guest editorialist are best left for him to explain. But as for
me I have never lived anywhere but the hard,cold, cruel world...

:It is here where some real struggles with Faith :and Christian Living are going on. And if you don't get "trained" for this real world out here in a hurry, God help
the church.

There was a time when all ministers had to deal with were struggles of faith and
Christian living. The demands on clergy (as on other professions) have changed
over time.

Now ministers are expected to be competant in civil law, criminal law,
counselling, psychology, accounting, social work, business, and a whole host of
professions. That of course does not include the "traditional" work of a minister.
Before we start to think our clergy are unprepared perhaps we should look at
what we expect them to do...



Posted by David Shearman on December 16, 1997 at 07:30:08:

In Reply to: GET TRAINED IN A HURRY posted by Wim Baarschers on
December 15, 1997 at 17:19:00:

: Well, there we have it folks. Ladies and gentlemen clergy, you are not trained
for that very hard world out here. I say "here" because it is in this hard, cold,
cruel world where the rest of us live. It is here where some real struggles with
Faith and Christian Living are going on. And if you don't get "trained" for this real
world out here in a hurry, God help the church.
Wim Baarschers, Thunder Bay

Wim, it takes about five years after ordinatuion to discover that what you were
trained for in Theological College is not the ministry you are engaging in. Most
theological colleges educate for a generation past. Few educate for the future.
One of the important discoveries for all ministers is that you need additional
training to do what you know needs to be done.

In my own case, three units of CPE equipped me well for the ministry of pastoral care and for preaching. Others engage in post-graduate studies.

One colleague "reinvents" himself every five or six years and recovenants with
the congregation for ministry.

Don't despair. Some of us do "get it".



Posted by Mike Jones on December 15, 1997 at 19:47:20:

In Reply to: GET TRAINED IN A HURRY posted by Wim Baarschers on
December 15, 1997 at 17:19:00:

: I am disappointed that this entire debate is carried on by a small group of clergy. Maybe there are only a few ministers that have the time to sit long evenings at a
keyboard,

: I am concerned about the qualifications of the clergy. In a guest editorial on
Nov.25 (United-on Line) Matthew Penney wrote:
: "The United church does it's people and employees a great disservice by
allowing them to be hauled apart by the media. Each of the United Church clergy
in St.Thomas got a call from the local press for reaction to the story of Mr.
Phipps. Each had a somewhat different response. Each was uncomfortable with
the result. WE ARE NOT TRAINED FOR THAT VERY HARD WORLD OUT THERE (my emphasis). After 1988 there was an attempt to do some media
training in the Conferences. But perhaps Bill Phipps missed that course."

I would suggest that anyone slinging mud at the clergy reconsider these kinds of
generalizations. Many people become clergy having already invested a part of
their lives in a "career" in the "real world".

As for the comment concerning "long evenings at the keyboard", I can only
respond with the words: "I wish!"



Posted by A.C.Barnes on December 15, 1997 at 18:21:47:

In Reply to: GET TRAINED IN A HURRY posted by Wim Baarschers on
December 15, 1997 at 17:19:00:

If one follows the 'training/instruction' courses that Jesus gave the disciples, they were done in the midst of his congregation most times. Remember the disciples being sent out 'two by two'. With each other for company, encouragement and
possibly correction if one was getting off the track in the teaching ministry, those guys had a very quick, 'experiencial-kind' of training. But the United Church sends their ordinands 'just about where they want to go! - none of this
'experiencing the dust of Sask.' for our students to-day.

I would hazard a guess that most of our clergy wouldn't know what or how to do the simple ministry of the disciples' training - heal the sick, cast out demons (for that you have to believe there are such things!) and preach 'the good news' - that would be understanding what 'sin' was and receiving forgiveness (I would suggest) to the poor - the down-and-out (they know they have a need) and the up-and-out (they are a little harder to be convinced that there is any such thing as 'sin' or deeds that need to be confessed. My husband's training 'on the Prairies with 5 churches' was definitely a way to 'get trained in a hurry'. Now it seems it is necessary to learn 'what to say and what NOT to say' in public, or one could get ones head and reputation caught in a noose. Speaking from the heart about a personal, spiritual experience can even create havoc on this page. My responses (all from clergy so far) have been anything but spiritual - lots of 'maybe it didn't happen that way' or 'where you there when it happened?' or 'Did you actually hear that person speak, How can you criticize if you didn't actually hear!

No we weren't THERE in Jesus' day, we didn't hear his words of wisdom, but we do know that the message of the New Testament has God's approval or the message would have been lost years ago - a trend that would have come and gone with the whims of humanity. But it didn't!!!! The message spoken now, 1997 is the same basic message that was spoken then and translated many years later in English. Acknowledging Jesus as Lord is still a requirement of the Christian's experience. To acknowledge Him as anything less, is heresy according to my Random House Dictionary.

Yes! If our 'clergy' and 'out-spoken' lay folk don't have guidance, we could find ourselves in a heresy debate. The United Church of Canada really needs that kind of advertisement right now!!!!

: I have followed most postings concerning the Phipps issue. I am dissapointed
and concerned.
: I am disappointed that this entire debate is carried on by a small group of clergy.
Maybe there are only a few ministers that have the time to sit long evenings at a
keyboard, but I had hoped for some more interest, particularly among non-clergy.

Perhaps the latter is understandable. I have little desire to participate myself, since most of the discussion appears to be "theology in pulpitese." However, one important point must be made.

: I am concerned about the qualifications of the clergy. In a guest editorial on
Nov.25 (United-on Line) Matthew Penney wrote:
: "The United church does it's people and employees a great disservice by
allowing them to be hauled apart by the media. Each of the United Church clergy
in St.Thomas got a call from the local press for reaction to the story of Mr.
Phipps. Each had a somewhat different response. Each was uncomfortable with
the result. WE ARE NOT TRAINED FOR THAT VERY HARD WORLD OUT THERE (my emphasis). After 1988 there was an attempt to do some media
training in the Conferences. But perhaps Bill Phipps missed that course."

: Well, there we have it folks. Ladies and gentlemen clergy, you are not trained
for that very hard world out here. I say "here" because it is in this hard, cold,
cruel world where the rest of us live. It is here where some real struggles with
Faith and Christian Living are going on. And if you don't get "trained" for this real world out here in a hurry, God help the church.
: Wim Baarschers, Thunder Bay



Posted by John Maich on December 16, 1997 at 13:24:03:

In Reply to: Re: GET TRAINED IN A HURRY posted by A.C.Barnes on
December 15, 1997 at 18:21:47:

: But the United Church sends their ordinands 'just about where they want to go! - none of this 'experiencing the dust of Sask.'

Hello A.C.,

As a student preparing for ordination within the United Church of Canada I have
been following as closely as possible the patterns of transfer and settlement. I
don't come armed with statistics or graphs but I do come with some of the
experiential.

First, the United Church of Canada does not send ordinands just about anywhere
they want to go, if this were true then Maritime Conference would be full of
clergy, particularly those pastoral charges in the Caribbean:-)

More frequently the candidate for ministry is not a youth fresh out of an
undergraduate program with no family attachments or responsibilities. Many are
coming to this vocation after careers elsewhere and they are bringing their spouse
and children with them. Perhaps the spouse sacrifices a lot personally, looking
after the children and holding down a job for this candidate to complete the
necessary theological education and fulfil the requirtements of an internship and
the conference and presbytery interviews. Then comes settlement. Is it
appropriate then that this spouse with a career must now also risk that career so
that the United Church can send that candidate wherever?

I am married and I have three children under five. My wife is also a full-time
student who aspires to teach. The United Church of Canada will ask us where we
would prefer to go and they will tell us what the needs of the church are. They
tell us this so that if there is any reason why we can't live in the Saskatchewan
dust, like maybe one of our children has respiratory problems. How can the
Church justify a settlement charge which places an undue burden on any member
of my family?

The majority of ordinands, I suspect, are not looking to settle in Toronto,
Vancouver or Montreal. They are not looking for a settlement charge that will
permit them to have a place for their horse. Neither are they looking for a place
which will save them the hassle of moving. They are looking for a place which
will embrace them and allow them to grow in their ministry. Granted there are a
few candidates who want to settle in Vancouver, Toronto or Montreal for selfish
reasons but the experience of many who have served on the National Transfer
and Settlement Committee suggests that these individuals will be forced to do
some rethinking or defer their ordination.

Regarding the going out in two's, my wife and I are leading a movement among
our friends who are also candidates for ordination, to settle in the same conference. This isn't because we couldn't live without them it is because for the past four years they have been our support and we theirs maybe that support can continue after ordination?

Just for your information I have been looking really hard at settleing in
Newfoundland Labradour Conference. I have heard one person, at least, say that
only people unfit to minister ask for this as settlement so I may be shooting
myself in the foot;-) I have also heard from cousins on the rock that fresh fruit
and vegetables are hard to come by on the Rock. Fresh fruits and vegetables
feature predominantly in the diets of my family. I am sure that my wife and I
could survive but what about my kids? I am aware that there have been children
in Newfoundland who do survive these appalling conditions;-)but do I have a
right to impose this limitation on my children. Settlement is not a game ordinands
play, at least not most, it is the final step of answering God's call. The question
then for me is how does my response to God's call square with my obligation to
love my family as God loves them?



Posted by Jayne Little on January 04, 1998 at 14:27:04:

In Reply to: Re: GET TRAINED IN A HURRY posted by A. C. Barnes on
December 27, 1997 at 21:43:36:

The following is simply a challenge to Audrey's laying of guilt on pastor's wives...
for those of you who wish to follow the thread on training feel free to ignore this
thread

: I guess I am not very sympathetic for women who have 3 little ones under five,
planning on a career that will take them out of the home where these children are.

Hmmm, Audrey...now let me get this right... you are not sympathetic for women
that plan a career taking them out of the home...but you don't mind a man doing
the same... I guess I can take that to mean that you don't agree with stay-at-home
Dad's...is that correct?

: We have great concern for the families of pastoral workers, who are drawn in different directions 'due to the wife desiring to have a career'.

Hmmm, again I take it that you are laying blame on the wife for desiring to have
a career, but no blame on the husband? Am I correct?

: I did not do this until my children were OVER four years old.

I am so glad that you were able to enjoy your children's early years. that must
have been wonderful for you.

: We felt we had responsible 'baby-sitters', but are now being reminded just how inadequate was our preparation.

I would agree, it is difficult to find "babysitter". II

: Little ones can grow up in other parts of Canada quite well, but they have a much greater problem, growing up without their Mom 'at home'!!!

We could have a major discussion on the importance of being at home with
children. I don't feel this is the place for such a discussion, suffice it to say that I
disagree with you here.

One major point...I would have less of a problem with your statement if you had
said Mom or Dad at home.

: I have lived to regret leaving the children for my opportunity to 'work' away from home.

Not sure why you put "work" in quotes here..

: These many years later, we are often reminded by our 'now adult children, ages 25, 27, 32 and 37, of things that took place when I was away from our home, pursuing a career.

Hmmm. sounds like your children are good at laying on the guilt... it is possible
that was taught by their caregivers. I hope they also tell you about the wonderful
things that happened when you were at home..

I am confused here...sorry Audrey, I thought you stayed at home with your
children until they were over 4....what do you consider early childhood ?

: Much counsel, and much wisdom should be used when we, as mothers, decide that a career is more important then our childrens' early childhood training...

HMMMMM (notice the caps)... we, as mothers...not we, as parents...does this
mean that the mothers are solely responsible for their children's care? A career is
"more important"...possibly differently important... we could have fun with this
one Audrey....

Anyways, I think you catch my disagreements...I will let other people agree/disagree with your statements on settlements.



Posted by sandra ohlinger on January 14, 1998 at 00:01:07:

In Reply to: Re: GET TRAINED IN A HURRY posted by Jayne Little on
January 04, 1998 at 14:27:04:

A career is "more important"...possibly differently important... we could have fun
with this one Audrey....

: Anyways, I think you catch my disagreements...I will let other people
agree/disagree with your statements on settlements.

Audrey: I have only one comment to make, I sincerly doubt that anyone would really believe a paid babysitter will love and nuture a child as much as it's mother..
The women I work with, without exception instinctivly know this and are most
defensive about the topic.Those who put off their return to work are truly putting
their childs' welfare first. I too worked when my children reached school age and even though it was part time it was not the wisest thing I have ever done .
If the father is able to care for the children as some ministers are able to do here
and there that is wonderful. This may not be the place for these remarks but having seen your good advice challenged in such a hostile manner I am pleased to agree with you.

Much Joy in your ministry, yours is a difficult path.



 

 

.