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 17th-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
Here is a helpful comment from my friend, Peter
ReplyDeleteKruger, on the post:
I've been giving some thought to this for a few years, ever since I listened to a guy named Graham Cooke speak a bit about giftings. The Bible says that there are five ways people are gifted in ministry: as pastors, prophets, teachers, evangelists, and apostles.
What I'm afraid of is that our current model of ministry rolls all five of these giftings into one person and calls them "pastor." I agree that it's right to fear that the old model of pastor just as shepherd of the church is a one-way feeding and caring of the flock. If that's the only gifting that is being expressed in church leadership, then something is lacking.
The CEO model is also just taking one of those giftings and making it into a single church leadership position. This is just the apostle, the guy who starts and grows the church. But sadly, because of this, churches only produce workers, not sons and daughters of Christ. I love Campus Crusade, they brought me to faith, but their model of "win, build, send," is an evangelism mill. It works, but it can quickly turned into a machine, and not a place where people are healed or grown.
Even the "pastor as trainer" model just takes the teacher and makes it into the entire leadership. I am a teacher, both by trade and by gifting. It is a side by side gifting. I work with people individually. If I were to return to Cru as staff, I would only want to do discipleship, really. I learned the hard way through a short stint as a youth pastor that I am not very good at logistics, like an apostle. While my teaching background makes me a fairly good preacher, I freely confess that most of what I preach is secondhand from prophets that I respect and admire. And while I care about people deeply, I am not always the most comforting person, and I wouldn't want myself at my own deathbed or when I need a shepherd.
I think the model of ministry that we should have is the Biblical one, where all five of these giftings are used, and not just from one person. Nobody can do all that by themselves. It's not realistic, nor is it either practical or healthy, in my opinion.
Our ministry teams, then, need to be composed of a body of people. Prophets should have the job of using their intimacy with God, their ability to have insight and knowledge to help the team see what God is doing now, so they can position themselves to cooperate. Pastors should minister directly to the people, feeding, caring for them, comforting them, more physically, but some spiritually. Teachers should be training everyone in their areas, helping to raise up people in their own giftings, to educate them on what it means to be a prophet, to be an evangelist. Evangelists themselves should be going out to share the Gospel and to win people to the church, then giving them to the teachers and pastors to be raised up in faith. Apostles start these churches and worry about the logistics, the buildings, the times, the security, the numbers.
This is a very relational and difficult thing to achieve. I've yet to see a church that has it. Even the early churches split quickly down these lines and wanted one person to lead them. That can lead to infighting and factions in a hurry, as it did in Ephesus and Corinth.
Anyways, that's what I see. What do you think? Oh, and should I have put this here or on the blog comments? (You can also just tell me to shut up and go away. ;) )
And here is my reply to Peter (we carried on this little exchange over facebook):
DeleteI'd never tell you to "shut up and go away," Peter! No, I appreciate the comments (I'm gonna cut and paste them into the blog). And I agree: the gifts that each member possesses ought to be being utilized. And while I may not agree wholly with the breakdown of apostle/prophet/evangelist/pastor/teacher you've presented (that is one I'm still trying to figure out), I again agree: we've "flattened" in some cases the richness of what the Bible presents in terms of ministry gifts, lumping everything together under "pastor." It's a catch-all term for many that deserves our careful analysis (hence this blog post which aims to advance the discussion). Still, it does seem that there are biblical reasons for understanding "pastor" (or "pastor-teacher") as the primary leadership/teaching office in the church for today. Hopefully others will weigh in here, too! Thanks again!