Let it be clear from the start that I am not against mentorship as such. In fact, mentorship is common and functions in many ways among families, friends, and associates. I am sure that everyone can admit to having been mentored at one time or another. What I do question is whether mentorship should become an official, organized ministry in the church involving people who are hardly trained for this kind of work.

The ministry of mentorship is on the rise. It fits within our individualistic time. I found some useful information on the Internet, www.stephenministries.org.

Mentorship is a one to one relationship of support and help that the members of the church give to each other. It is something like the concrete realization of the communion of saints: we are here to help one another. There is a “mentor” who guides and teaches. There is a “protégé” or mentoree who receives this guidance. It is not meant to be a casual, passing relationship but a form of help which deepens with time until the protégé has overcome personal difficulties and may perhaps become a mentor.

Mentoring has always existed as a form of apprenticeship. Someone more advanced in a certain trade helps along someone not so advanced. The point here is that mentoring has become a church ministry with people trained in life skills and experienced in coping with adversity. Mentoring now has a psychosocial and spiritual emphasis.

Professionals and Fumblers⤒🔗

The Lord Jesus has entrusted his church to office­bearers, ministers, elders, and deacons, who are called “to prepare God’s people for service, so that the body of Christ may be built up” (Eph 4:12, 13). In my understanding mentorship is a work that is done by the minister in preaching and the elders and deacons in teaching and visiting.

This does not mean that mentorship can only be done by office bearers. We all support and guide each other in many ways. But I do see a potential problem here: the distinction between the work of the office bearers and the mentors may become somewhat fuzzy-wuzzy.

This new approach to pastoral care may lead to some confusion because the mentors are officially appointed and sent (to the USA) for special training. They will return home to train others as leaders. In reality they have only a week of training, and I wonder how effective this can be. Also, I want to ask the question whether mentoring will be done only by male communicant members or also by women. If I don’t ask this question, someone will. I know that mentorship is not meant as an office, but still some members may be rather uncomfortable with it. After all, mentorship is often referred to as a “ministry” and that word tends in the direction of an office.

It is very easy to see the mentors as professionals and the office-bearers as fumblers. The Lord has given office bearers as gifts to his church, and they are responsible to him. I have not yet found where mentors fit in beside the office bearers.

As stated, mentorship has always functioned in some form or another. But a special mentorship that functions in a structured way in the church is a typical example of pragmatist and industrious American innovation, “let’s do what works.” In a similar way I see the rise of the idea of “coaching” in our post-modern world. You may not really tell people what to do; at most you may mentor and coach, and then hope for the best.

I suggest that the way of mentorship and coaching may lead to an erosion of the offices that Christ has given to his church, also the office of all believers. Let’s leave it to the experts, people will say, a two-tiered system of pastoral care.

The Stephen Ministry←⤒🔗

The idea of organized mentorship started in 1975 when the Rev. K.C. Haugk, a pastor and a clinical psychologist, trained nine members of his congregation in St. Louis to be Stephen ministers. The name Stephen was used because he was the first layperson commissioned by the apostles to provide a caring ministry to those in need (Acts 6). I am not sure about the application of this Scripture passage. When Stephen was appointed, he was no longer a layperson but a deacon, an office-bearer under the supervision of the apostles.

The Stephen Ministries currently is a not-for-profit, trans-denominational religious and educational organization with a staff of forty persons, serving 11,000 congregations world-wide. More than 150 Christian denominations are involved. More than a million people have received Christian care and fellowship through this ministry. If statistics whet your appetite, then here is something to savour.

The governing idea is that the laity must be trained and involved in the care of fellow members. The use of the word “laity” in this context stands in contrast to the word “clergy.” This does not mean to detract from the responsibility of the office bearers, but it may unwittingly head in that direction. Frankly, I do not like the use of the word “laity” as opposed to clergy.

Stephen Ministries rightly stresses that it is a confidential ministry. What a care receiver tells a Stephen minister remains strictly confidential. There is also a twice-monthly supervision meeting to ensure that the best possible care is given. But even then the names of the care receivers and specific details are never divulged or discussed. Top secret, if you can believe it. Without confidentiality, the whole system falls apart.

I understand the need for confidentiality and supervision. I am not sure if the method of Stephen Ministries is realistic. I understand there must be utmost confidentiality among the ministers and ward elders, but even that is hard to maintain.

Sometimes a matter must be discussed in a broader circle where confidentiality is not so easy to preserve. “A gossip betrays confidence, but a trustworthy man keeps a secret. For lack of guidance a nation falls, but many advisors make victory sure” (Prov 11:13, 14). Advisors may not be gossips. All elders must preserve the strictest confidence.

Do we need mentors in the way described above? Or should we revaluate the offices that the Lord has given? I’d like to see some more discussion on this point.