role of pastor: reprise

So, rather than me write on the role of the pastor, thought I'd link to something helpful from one significantly wiser and more experienced. Incidentally, this picks up on something that dawned on me earlier today after my post on role of the pastor: why is it that we talk about "pastor as CEO" or "pastor as trainer," when the term "pastor" is so clearly linked to the idea of shepherding? So, with that in mind...

http://headhearthand.org/blog/2011/01/06/the-shepherd-leader/

More from Baxter

Baxter on the need for a pastor to be able to oversee all the sheep of his flock:
"O happy Church of Christ, were the labourers but able and faithful, and proportioned in number to the number of souls; so that the pastors were so many, or the particular churches so small, that we might be able to 'take heed to all the flock.'"

Now, I don't post this because I'm 100 percent in agreement with Baxter at every point, but it certainly is fodder for thought. I'm particularly interested in his comment about "churches so small." Such a different angle...

Any thoughts?

What is the role of a pastor?

I’ve been re-reading The Trellis and the Vine by Colin Marshall and Tony Payne recently and it’s prompted me to think more carefully (surely the sign of a good book) about the role of a pastor.

When it comes to who the pastor is and what he does, Marshall and Payne suggest there are basically three models: pastor as clergyman, as CEO, and as trainer (see the chapter “Why Sunday sermons are necessary but not sufficient”).

The traditional model, that of clergyman, basically sees the pastor’s role as “to care for and feed the congregation” (94). Though possessing strengths, Marshall and Payne basically see this position as a flawed view of the ministry that promotes “’consumerism,’” hindering church-wide involvement and limiting the exercise of gifts to one particular person in the congregation. This model, they suggest, simply is inadequate and “reflects the culture and norms of a different world- the world of 16th- and 17th-century Christianized nations” (95-96).

The more contemporary vision of as pastor, that of a CEO, Marshall and Payne find equally flawed, though for different reasons. Indeed, they see this position as “a direct response to the traditional Reformed-evangelical view of ministry and church life” (96). Now, instead of the one-way feeding from the shepherd to the sheep (as in the “clergyman” view), pastors as CEO’s strive to build churches that emphasize “congregational involvement” (97; emphasis original). But, the involvement asked for typically ends up aiming at only one thing in such churches according to Marshall and Payne: numerical growth. Depth is sacrificed for breadth as the church becomes more an organization than an organism. Sure, more “congregational involvement” is perhaps achieved, but of what sort?

Lastly, Marshall and Payne suggest the “pastor as trainer” model. This, of course, is there preferred vision, “one in which the prayerful speaking of the word is central, and in which Christians are trained and equipped to minister God’s word to others” (99; emphasis original). Preaching is still central, but added to it is the task of training “people to be contributors and servants, not spectators and consumers,” and “to become disciple-making disciples of Jesus.” The field is leveled in this model to a “radical” degree, according to Marshall and Payne, as the “clergy-lay distinction” is dissolved. The one-way style of the clergyman and the top-down manner of a CEO is replaced by the side-by-side, lead-by-example method of a trainer.  

Now, basically, I’m in agreement with Marshall and Payne (and the many others who are advocating the “pastor as trainer,” “every member ministry” position; e.g. Mark Dever, Bob Kellemen, David Murray, Paul Tripp). However, it does leave me with some nagging questions:

-       In a hundred years (or fifty, or twenty), will a new model of pastoring simply emerge, replacing the dated “pastor as trainer” model just as that model passed by others? Is this merely Lewis’ “chronological snobbery” on display?

-       Related to this, how much of our vision of pastoring culturally determined? Experts agree that the “center of gravity” for Christianity has shifted from the northern and western hemispheres to the southern and eastern, resulting in a whole host of new approaches to Christian life and thought. Does pastoring in China require a different model than does pastoring in more “Western” nations (including even Marshall’s and Payne’s Australia)?

-       Is there not something beautiful about the pastors caring for the sheep themselves? Marshall and Payne laud Richard Baxter, the 17^th-century Puritan minister, as exemplary in many respects, but it seems that as I read The Reformed Pastor by Baxter, he places a singularly huge emphasis on the role of the pastor as the one appointed to care for the flock. When he comes across situations in which there is too much work for one minister, he doesn’t seem to suggest the training of the laity as much as the bringing in of more ministers!

Well, I’m sure there is more to say, but I’ve exceeded my (self-imposed) limits in terms of both time and length.

Thinking with you,

aaron

Crucifixional Ministry

Why is it that I read and hear so much about "incarnational" ministry? I mean, I get it: we are to identify with those we minister to in the same way Christ identified with us, as demonstrated so well in the Incarnation. It makes sense.
But, it seems like the New Testament emphasis in terms of Christ's example for us is not so much on his gaining a body, but on his giving up his body. Not that the two can be separated- they cannot. He took on flesh to later take up his cross. Still, the focus in terms of discipleship seems to be on the latter aspect of his earthly ministry. Ought we not, therefore, to speak more of "crucifixional" ministry? Or perhaps we know what such an angle on ministry would mean for us...

Convicted with you,
aaron

Holiness and the Minister

Here is "part three" of the series I started a few days ago. Perhaps you've realized by now: I do not plan to say all that could be said about a matter, nor to address what is always the "core" of an issue. Case in point: below are some thoughts on an issue related to holiness that I've pondered for some time, but is definitely not the main issue. Anyways...enjoy!

I was reminded of the complexity of the issue of holiness and pastoral ministry while reading something from Michael Horton recently. Horton brought up the so-called Donatist schism of the fourth century. If you recall, the Donatist scandal (basically) revolved around the issue of whether or not baptisms performed by bishops who afterward recanted under persecution were valid or not.

Now, ultimately, to unravel the Donatist issue involves going into issues of sacraments and early church politics- this is not the place for that. But, germane to our discussion is the core matter in the schism: what role does a minister’s personal holiness play in his actual ministry? Does unholiness taint his works as a pastor, rendering them ultimately ineffective? Or, do the works that he performs have some value in and of themselves? Ultimately, the early church decided that in the case of the sacraments, they have efficacy apart from those who administer them, but did that mean they saw the minister’s personal relation to the Lord and walk of faith as irrelevant to his overall ministry? Though I may not be qualified to answer that particular question, I do have some thoughts on the place of holiness in the life of pastors.

Specifically, I see a sort of tension in Scripture between the absolute essentiality of holiness in the life of ministers and the way in which the Lord’s work is carried on through a person despite his infirmities and even, we might say, his transgressions.

My two “go-to” passages for each aspect are 1 Timothy 4:16 and Philippians 1:14-18.

In the former there is a clear emphasis laid on Timothy’s integrity in “life and doctrine” as core components in his gospel ministry. He is to “keep a close watch” on himself in these respects, “for by so doing [he] will save both [himself] and [his] hearers.” Strong terms. And while we might wish to debate the exact nuance of “save” in the Pastoral Epistles (it takes on different meanings dependent on context), the undeniable point remains: Timothy’s attendance to his personal life has great ramifications not only for himself, but also for others in his life. In other words, holiness matters.

On the other hand, Philippians 1 pulls us back from the ledge in terms of thinking that all of redemptive history hinges upon our personal state of holiness. In that passage, Paul demonstrates his joy in the fact that Christ is preached, even by those with dead-wrong motives! What a shocking thought from the apostle: “I know that these guys don’t have integrity, but I’m still so glad they are preaching Christ.” What?! Doesn’t their lack of personal holiness hinder the effectiveness of the gospel ministry?! Paul astonishingly doesn’t go there- in this case message matters more than the messenger.

What then? How do we proceed? Well, obviously we don’t take the latter passage as establishing license for a lack of integrity in our ministry. That simply was not Paul’s point. His point was that, regardless of human interference, God’s plan rolls on. The Sovereign Savior’s work is accomplished amidst opposition and through the most seemingly hopeless situations, and this is great cause for rejoicing. The gospel is triumphing!

So, we return again then to 1 Timothy 4 (and a vast host of other passages) that explicitly instructs us as to the essential nature of holiness in a minister of God. Others may not heed their lives as they ought, but we may yet rejoice if the gospel advances through them in a way that does not bring shame to the message. But what joy can we have in knowing that, though speaking our Savior’s words, our own lives serve as no great example of holiness? What peace can we have in our own hypocrisy, knowing that God is not mocked and we will reap what we sow? And yes, Philippians 1 notwithstanding, what hope can we have of our Lord’s blessing upon our own particular spheres of service, if we will not cleanse ourselves and “be vessels for honorable use, set apart as holy, useful to the master of the house, ready for every good work” (2 Timothy 2:21)? Let us, therefore, take heed to our lives and our doctrine, for “a holy minister is an awful weapon in the hand of the Lord,” as the good Mr. M’Cheyne has said. But, to all who hold onto their iniquity, let them beware.

  

A healthy caution concerning motive

“Some men who aspire to the pastorate- especially some young men- do so with a conceited desire to be seen as great in the eyes of others. They make a pretense of honoring God, but secretly they long that others would say of them, “He is a man of immense learning,” or “He is a man of great prowess in preaching,” or the like. Not so with you. Rid yourself of such idolatry and let it be said of you, instead, “He is a man of great Christian love,” and “He is a man of great faithfulness, holiness, and humility.” For in these things, rather than the others, does true greatness consist.”

-          Anonymous

Now, as for gifts...

So yesterday (and today somewhat) I touched on some issues relative to "calling" and pastoral ministry. I didn't say all that could be said, nor did I say what I did say necessarily well, but nonetheless I hope it was helpful (it was to me).

Tonight, then, in keeping with my intentions from the other day, I want to address the issue of "gifts" and pastoral ministry. And, while I intended at first to focus on the indispensable nature of gifts for pastoral ministry (something I indeed believe), I thought it necessary after a dose of Mr. Spurgeon to come at this issue from another angle.

In Spurgeon's Lectures to My Students (necessary reading for those preparing for ministry or already pastoring), he has a chapter devoted to "The Call to the Ministry." Part way through, he quotes some material from John Newton that the latter had addressed to a friend on the issue of pastoral ministry. The following segment of that quote is relevant for our discussion of gifts.

Newton writes:
"Besides the affectionate desire and readiness to preach, there must in due season appear some competent sufficiency as to gifts, knowledge, and utterance. Surely, if the Lord sends a man to teach others, He will furnish him with the means. I believe may have intended well in setting up for preachers, who yet went beyond or before their call in so doing. The main difference between a minister and a private Christian, seems to consist in those ministerial gifts, which are imparted to him, not for his own sake, but for the edification of others. But then I say these are to appear in due season; the are not to be expected instantaneously, but gradually, in the use of proper means. They are necessary for the discharge of the ministry, but not necessary as prerequisites to warrant our desires after it. In your case [Newton is addressing his friend here], you are young, and have time before you; therefore, I think you need not as yet perplex yourself with enquiring [sic] if you have these gifts already. It is sufficient if your desire is fixed, and you are willing, in the way of prayer and diligence, to wait upon the Lord for them; as yet you need them not."

A few thoughts based on this that I find wise, encouraging, instructive, and challenging:
1. Gifts are necessary for ministry
2. Gifts do not necessarily manifest themselves immediately in a would-be pastor
3. Gifts will eventually, however, be manifest in one truly called
4. Gifts are not for the shepherd, but for the sheep
5. Gifts, or more accurately the lack thereof, are not to be a cause of anxiety in one who begins to aspire to the office
6. Gifts develop gradually
7. Gifts require "prayer and diligence" to develop
8. Gifts are from the Lord; wait on him

Waiting with you all,
aaron