<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- generator="FeedCreator 1.7.3" -->
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title>Family leave and the church</title>
		<description>Comments for Family leave and the church at http://pres-outlook.com , comment 1 to 2 out of 2 comments</description>
		<link>http://pres-outlook.com</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2008 06:50:20 +0100</lastBuildDate>
        <generator>FeedCreator 1.7.3</generator>
		<item>
			<title>...</title>
			<link>http://pres-outlook.com/advent/900.html#comment-2149</link>
			<description>Why does the Outlook allow anonymous posting such as the above? To me, it seems that the response to Rev. Merritt's letter simply affirms the editorial's content. If the pastor's session or COM had a policy in place, perhaps there would have been support staff, volunteers, or others who could have helped during the associate pastor's leave. Did this respondent have an opinion on how his situation should have been handled? The options appear to be: (1) AP quits/is fired (2) the Church comes up with money (I think Rev. Merritt is right that 'the money will be there' if the issue really matters to the congregation) (3) some things don't get covered for a while (4) the Presbytery develops means of assistance or (5) baby gets shorted on time with mom. Maybe the AP in the anonymous letter made the right decision in not returning to work with her new head of staff. Personally, I'm tired of the way some pastors treat young pregnant pastors. At a continuing ed event a few years ago a pastor griped that his AP 'didn't ask permission' before becoming pregnant. She had 'only' been at the church for a year or two when this happened. Good grief!

&lt;i&gt;The writer whose name is known to us expressed concern that he did not wish his allusions to the particular persons involved to be treated as a sweeping complaint against that particular church.  We respected his request to share his thoughts while protecting those serving there. --editor&lt;/i&gt; - Jonathan Seitz</description>
			<pubDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2006 12:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>...</title>
			<link>http://pres-outlook.com/advent/900.html#comment-2092</link>
			<description>Merritt's meditation brought to mind my own experience with maternity leave. I arrived at a new call to learn that my new colleague, the associate pastor, had arranged a 6-month maternity leave. I also learned that there was no money to hire help during her absence.

During her absence some people stepped into leadership, but much of her pastoral and administrative work fell on me. While she was gone outreach was dropped, decisions were delayed, and programs were put on hold. During one exhausting week, my wife observed, 'It's great for the church to provide this and for her to have time with her baby, but do they realize that it has been at the expense of your children?' My associate did not return.  

From what I hear, my experience is pretty typical. The relational nature of ministry and the small staffs of most congregations make maternity leave difficult. Interim help, could we have afforded it, might have covered committees and programs, but people in crisis want pastoral care from someone they know. Many small congregations cannot afford to hire a stranger to cover for their pastor. I'm all for a family friendly policy, but let's make sure that it is good for the church and that it is family friendly for everyone. 

(Name withheld on writer's request) 
 - Name withheld</description>
			<pubDate>Fri, 23 Dec 2005 12:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
