A mentor once told me that pastors are to be friendly, but should not become friends with the parishioners. This reflection reminded me of those words she once shared with me. There is a difference between being friendly and become friends - two things that the comments to this article seem to miss. I believe - and have experienced - that being a friendly pastor is healthy for the church and for my own self; but I my friends are outside of my congregation. Someone mentioned Jesus - duh! When I read the gospels, I read about Jesus' friendship with Martha, Mary and Lazarus; and I read about Jesus' love for his disicples. But I have not read about Jesus becoming friends with his disciples. In any case, I have lived by this... I try to be friendly and to love and to listen, and my friends and supporters are outside of my congregation. 

I understand, and maintain the need to separate "friend" from "pastor." And I agree that this creates a very lonely life at times.  Where I struggle here, I suppose, is with the reference to Jesus having friends.  Jesus wasn't a local church pastor.  Jesus wasn't concerned about the relationships he was forming and how they would be impacted once he "moved on."  As a local church pastor, still early in my vocation, I know that I will go on to serve other churches.  If I am to become friends with those in my current setting, I would have greater difficulty maintaining a healthy boundary once I am called to another church.  And that boundary is absolutely necessary, in my opinion, for the next pastor's ability to connect with the congregation. The last thing I want to do is to hinder the transition. 

I think the very argument against your assertion rests in your article.  As an example you tell a story about how your elder friend was also your physician and he was able to be both friend and physician, to separate his friendship from you and his role as your physician.  You rightly state that being pastor to people has nothing to do with being their friend.  However, neither does it preclude that possibility.  Being a pastor to a friend is at least as easy as being pastor to someone whom you know absolutely hates your guts...which I have experienced, and yes, it can be done.  Again, as you say, being someone's friend or not has nothing to do with being their pastor.  This requires, as it does with being a physician, a banker, a lawyer, or anything else, a bit of professionalism.

I'm rather appalled at the assertions in this article.  Condesending to lay persons, yes; arrogant, too.  Pastors are not set aside to be "holy" or "other;" rather, they are identified by the community to teach and preach, to counsel and console, to admonish, to lead.  None of these tasks are incompatible with deep friendship.  In the Gospel of John, Jesus explicitly "befriends" his disciples, his students (John 15): the one who poured himself out...for his friends!...explicitly broke down walls.  And Rev. Barnes here promotes erecting walls.  What is the biblical authority...particularly New Testament authority... supporting Rev. Barnes' assertions?

As a Ruling Elder of 40+ years, having been is several pastor relationships over those years, I have to say that I must agree with Rev. Barnes.  Parishoners can grow to love their pastor, but they cannot be a friend to that Pastor.  I've often thought as I have grown older, and in relation with younger Pastors especially - that they need a "pastor" too, and that they might even benefit by my wisdom and counsel....but roles must be maintained!  Our relationship is primarily that of Pastor and congregant, and I would jeopardize that relationship the moment I offered my "friendship"! Warmth. Affection.  Even love.  Yes!  But friendship?   Hackneyed phrase, but "slippery slope".

It was troubling to read M. Craig Barnes article, “Pastor, not Friend.” The premise of the article is that Rev. Barnes does not understand why his former parishioner, Dr. Jack Anderson, has such difficulty in grasping that the two’s relationship is solely pastor-parishioner, not friends.

At the start of Barnes’ article he says Jack, is “exactly what the Reformers had in mind when writing about the priesthood of all believers.” Yet his article assumes that some are more priestly than others, so much that they should not even be friends with lesser priests. It is my assumption that Barnes does not so much endorse a priesthood of all believers as he does a class of religious professionals, which unfortunately, too often, disempowers the congregants and promotes a passive laity, but that’s another topic.

Barnes describes many experiences he has shared with Anderson (and other parishioners) that would qualify as genuine friendship (e.g., sharing meals, encouraging one another, expressing concern for one another’s family, etc.), yet starkly states “but I was not his friend.”

Barnes states that Anderson even once performed minor surgery on him. He compares Anderson’s decision not to consult him regarding the surgery to Barnes’ decision not to consult Anderson when he was deciding to leave the pastorate for academia. I agree with Barnes that neither needed to consult the other in their professional decisions. The difference is that Anderson continued to consider Barnes a friend even when Barnes was in the dual role of patient, yet Barnes evidently never considered Anderson a friend, but only and exclusively a parishioner.

Barnes points out, “The professional literature supports this call to maintain a distinction between relationships of mutuality and those of service as a pastor.” Professional literature has its place, but sacred literature is what shapes us.

Although academia may promote a separation between clergy and laity, Jesus certainly blurred the lines. Jesus called his disciples “friends” on several occasions (John 21:5; John 15:13-15). So too, the Father considered Abraham (John 2:23b) and Moses a friend (Exodus 33:11b). If Jesus considered his disciples friends, who are we to deny the reality of our relationships. Many times we do not intend to make a friend, but that is exactly what happens, particularly after we have experienced so much together.

I'm with those who are dismayed by Craig Barnes' piece -- in a single sentence he first patronizes his friend ("Jack Anderson will never understand this") and then adopts a superior stance from which to rationalize the condesension ("but it is critical for his sake that I did").  For Barnes the relationship, along with its friendship aspects, also had to do with a pastoral call and, undoubtedly, a particular employment situation  --  and he reserves to himself the right to discern the parameters of both, while leaving his friend in the dark about these underlying features -- no wonder the latter is "confused."  The instance when Jack Anderson treated Barnes as a patient is not in fact symmetrical, as he appears to suggest, because Rev. Barnes understood and consented to the function that his friend was perfoming at that moment, within the context of their relationship.  I possess no credentials in matters theological; however,  were I one of the folks to whom Rev. Barnes considers himself "accountable for the condition of my soul," it would be tempting to recommend a more radical honesty in relational matters as a starting point.  

I pity the people trained and ministered to by anyone with this perspective.  You should really read Tripp's Dangerous Calling for a recent discussion of this very dangerous philosophy of ministry.  I have witnessed two ministry friends burn out horribly in their churches because of this "professionalism."  In fact, one of them told me that you can never be friends with anyone in your church.  I disagreed at the time he said it and I still disagree years later.  It is hard to do it.  The lure to live apart and alone is a constant pull.  And Satan would want nothing more than to isolate pastors and other believers from each other.  But we must be vulnerable and share life pastoring and being pastored by those we serve.  It is part of being the body of Christ. May the wisdom of Christ triumph over this secular pscho babble.

In “Pastor, not friend” (Jan. 9), M. Craig Barnes argues that pastors cannot truly be friends with parishioners. As an Episcopal priest who happens to be married to an Episcopal priest, I completely understand where he is coming from. But I can’t embrace the stance of not having parishioners as friends.

When we moved across the country so my husband could serve as a rector, the first people to bring us lasagna and take my kids to the playground were parishioners. The first people who threw me a baby shower for the birth of my third child was the parish’s moms’ group. And over time we have developed close relationships with some members of the parish. Of course, there are times when I am deeply aware that I need to be careful about what I say or do, but where would I be without these people? Where would I find Christian friends who are willing to brainstorm about ways that we can observe Lent in our home? Where would I find comfort when I needed people with whom I could pray and not feel weird asking them to do so?

Yes, there are times when I wish I could say more to my church friends about my life, but with time I have come to understand that I have to reserve these conversations for my husband. And I know that at times people will not like my husband’s decisions--or even him. Yet my children will continue to worship in that parish every week, sing in the primary choir and run around like crazy at the parish pancake suppers. 

The Christian life is full of paradoxes. But with regard to friends, both my husband and I recognize our need to have them--both within and without the parish. And because we are merely human we make friends. Of course, as mere humans do, sometimes we hurt our friends and they hurt us. But forgiveness and reconciliation seem a better path than absolute loneliness.

Melissa Wilcox

Bryn Mawr, Pa.

I  do not agree that friendships between pastor and parishioner are impossible or inappropriate. I’ve asked many pastors their opinion on this issue. Some agreed with Barnes, but many said something like this: “Friendships between pastor and parishioner are possible and perhaps even inevitable. But the minister must be very clear about which topics to avoid in conversation with friends in the congregation.” 

When the elder came to Barnes to express his anger that Barnes hadn’t included him in the discernment process about leaving the church, I would have said, “I value your friendship very much. However, you know that there are topics ministers simply cannot discuss with people in the congregation, and discernment about leaving is one of those topics. I’m sorry that’s the way it is, and I’m sorry that’s hurtful to you.”

Lynne Baab

Dunedin, New Zealand

Barnes is spot on. He is trying to help unravel the challenges of dual relationships in ministry, and he does so in a thoughtful and nuanced way. The thing about dual relationships is that we should probably avoid them when

we can, but we must manage them when they can’t be avoided. 

I was curious, however, about why

he chose a parishioner as his physician. That would seem to be an avoidable dual relationship.

Marie M. Fortune

FaithTrust Institute,

Seattle

The argument against Barnes’s point is in his own article. He tells of how an elder in the church, who was also a physician, was able to be both friend and physician--able to separate his friendship from Barnes and his role as physician. 

Barnes rightly states that being pastor to people has nothing to do with being their friend. However, neither does it preclude that possibility. Being a pastor to a friend is at least as easy as being pastor to someone whom you know absolutely hates your guts--which I have experienced. Yes, it can be done. Again, as Barnes says, being someone’s friend or not has nothing to do with being their pastor. This requires, as it does with being a physician, a banker, a lawyer or anything else, a bit of professionalism.

Owen Cayton

Stillwater, Okla.

Like Craig Barnes, I have been a pastor for over 30 years, though most of mine has been in small towns. I have also served as Stated Clerk in 3 different Presbyteries. In small towns, avoiding dual relationships is often not an option. From the barber to the auto mechanic, to the insurance agent, the doctor, dentist, children's school teachers, and the banker (which is the hardest and the worst) I have had dual relationships. The good news is, most everyone was a professional and understood how to deal with dual relationships. The best way to do that is for the pastor to also be a professional, to be friendly, to provide pastoral care when needed, and show great respect, but not expect favors, special treatment, or anything else unprofessional.

In my experience, ther pastors who ended up in trouble in their parish were those to blurred the boundary between pastor and friend. Misconduct, of course, is the ultimate boundary violation, but not the only one. The business of forming friendships in the congregation usually backfires in ways causing friction in the congregation leading to the need for the pastor to move on.

That is the type of friendship I hear Mr. Barnes talking about. While pastors and parishioners can develop deep emotional bonds, especially in times of loss and tragedy, there still needs to be a distance to provide the best possible care. My parents used the word "chummy" to describe people who became too close and their lives too intertwined. That's what I hear Mr. Barnes saying pastors absolutely need to avoid.

It really troubles me that some responders to this article don't see it. When pastors quit acting like professionals in doing their job the church suffers.

While I understand and can sympathize that some seminaries incorrectly cling to an outmoded methodology of teaching their ministers to maintain a distance between their congregation and themselves, this is a wrong approach as many commenters have pointed out. By now we ought to have acquired far more spiritual insight than foisting an egoistic stance of ministers setting themselves apart rather than forming union. Ministers are no longer thought of, nor should (s)he think of themselves, as demigods removed from the flock, but instead as servant disciples that walk hand in hand with their congregation. Isn't the point of ministry to point the Way to our Divine Source -- certainly through teaching and counseling, but more importantly through encounter and example?

Unfortunately, impressionable young people hoping to facilitate communal well-being are often taught to live a circumscribed spiritual and emotional life that thwarts their own well-being and hinders that of others. How can one give what one does not have in abundance? Hence, the cinder in the other's eye is the focus instead of the log often found in many ministers.

To pastor means to tend to the congregation or flock. I challenge every minister to justify how holding oneself apart and/or superior is healthy, or whether it is right-minded to think that anyone who extends the hand of true friendship should be given short shrift just because (s)he may be a secular person and/or parishioner. Ministers are not to lord it over their congregation but to work with their members to meet the Lord.

How can ministers talk the talk when they may not have walked the walk that many members deal with under very challenging circumstances on a daily basis, year after year? Just because we as ministers may have training and see a somewhat broad spectrum of dysfunction, that does not necessarily qualify us as a spiritually gifted resource, especially when we maintain a disengaged stance. Sometimes we have been trained to think others need our specific brand of guidance rather than to offer what we each truly need: to live with dignity, to act with integrity and to love with compassion. There is no lock on those aspects of agape confining it to the ordained. What is lost if we permit a human friendship to allow God to manifest in whomever and in whatever surprising ways presented, thus becoming more fully known and appreciated? Are charisms confined to the ordained?

How may you possibly tend to the spiritual needs of anyone unless you allow yourself a progressive experience of Divine Source? One certainly cannot pastor another from a self-satisfied position nor can one expand one's perspective by only feeding from the same trough of fellow clergy for self-help.

In Christianity we are called to live the Beatitudes. As I understand it, the Beatitudes are a challenge to each of us, clergy and laity, to minister without exception and in all circumstances. Please show where there is a distinction made that only the ordained can reissue this divine universal call.

Seminaries ought to encourage ministers to enter into the vulnerable role of being pastored to by others, should they encounter the offer of a good and healthy friendship. We clergy must discern, just as the laity has to, but authentic friendships ought to be cherished. Perhaps those without ministry degrees can sometimes teach, heal, and in deed pastor more effectively. Yes, ministers may be required to serve elsewhere and the regular bonds of friendship will be interrupted. This is also true for many in the secular world who have to move for employment. Somehow, true friendships are maintained across time and space.

Ministers may be called to be objective counselors and to offer guidance that challenges the seeker to move beyond their comfort zone. This is also true for all good and caring friends in the secular world. Can I befriend my parishioner? Can my parishioner befriend me? The answers depend on the spiritual and emotional health of the individuals involved and are not prescribed by the role. That is as it should be in any relationship.

Now this is not to say that any of us must allow unhealthy individuals access to our personal space. This is as much true for the unhealthy minister preying on the weak parishioner as it would be for the exploitive congregationalist to sucker punch a less spiritually mature pastor. A few have mentioned that the parish will suffer if pastors quit acting as professionals. Undoubtedly this is true, as partiality is damaging when shown by parents, employers or teachers wearing blue, white or clerical collars. Acting as a professional does not preclude enjoying the warmth of friendship. It just means that both parties must recognize appropriate boundaries as is true of every relationship.

Sometimes it's easier for those who have become so specialized (dare I say narrow-minded) to consider it from the opposite perspective. I offer the following excerpt from Wiki on ex-pastors in hopes that it resonates and sparks a period of examination. Class distinctions and separations create exclusion, confusion and block the union with Source that we are called to foster. If seminaries examine the reasons why so many who wanted to serve wind up leaving the ministry, perhaps a more perfect nurturing of those called to serve as clergy would emerge and slow the drift away. If seminaries heed this message, perhaps many more clergy would be able to join their congregation in experiencing and building the kingdom right here, right now rather than vainly instructing.

"Observers such as clergy counselor Rowland Croucher suggest that the numbers of "ex-pastors" roughly equals that of serving clergy throughout the Western world.[3] This would mean people who have left the ministry number in the six-figures. More pastors and priests may be leaving parish ministry than are lost to most other professions.[4] Until the early 1990s, there were few cross-denominational ministries serving this group. Croucher collected data-based questionnaires of ministers of Protestant denominations.[5][6][7] The first writers to explore this research area used questionnaire surveys to look at factors such as age, education and family relationships as contributing factors to decisions to leave the ministry.[8] Other writers have explored ex-pastors within particular denominations[9][10][11] and/or focused on particular related issues such as burnout,[12][13] stress,[14][15] marital stress,[16] sexual abuse,[17] celibacy,[18] loneliness,[19] organisational factors,[20][21] and conflict.[22] One common cause of conflict occurs when differing approaches to ministry compete in the minds of clergy, congregation and community, as Norman Blaikie found in Australian clergy from six Protestant denominations.[23] For some of the estimated 10,000 ex-pastors from Australian Protestant churches, their transition was a normal mid-career move, voluntarily entered into like many of the role exits described in the classic study by sociologist (and ex-nun) Helen Ebaugh.[24] Yet for many the transition out of parish ministry was premature. Clergy, churches and training bodies need a solid basis for understanding and action in order to reduce the attrition rate and enhance clergy, congregational and community health. Some denominations experience particularly high rates of attrition.[25] Key recommendations to help alleviate stress in clergy exit situations may revolve around the development of professional supervision and continuing education. Professional supervision for ministry is a method of reflecting critically on ministry as a way of growing in self-awareness, cultural and social awareness, ministry competence and theological reflection skills.[26][27] Supervision that includes an element of peer group work has the potential to facilitate collaborative learning, enhanced group dynamic skills and ongoing supportive networks.[28] Some denominations are encouraging their clergy to engage in professional supervision, as part of their mandatory requirement of professional standards, but the requirements and standards of clergy supervision are often haphazard or absent."

Spiritual physician heal thyself!

As pastors, as I see it, we are not excluded from the life of the body but rather we are called to lead the way as we follow our Savior's example who washed His disciples feet and called them friends.