—Ben Arbour
[Editor’s Note: In the midst of writing a book on the same topic, Ben Arbour has agreed to offer us a series, Pastors and Practice, arguing that Christ is our true model for pastoral ministry. Throughout this series, Ben will explain how Christ’s example should affect the governing of the church and the ministry of pastors.]
In my last post, I explained why I believe that multiple-elder leadership in a local church means that it should never be the case that members identify the church’s pastor as one individual person. There are many reasons for this; preeminent, though, is the fact that the New Testament uses terms like elder and pastor interchangeably. Any methods of pastoral identification that single out one elder as somehow different or more important than any other elder are unfaithful to the patterns of leadership given to us in the New Testament.
Therefore, churches which have multiple elders, but reserve the title “pastor” for one individual person, are not only getting the terminology wrong, but they are actually feeding the very problem which I brought up in the last post. Today, I want to consider other practical considerations which lend support to my thesis concerning ecclesiological polity. Let’s explore one of those now: the concept of shepherding.
Remember Joe Christian from last time? Let’s suppose that he attends a larger congregation, even one of the mega-churches1 (which continue to grow in popularity). Imagine that I run into him and inquire as to how things are going at his church. That dialogue might go something like this:
Ben: Hey Joe. Good to see you. How have things been at church?
Joe: Pretty good. We’ve sure been staying busy. Our church is growing like crazy. Lots of baptisms, lots of people coming to know the Lord.
Ben: That’s really encouraging news. God sure seems to be up to something good there. Tell me again, who is your pastor there?
Joe: You remember, it’s [some rock-star pastor’s name].
Ben: That’s right! I can’t believe I forgot. I really enjoyed his last book. So tell me, when’s the last time you met with him?
Joe: Oh, I’ve never met him.
Ben: You’ve never met your pastor?!?
Joe: Nope. But his preaching is amazing.
Ben: Yeah, it is, but in what ways is he counseling you, and shepherding you in your walk with the Lord?
Joe: Well, he preaches on Sundays, plus there is his radio ministry. And then there are his books…
Ben: Yeah, yeah, I get that. And I’ve really benefited from listening to the podcasts of his sermons and reading his books, like I said. But in what ways is your pastor aware of the situations and circumstances that are unique to your life? And how does he speak wisdom to you as a shepherd?
Joe: Well, I guess he doesn’t…
Ben: [long, awkward silence] Joe, it sounds to me like you’ve got a really great teacher and preacher, but not much of a “pastor.”
Joe: Well, I guess not in that sense of the word…
Friends, this is the only sense of the word “pastor” that the New Testament knows: pastoral leadership implies shepherding, and shepherding requires relationship. If you’ve never met your pastor, you need to retool your understanding of what a pastor is. If you don’t regularly speak with your pastor (which can be the case for members of churches of many sizes) then you need to reconsider who your pastor is. As long as we keep calling people “pastor” who aren’t actually pastoring, but rather are only teaching, we are not being faithful to New Testament ecclesiology. It’s high time we let the Bible, and not our culture, shape our language of pastoral care.
After all, is there any real difference between how Joe is being pastored by that rock-star preacher and how I am? If pastoring only means preaching, then isn’t it possible for me to identify Joe’s pastor as my own, even if I’m not a member of his church? After all, neither Joe nor I have ever met the guy; surely there can’t be all that significant of a difference in his pastoral shepherding of me when compared to Joe.
In the next series of posts, I’ll be delving more deeply into the theological issues involved in these practical considerations. Those posts will incorporate much Scripture in order to show that I’m not just trying to force my conception of leadership upon you, and I intend to show that biblical pastoral leadership is very different from what passes as pastoral leadership in most churches today.
Do you know your pastor? Have you ever spoken to your pastor? Is he even really your pastor? Leave your thoughts below!
1Mega-church being defined as more than 2,500 in attendance on any given weekend.
8 comments:
For some supplemental reading, I recommend The Problem with Pastor as Rock Star by Ed Stetzer, at Challies.com
Thanks Ben-
So, all Elders/Pastors (synonymous use of the two words) biblically should have personal relationships with each and every member in their local congregations? Example: Let's take a church like Capitol Hill Baptist Church in DC, you're saying Mark Dever should have a personal relationship with each and every memeber in his congregation? Just asking for discussion sake, if not how would say this unbiblical in your opinion? And is it a sinful practice?
Great questions, David.
My take on this is both simple, and complex. I think a church led by multiple elders should have a rotating pulpit, which would go a long way towards undermining the cult of personality that often surrounds churches. Secondly, if a church has multiple elders, then no one person should ever be identified as "the" pastor (as I discussed in the last post). Last, I don't think that every elder needs to be super involved in every member's life. So, in my opinion, it's okay if Mark Dever doesn't have a personal relationship with every member of the church. But this is precisely why those members who don't have a relationship with him shouldn't identify him as "their" pastor. Instead, they should identify the elder that is actually shepherding them. Of course, this raises a number of questions, which I'll be seeking to answer in the forthcoming posts.
Do you think we should do away with the "pastor" designations, then (ex. Executive pastor, teaching pastor, etc.)?
Jaimie, to clarify your question: Are you asking about the unique titles given to different staff pastors at churches, and the creation of "domains" associated with that? (domains such as preaching, youth, college, children, adult education, small groups, worship, etc).
Good question. Haha. I didn't think about children and youth pastors. Those seem pretty straightforward to me. When it comes to other more ambiguous titles (family pastor is the first one that comes to mind, though I can see how that designation is made), though, I've never understood why there is an executive, teaching, adult education, etc. I guess it confuses me because our teaching pastor Bruce shares the pulpit with our executive pastor Mark pretty often. Also, Mark headed up the Connections Sunday school class when Chris and I first attended. I might be making this more complicated than it actually is!
I have actually been thinking about this for awhile, this subject of names associated with offices. Biblically, we see name designations in the bible to identify a person’s role within the context of the nation of Israel (Mediator, Priest, King and Prophet). When the nation was functioning rightly, which never happened, it was God’s will that He would be their God (King). Later when Israel was redeemed from slavery, Moses was the God ordained mediator between the people and God.
Likewise, in the NT we see the role of Elder/Overseer and Deacon. These offices have specific requirements, roles and responsibilities. Not everyone in the church can be an Elder and or a Deacon. Not all are called specifically to those roles, but when a man has been appointed via the Church he has a responsibility before God to do his best. Nothing less is acceptable. It is amazing to me that God would even use man to do His bidding through the Gospel. We should never lose sight of this astonishing act of love! God has given Himself for His people. It should be a good reminder that we never forget there will be a stricter judgment for those in these offices God has appointed them. Double honor is given and double accountability will be required of these men before God.
So, I think we all would agree that there are biblical roles and with those roles came a level of requirements, roles and responsibility.
Ben, I understand your care and concern toward the Church and it is a work of God’s Spirit. I believe you are seeking to pin point a weakness in the Church generally speaking. Namely, how it seems many churches are establishing extra-biblical duties to an office that the bible clearly states otherwise. Elders are delegating their responsibilities to others. Or even taking the office of Elder and making it extremely narrow by giving it subtitles like: Preaching Elder, Elder of Administration, etc. I think it is a hybrid of the office by comingling a business model role with the Scriptures. It reminds me of counseling debate over the last 10 years were the some in the Church want to use the bible but also secular teachings. Ultimately, it’s about the sufficiency of the Scriptures. We either trust God or we simply think God’s ways are good but we need to help Him out.
Finally, in light of all I’ve stated, sorry it’s lengthy, what you are pointing out is an unhealthy situation in many churches not all. Its implications are devastating to the faith of the flock and its offices.
I will give the following conundrum in conclusion: “Hey pastor, could I talk to you about my marriage?” Pastor responds, “Well Joe, that’s not my job I just handle preaching. Call Mark down in counseling and see if he can fit you into his schedule.”
Jamie,
Good question. On the whole, I do not think it is a good idea to differentiate areas of service in titles of pastors/elders. For instance, I was at one church that had five elders, but only one pastor (he was the only elder who worked full-time with a paycheck from the church). First, this schema does not account for the fact that elder and overseer are the same office in the NT (cf. Ben Merkle's excellent monograph defending this point, published with Peter Lang). Second, it creates in people's minds the idea that one elder is somehow more important than another, or more their pastor than one of the other elders, which undermines the whole idea of a plurality of elders leading a congregation. This is especially true of titles such as "senior pastor" or "lead pastor" of which there is absolutely no biblical precedent except in being attributed to Jesus Christ (cf. 1 Pet 5:4).
If there is to be specialization among the elders, that could be handled internally among the council of elders without publicizing it such that people look to the group of elders (corporately) and to individual elders as equal pastors. Given the American Christian culture's obsession with dynamic preaching often resulting in cults of personality (in seeker-sensitive, traditional, reformed, and emergent communities) and especially among Evangelicals, it does not seem wise to me for us to label one pastor/elder as the pastor of preaching. Invariably, that means that in the hearts and minds of the majority of Christians attending that church, he will be elevated to the status of "pastor" in the ways I've outlined in the blog post. Obviously, I find that problematic. Also, I haven't found the designation "pastor of preaching and vision" in the NT. And since all elders, if they are qualified according to 1 Tim 3, are apt to teach, why celebrate one persons giftings over another? It seems that the structures we've put in place enable the very problems we often lament. So, rotating the pulpit is good for the congregation, and biblical. Sticking with the Bible, as much as possible, always seems wise to me. :)
Post a Comment
We welcome your comments—whether you agree or disagree with us—as long as they are polite, kind, and thoughtful. Please supply your name, and if you have a website, provide a link!
Personal attacks, trolling, spam and anonymous posts will be deleted. See our full comments policy for details and clarification.
If you are writing a particularly long comment, you may want to check it against the 4000-character limit.