The Church or the Organization?
Two years ago, I wrote a post called “The Church or the Organization?” In this post I was beginning to discuss the differences between the church (the people of God) and the ways in which the people organize and structure themselves. There is a difference. I also give one example of the organization becoming more important than the people. I refer to a few other blog posts that you may be interested in reading.
—————————————————————-
The Church or the Organization?
In my previous post, “What does a bishop oversee?“, I suggested that elders/pastors/bishops should focus on the church – that is, the people – instead of any organization formed around or by the church. This was my concluding paragraph:
But, what difference does it make? Why does it matter whether our pastors/elders “oversee” an organization or “are concerned about” the people of God. Well, for me, it makes all the difference in the world. As an elder, I want to know what God requires of me. Does God require me to run the church like a well-oiled machine? Or does He expect me to “look after” and “be concerned about” those believers around me? I believer God’s focus is people… and so, our focus should be people as well. If my focus is on people, I will respond differently than if my focus was on an organization. My priorities will be different if my focus is on people instead of an organization. My time, resources, and effort will be spent differently if my focus is on people instead of an organization.
In the great discussion that followed in the comments, there were some questions about organizations and the church. David Rogers, from “Love Each Stone“, made the following statement:
I agree that a “bishop” should focus more on “overseeing” people than an organization. However, I think we would be hard-pressed to find those who would say no, they should neglect people, and focus more on the organization.
I do not quote David to point out a disagreement. In fact, I believe that we are probably very close on this issue. Instead, I want to use this statement as a starting point in to further discuss the difference between focusing on people (the church) and focusing on the organization.
First, I do not believe that it is wrong or evil for the church to organize itself for particular purposes. I think we see this in Scripture. For example, as Paul was travelling around the Roman Empire, he travelled with several people. I’m sure there was some type of organization involved. We know that Paul made tents at times in order to provide for himself and his travelling companions (Acts 20:34-35). One person working to provide for himself and others demonstrates some type of organization.
So, organization is not wrong or evil in and of itself. My good friend Theron from “Sharing in the Life” (Who is finally blogging again!), has a great post on organization called “The Role of Organization in a Body of Believers“.
Though we might agree that organizations are not bad, and may even serve a good purpose at times, this does not mean that we will be “hard-pressed to find those who would say no, they should neglect people, and focus more on the organization”. Unfortunately, in today’s “Church Growth” literature, we find just this: a focus on the organization at the expense of the people involved. Here is one example:
Mark Driscoll is an interesting figure. He is at times accepted and at times excepted by emerging/missional believers. Some praise him and the Mars Hill Church which he started in Seattle, WA. Others claim that he is not truly “emerging” but more accurately reflects “evangelicalism” or the seeker church movement. Similarly, some evangelicals say that Driscoll is emerging, while others (like the Southern Baptist Convention, which appears to be wooing him and his Acts 29 Network) welcome him as a fellow evanglical. In other words, Driscoll somehow represents both the emerging and the evangelical flavors of Christianity – loved by some in both camps and hated by some in both camps.
In his 2006 book Confessions of a Reformission Rev: Hard Lessons from an Emerging Missional Church, Driscoll describes the phenomenal growth of Mars Hill Church. In one chapter, he explores some of the decisions that he had to make in order for Mars Hill Church to grow from 350 people to 1000 people:
We had to quickly reorganize all of our systems and staff. Our administrative pastor, Eric, left, which we all recognized was God’s call on him. And our worship leader was a great guy and great musician but was unable to coordinate the multiple bands in the three locations, so we let him go. This was one of the hardest decisions I’ve ever made because he was a very godly man who had worked very hard and would have been fine if the church had not gotten so crazy so quickly, and he and his very sweet wife were both close personal friends of mine. But I needed a worship pastor who could lead multiple bands, coordinate multiple services in multiple locations, and train multiple worship pastors while keeping up with a church that was growing so fast that we had no idea exactly where it was going. [135]
Now, just in case you think that Driscoll may have made the decision to let his close personal friend go because of his concern for other people, please continue reading:
A very wise friend who is a successful business entrepreneur, Jon Phelps, shared an insight with me around this time that was very clarifying. He said that in any growing organization, there are three kinds of people, and only two of them have any long-term future with a growing organization. First, there are people on the rise who demonstrate an uncanny ability to grow with the organization and become vital leaders. Second, there are people who attach themselves to the people on the rise as valuable assistants who rise by being attached to someone on the rise. Third, there are people who neither rise nor attach to anyone who is rising, and they cannot keep up with the growing demands of the organization. These people fall behind, and the organization can either allow their inability to slow down the whole team or release them and move forward without them. This is difficult to do because they are often good people who have been partly responsible for the success of the organization. But the needs of the organizational mission, not an individual in the organization, must continually remain the priority if there is to be continued success. [135]
From what I have read, none of the people who commented would agree with Driscoll’s approach. However, I also do not think that Driscoll is alone in his priorities. There are many who say that the organization should be placed above the people involved.
What Driscoll describes is the exact opposite of my position. The pastors/elders/bishops must focus on the people before the organization. However, we should all admit, even if we do not go to the extreme that Driscoll went to, it is much easier to put the organization above the people. But, according to Scripture, the people should always come first.
Our desire should be to grow the people (edify the body), not to grow the organization – and this includes those “stubborn” people that God has placed in our path. In fact, our purpose should be the growth of the whole body, not just 2/3 of the body. When people begin to be sacrificed in order to further the “organizational mission”, then the organization has the wrong mission. And, when pastors/elders/bishops begin focusing on the organization instead of the people, then they are not acting as the pastors/elders/bishops that Scripture describes.
Are pastors good for nothing?
I wrote the post “Are pastors good for nothing?” about a year ago. I believe that one of the reasons that Christians today remain immature (look at the way we general act and react!) is because leaders have attempted to lead from above, separated from the church. I do not think we can shepherd or care for people from above; we must remain among them. This post is an attempt to describe why “pastoring” is so important, but perhaps not the way it’s usually understood.
—————————————–
A few days ago, when I came into our office at work, my coworkers were having a discussion about elders and pastors. (I will use the terms elders and pastors interchangeably in this blog post.) We discussed the concept of a pastoral office. Of course, if you’ve read my blog posts about elders, you know that I do not believe that Scripture describes an office of pastor or elder. When I describe my understanding of elders, I’m usually asked the following question: “If pastors/elders do not have special responsibilities and duties because of their position as pastor/elder, then why do we need them? Why would Scripture instruct us to appoint pastors/elders?” In other words, given my view of pastors/elder, what are pastors good for? Are they good for nothing?
First, I think a quick summary of my understanding of pastoring is in order. (If you want the longer description, see my recent post “How do you find the time to pastor?” and my series on elders that begins with the post “Elders (Part 1) – Introduction“.) Aussie John gave a great summary of my position in a recent comment. He described a pastor as: “A sheep among sheep gifted to compliment the other sheep and their giftedness”, and he described pastoring as “to minister as a brother in ministry, instead of as the Head Honcho! …to minister and be ministered to as brethren in the same family!” Thus, I believe that an elder is part of the church, one who is recognized by the church as obediently carrying out the responsibilities of all believers: teaching, caring for people, leading, etc.
But, if a pastor is simply one sheep among other sheep, one who is gifted as others are gifted, one who teaches while others also teach, then, what is a pastor good for? Why do we need pastors? Why does Scripture tell us to appoint elders? Are pastors good for nothing?
For those of us who hold to a high view of Scripture, we know that pastors must be good for something. However, recognizing that elders are important does not mean that we automatically must accept that pastors should be the organizing, planning, head-honcho types with which we’re sometimes presented.
Instead, I believe that elders/pastors should primarily function as examples to other believers. They should be examples in their living, their caring, their teaching, their leading, etc. In fact, when elders are appointed/chosen/recognized, churches should choose those who are already living as examples to those around them. But, why is it important for groups of believers to have examples?
None of us are perfect – not even pastors – but all of us tend to look more highly on ourselves, our opinions, our gifts, our talents, our ideas, our plans, etc. than we should. When presented with two options – one ours and one coming from another person – we will tend to choose our own idea. When presented with two ways of dealing with a problem, we will tend to choose that way that seems right to us. When contemplating how to help someone in need, we tend to want to help in the way that looks best to us. Thus, we all tend to choose our own way.
But, if the group – church – as a whole has recognized several people who generally make wise decisions and generally live life in a way that honors God and helps others – elders/pastors – then the church has a resource to help make these kinds of decisions. If we respect these leaders then we will choose to follow them and their opinions instead of following our own ideas and opinions. (Of course, if the elders/pastors care about people, then they will also listen to the ideas and opinions of others. And, also, elders/pastors will tend to listen to other elders/pastors as well.)
These decisions can cover a plethora of topics, from interpreting Scripture to feeding those who are hungry, from scheduling meetings to helping the oppressed. Thus, when we recognize those who are more mature among us, we give ourselves a visible standard of living for Christ. But, this standard does not come from a position to obey, but from an example to imitate.
Interestingly, and finally, if pastors are truly mature, then they will be the first to yield to the interests of others. Thus, the pastors who complain because they are not getting their way are probably not the people that we should follow. Similarly, those who demand that we follow them because of their position are also demonstrating that they are not the ones who should be followed. Instead, those people who consistently live their lives loving God and loving others and maturing in Christ Jesus are the examples that we should follow.
The Senior Pastors of the Seven Churches?
When people look for justification for the modern concept of the “senior pastor”, they often turn to the first few chapters of Revelation, where Jesus addresses seven letters to the “angel” of seven different churches in Asia. The question is, “Do the ‘angels’ in Revelation 2-3 represent senior pastors or spiritual messengers?”
Now, Alan Bandy of Café Apocalypsis has addressed this question in his post “The Angels of the Seven Churches: Humans or Spiritual Beings?” Alan concludes that these “angels” are spiritual beings and gives 4 different reasons. This is the most convincing reason to me:
(1) One reason is that the most common use of angelos, by far, denotes an angelic being. The sixty seven occurrences of angelos in the book of Revelation, with the exception of 2:1,8,12, 18; 3:1,7, and 14, all unambiguously refer to an angelic being. It seems highly unlikely that angelos significantly differs only in chaps. 2–3 without clearly indicating a different denotation from its normal usage in the book.
If the “angels” of Revelation 2-3 are spiritual beings and not senior pastors, then where will people look for scriptural justification for the modern position of senior pastor?
Ruling or Leading?
Matthew has written another interesting piece concerning elders called “Implication for Elders’ Authority from 1 Tim 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9“. I appreciated his discussion of the difference between ruling and leading:
Î ÏοÎστημι (proistÄ“mi) may be translated “rule” or “lead” in 1 Tim 3:4–5 (“Manage” in the ESV; “He must manage his own household well.”) This is also the role of an elder (cf. 1 Tim 5:17). Since ruling and leading have distinct meanings with important implications, a choice should be made. While nothing in this passage seems to require one or the other, a choice may be made based on other passages such as 1 Tim 5:17 and 1 Thess 5:12. Part of the thesis of my dissertation is that elders have the authority to lead, not to rule.
What is the modern distinction between the English verbs “rule” and “lead”?
rule: “exercise authority over” or “decide with authority”
lead: “take somebody somewhere”
Unfortunately, I think too many elders are attempting to “rule”, and few are trying to “lead”.
Good Reads
wow… there have been so many good blog posts written lately. Here are a few that I’ve enjoyed:
Lew at “The Pursuit” tricked me into filling out a sermon outline in his post “Sermon Outlines – A Better Idea“. I agree with him – the sermon would be more interesting if we could fill in the blanks ourselves.
Jeff at “Losing My Religion: Re-Thinking Church” marks several points in his life when “moments of truth” changed his life in his post “Life-Altering Moments of Truth“. I’ve come to some of the same conclusions. What were those “moments of truth”? Well, check out his post.
Chris at “Filtering Life Through the Cross” made the mistake of reading Roland Allen, and writes about it in “What are we so afraid of“. Read Chris’s post, then read Roland Allen.
Alan at “spermologos” questions “The Professional Church“. He asks some very powerful and provocative questions, and realizes that the church doesn’t really serve people.
Dustin at “Grace in the Triad” talks about “Pastors leaving church” – especially rural churches. I agree with Dustin that this is simply one symptom of a much bigger problem.
Leadership among
Did you catch this from Dave Black’s blog (from Thursday, Feb 5, 6:54 am):
The New Testament, of course, presents a much different model of the church. Leadership was provided through elders among the people whose function was to encourage the ministry of the entire church by the Holy Spirit. These leaders were always plural, and they never constituted a separate class from the laity. It’s my constant hope and prayer that God’s people will one day again be elevated to their true dignity as fulltime ministers of Jesus Christ. We are incurably proud of our own man-made systems. Often it is only when we find our defenses cracking and our resources dwindling that we turn to the Lord and call upon His name. When pastors face burnout because they have accepted an unhealthy and unbiblical model of leadership, perhaps God is doing them a great service.
Sufficiently in Touch
Matthew McDill is a fellow PhD student at Southeastern who is studying elders in Scripture. He occasionally shares some of his insights, such as in his post “Leadership Principles from Acts, Part 1” and “Leadership Principles from Acts, Part 2“.
Also, in a post called “Sufficiently in Touch with Ordinary People“, he recently quoted Calvin concerning the phrase that elders should be “able to teach”:
There are many who, either because of defective utterance or insufficient mental ability, or because they are not sufficiently in touch with ordinary people, keep their knowledge shut up within themselves. Such people ought, as they saying goes, to sing to themselves and the muses—and go and do something else. . . . Paul is commending wisdom in knowing how to apply Gods’ Word to the profit of His people.
Matthew comments:
Calvin observes that some may have knowledge but “because they are not sufficiently in touch with ordinary people,” they are unable to be of any benefit to others. I have met such knowledgeable people. I often emphasize with my public speaking students the importance of understanding and connecting with one’s audience. As ministers, it is critical that we listen to the people we seek to serve, that we know their thoughts and needs and meet them where they are.
What do you think? Is it enough to know teaching methodology, or must you know and be in touch with people also?
A quick summary about church meetings
According to 1 Corinthians 14, the church comes together to edify one another – that is, to build themselves up toward maturity in Christ.
According to Hebrews 10:24-25, the church should consider how to provoke one another toward love and good works. This should especially happen when they meet together to encourage one another.
According to Ephesians 4:11-16, the church is built up when every believer works together with every other believer, with Jesus Christ alone taking the head position.
These passages seem fairly simple and straightforward to me. It has also become clear (at least to me) that the modern pattern of church meetings does not match what we see in these passages from Scripture.
If only one person teaches (preaches), even if that person has been trained and educated, and even if that person is the most talented and gifted and mature, and even if that person has been recognized (ordained) as a pastor/elder/bishop, and even if that teaching (preaching) is biblical and powerful and Spirit-led, that church will not be as healthy and will not grow in maturity as much as it would be if many people exercised their spiritual gifts during the church meeting.
Look at the summary passages above once more. Notice how often the writers of Scripture talk about “one another” during the meeting of the church – or even when the church is not meeting. In the modern church meeting, the “one anothers” are set aside – for many different reasons, I believe. And, I believe that none of those reasons are valid.
The best thing that could happen in the church is for pastors, preachers, teachers, elders, leaders, to sit down and listen to other people and be served by other people. We must move away from one-way service (the leader serving through his or her gifts) and move toward one-another service (every believer serving through each of their gifts).
The church is not built up (edified) when the people only hear God speak through me – even if I have something very valuable to say. The church is built up when we hear God speak through one another.
Why I’m glad not to be that kind of pastor
A few days ago, John Smulo at “smulospace” wrote a post called “Why I’m Glad Not To Be A Pastor Anymore“. John says that he is disillusioned with the “predominant models of ‘pastor'” and that he’s glad that he’s not in that position anymore because:
- I get to spend so much more time with my family.
- I get to spend more time with friends.
- It’s great to just be a married guy with kids, who owns a website and blog design business.
- I have time to be involved in my community through our local Rotary Club.
- I needed to recover from church burnout.
I understand what John is talking about, but not from experience, only from observing other “pastors”. Actually, I don’t think the problem is with being a “pastor” per se, but with the unscriptural expectations that many Christians place on those they recognize as leaders (especially elders or “pastors”). For example, a few months ago in a post called “Responsibilities and Expectations of Elders“, I published a standard job description that is published by a denominational agency:
- Plan and conduct the worship services; prepare and deliver sermons; lead in observance of ordinances.
- Lead the church in an effective program of witnessing and in a caring ministry for persons in the church and community.
- Visit members and prospects.
- Conduct counseling sessions; perform wedding ceremonies; conduct funerals.
- Serve as chairman of the Church Council to lead in planning, organizing, directing, coordinating, and evaluating the total church program.
- Work with deacons, church officers, and committees as they perform their assigned responsibilities; train and lead the deacons in a program of family ministries.
- Act as moderator of church business meetings.
- Cooperate with associational, state, and denominational leaders in matters of mutual interest and concern; keep the church informed of denominational development; represent the church in civic matters.
- Serve as chief administrator of the paid church staff; supervise the work of assigned paid staff workers.
In that post, I stated that these (for the most part) are expectations placed on “pastors” by church organizations and many believers, but they are not scriptural expectations or requirements.
Here’s the thing… I’m an elder… I pastor… but I’m not “that kind of pastor”. And, I’m glad not to be that kind of pastor. Why?
1. No one expects me to be obedient for them, and I’m not paid to be obedient for others. Everyone who is part of the church recognizes that it is their responsibility to serve, teach, care, evangelize, etc.
2. When I talk about the difficulties of working, having a family, and serving other people in the church and outside the church, I’m not talking from theory. No. I actually do all of those things. I work. I have a family. I serve other people in the church and outside the church. By the way, my example also removes excuses when someone would want to say, “But I don’t have time.”
3. No one wonders if I serve them only because I’m paid. They don’t wonder what would happen if another church offered me more money. They don’t wonder if I’m part of them only because they hired me.
4. I’m free to do whatever God leads me to do. My time is not taken up with meetings and planning and other “duties and responsibilities” that may take time away from serving or loving people that God brings across my path.
5. I’m part of the church. I’m not the main guy or some outside expert or professional. I’m just another brother who is struggling in his walk with Christ just like everyone else. Hopefully, since I’ve been recognized by the church, my walk is at least a little more mature and is a good example for others to follow. This also means that I’m free to say, “No”, if someone asks me to do something.
6. The church are my friends. I don’t have to keep people at arm’s distance. I don’t have to worry about job security if people find out that I’m not perfect or I don’t have all the answers.
7. Since I’m not the only one responsible for teaching – all of us are responsible to teach – then I’m also able to learn and be encouraged by the church. I can exercise my spiritual gifts in serving others and others can exercise their spiritual gifts as well. I don’t have to try to be (or pretend to be) a “jack-of-all-trades”.
There are so many other reasons why I’m glad not to be “that kind of pastor”. But, primarily, I’m glad that I’m actually able to pastor (that is, care for people), without being required to handle administrative, organizational, and structural requirements that other “pastors” are required to deal with.
Just Semantics? (Pastor)
In this series, I’m going to discuss various biblical terms that are often misused or misunderstood because of the way we use the English terms today. In other words, we often read our modern day definitions into scriptural words. This is not a valid way to understand Scripture.
For example, consider the English word “pastor”. As a noun, the Greek term that is translated “pastor” (ποιμήν – poimÄ“n) usually refers to Jesus. Only once in the New Testament does it refer to someone other than Jesus (Ephesians 4:11). This noun refers to someone who takes care of sheep. The Greek verb (ποιμαίνω – poimainÅ) usually refers to the work of an actually shepherd. At least twice it refers metaphorically to the work of church leaders (Acts 20:28, 1 Peter 5:2).
In the metaphorical uses, this word group always refers to caring for people. It is not used as a title, but as a function. However, today, the church often uses the term “Pastor” to refer to an official position in the church – much like we use the word “Minister” from yesterday’s post. Likewise, when we read the word “pastor” or “shepherd” in Scripture, we often read this modern definition into the meaning of the Scripture.
For example, wiktionary gives the following definitions for “pastor”:
Pastor: The minister or priest of a Christian church.
Recently, I heard from a man who referred to himself as a “Pastor”. The church referred to him as “Pastor” as well. The man said that he loves to study Scripture and teach, but he doesn’t like caring for people. However, when he read Acts 20:28 or 1 Peter 5:2, he thought that it referred to him because he was a “Pastor”.
If someone refers to himself as “Pastor”, but does not care for people, then that person is not a “pastor” and is not “shepherding” in the scriptural sense. Even if the church gives someone the title of “Pastor”, if that person is not caring for people, then the person is not a “pastor” in the meaning of Scripture.
The person may be a great person. He or she may be a terrific teacher. But, that does not make the person a “pastor”. But, of course, if someone is giving the title “Pastor”, they naturally read Acts 20:28 and 1 Peter 5:2 as referring to them. Again, this is an example of reading a modern meaning of the word “Pastor” back into Scripture illegitimately. This means that we are not understanding Scripture the way the original authors (and God!) intended for us to understand it.
———————————————————–