Lousy Pastors
I know many lousy pastors.
Some who know me really well would say that I myself am one. I don‘t argue.
So, I’d like to describe three lousy pastors whom I know. If you are a lousy pastor, you may see yourself in one of them. You may be one of them.
Pete is one of the most frustrated people I know. He is bright, focused, organized, highly self-motivated, innovative, entrepreneurial, and forward thinking. He is a genuine visionary, unbounded by traditional ways of thinking and acting. He brings a degree of enthusiasm to ministry that is rare. He has a million ideas about how the churches he pastors could make a difference in the communities in which they exist.
But, the plural of the word ‘church’ in that last sentence is key to understanding Pete‘s story. Pete cannot stay in one setting long enough to make a real difference.
Pete seems incapable of developing the spiritual fruit of patience. If, as Paul of Tarsus says, “Love is patient…” then Pete is not a man of love. If, as Paul adds, “Love is…not easily angered,” you might even doubt Pete’s salvation.
Pete’s a leader but not much of a people person.
He is so caught up in his vision of the future that he refuses to accept the reality that one of the things a pastor does is lead his flock at a pace it can tolerate. Pete seems to think that pastoring is all about mission and vision, not about the sheep.
Pete lives in the future.
He is constantly pushing and pulling, tugging and yanking to get others to join him there. He is absolutely intolerant of the cherished traditions of the congregations he serves. The people in those congregations who are only capable of moving forward in baby steps actually make Pete angry.
Pete can be a disaster at Church Council meetings. He hates them and after he’s been at a church for a few months, nearly everyone else on the Council hates them as much as he does.
His idea of a Council meeting is for him to cast his leadership vision and for others to embrace it and follow him--at his pace. Pete’s often called a tyrant or a dictator. And, despite his vision and obvious gifts, his pastorates are always short in duration. They always end in conflict before he has a chance to bring his incredible vision into reality.
Still, if you get to know him, you know that Pete loves the Lord and is passionate about the future of the church and you can‘t deny that his calling to ministry seems genuine.
When you boil it all down, Pete may be called to ministry but he is one just lousy pastor.
Jerry’s story is different from Pete’s but the bottom line is the same.
Jerry is passionate about the Lord and it is clear that he loves the church. He loves the Word and spends hours reading it and studying it and meditating on it. He has much of it committed to memory.
When Jerry prays aloud, more of his words are the words of Scripture than are his own words. Unlike Pete, Jerry seems capable of staying in one ministry setting for a number of years, but his ministry never really goes anywhere.
Jerry is a Bible scholar.
You wonder if he wouldn’t be better off if he were teaching in a college or a seminary. He is one of the rare people who likes Greek and Hebrew, has actually retained them from his school days, and is better at reading them after a few years in ministry than when he was in school. He’s the guy who loves to tell you what the Greek word is in the passage, what the verb tenses and moods signify and which other verses that word appears in.
So, yeah, Jerry loves the Word; you just wish he had as much love for his people as he does for the Word.
He spends hour upon hour in sermon preparation and Bible study. He leads the midweek service and a few other small group Bible studies as well. However, he is slow to make his visits and, except for his sermons, doesn’t provide a lot of ministry to his people. He has sound biblical ideas about ministry but little success in putting those amazing ideas into practice.
Generally, though, the people in his congregations like him--the ones who stay, at least.
His congregations usually hold their own in attendance for a few years. Lots of people leave, but nearly as many start attending because they like the sermons. Jerry has his critics, but others defend him passionately. He’s usually safe from his critics, even after attendance starts to decline, because he is obviously so spiritual a man and the care he takes in preparing his sermons places him above reproach in the minds of many in his congregation because the people there believe that the Bible is the Word of God.
Everyone who knows him agrees that Jerry has a genuine call to ministry. His passion for the Word is unassailable. His performance in the pulpit is average or better.
Still, the Great Commission compels the church to be making disciples and that rarely happens to a significant degree in Jerry’s ministry. In the end, after five, seven, ten, or twelve years, the congregations he serves have declined.
As hard as it might be for you to say it, based on the fruit his ministry has produced over the years, the truth is that Jerry is a devoted preacher but a lousy pastor.
Phil is an exciting flash in the pan.
His presence lights up every room he is in. He arrives in a blaze of glory and leaves with spectacular drama. Phil is a pure people person who knows to the core of his being that everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. He is a natural born witness. Every time you see him, he’s inviting someone to receive Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. He seems to know exactly what to say to lead an unbeliever to the point where he or she is willing to make a commitment to Christ.
Phil is well known in your Conference. The churches he pastors are always at the top or near the top of the list of churches whose attendance increased most in the last year.
One problem with Phil, though, like Pete, is that he never stays at one place very long. And, more often than not, a few years after he has left a church it loses all of the growth his ministry produced and, sadly, it often loses more than it gained and is wracked with division.
And, while Phil is a popular guy with a winning personality, he’s not really a great preacher.
His messages are interesting. But, his thinking is a mile wide and an inch deep and is filled with clichés. You get almost all of his theology in the first ten minutes of the first sermon you hear him preach. Sometimes the people in the congregation wonder if he even prepares his sermons. Long-time believers in his congregations are unchallenged by his teaching and preaching. For the most part, the droves of new believers that enter the congregations he’s led don’t mature as believers and seem to love Phil more than they love Jesus.
Phil’s ministry is often characterized by conflict in the congregations he serves in which the new people and the old people do not get along.
What’s more, because Phil’s ministry is so effective in bringing new people to a decision for Jesus, he is in demand as a guest speaker in other congregations. Phil thrives on those guest-speaking opportunities. If the congregation he serves allows him to accept all or nearly all of the invitations, the people soon become resentful. If he is restricted from accepting those invitations, Phil believes that he is being denied an opportunity to serve the Lord in the way that he is most effective and he becomes angry.
When Phil is at home with the congregation he pastors, he is restless. He pays little attention to the needs of the people of the congregation. His record of visiting long-time church families is poor. He seems distracted at Council meetings. He is a very poor organizer and administrator so that while large crowds are a part of the ministries he leads, those ministries are often characterized by confusion and distraction.
Nevertheless, Phil’s calling to ministry can’t be doubted. His love for the Lord is beyond question.
His passion to see people come to a saving relationship with God through Jesus Christ is clearly the core of his existence. But, you just know that if you look up ADD/ADHD in the dictionary there will be a little sketch of Phil right beside it. He comes and goes with drama and fanfare.
When you look at the long-term record of his ministry honestly, you can’t escape the conclusion that Phil is a poor pastor whose congregations ultimately suffer from his ministry.
------------------------------
Gang, I know a bunch of Petes and I know a few Phils. Believe me, I know a Jerry. And, I know churches who have suffered because they have been 'pastored' by them.
I admit to being a lousy pastor.
I believe with all my heart that my calling to ministry is genuine. I am compelled by the Spirit to be in ministry. I often say, “I can’t not do this.” And, when I've been able to live within my gifts and calling, I have been effective for the Kingdom.
I’m called; I know I am. So are all the Petes and Jerrys and Phils leading our churches. We are called to ministry.
We’re just lousy pastors. Because we’re not called to be pastors.
The Word says in Ephesians 4 that “until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature…,” Jesus will give the church apostles and prophets and evangelists as well as shepherds (AKA pastors) and teachers.
The Petes, Jerrys and Phils in the church are testimony that the Word is true and that our Lord is true to His promise.
Pete is a lousy pastor because his gift is not to be a shepherd. Pete is an apostle, compelled to lead the church to fulfill the Great Commission. The Jerrys of the church are evidence that our Lord is still being true to His promise to give the church people called to be prophets, consumed by love for Truth. Phil is one of the evangelists the Word promises Christ will gift us. To the very core of his being, he is passionate about the saving of the lost.
The American church is losing its culture. There are many reasons that is so.
One of those reasons is rooted in the reality that we have turned our backs on the truth revealed in God’s Word and have become hapless followers of a tradition that traces back to a medieval notion that every parish should have its priest. The American Protestant church has both Americanized and Protestantized that folly so that we restate it in this way:
"Every church should have a pastor."
Well, that just ain’t biblical.
Not every person with a calling is called to be a pastor.
God is still gifting Christ’s church with apostles, prophets, evangelists as well as shepherds and teachers. The Word says that “until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God,” He will continue to bless us in that way.
And…
…as long as we continue to blindly embrace a medieval tradition, our apostles, prophets and evangelists--some of whom are immensely gifted--will merely live out their callings as…
…LOUSY PASTORS.
Some who know me really well would say that I myself am one. I don‘t argue.
So, I’d like to describe three lousy pastors whom I know. If you are a lousy pastor, you may see yourself in one of them. You may be one of them.
Pete is one of the most frustrated people I know. He is bright, focused, organized, highly self-motivated, innovative, entrepreneurial, and forward thinking. He is a genuine visionary, unbounded by traditional ways of thinking and acting. He brings a degree of enthusiasm to ministry that is rare. He has a million ideas about how the churches he pastors could make a difference in the communities in which they exist.
But, the plural of the word ‘church’ in that last sentence is key to understanding Pete‘s story. Pete cannot stay in one setting long enough to make a real difference.
Pete seems incapable of developing the spiritual fruit of patience. If, as Paul of Tarsus says, “Love is patient…” then Pete is not a man of love. If, as Paul adds, “Love is…not easily angered,” you might even doubt Pete’s salvation.
Pete’s a leader but not much of a people person.
He is so caught up in his vision of the future that he refuses to accept the reality that one of the things a pastor does is lead his flock at a pace it can tolerate. Pete seems to think that pastoring is all about mission and vision, not about the sheep.
Pete lives in the future.
He is constantly pushing and pulling, tugging and yanking to get others to join him there. He is absolutely intolerant of the cherished traditions of the congregations he serves. The people in those congregations who are only capable of moving forward in baby steps actually make Pete angry.
Pete can be a disaster at Church Council meetings. He hates them and after he’s been at a church for a few months, nearly everyone else on the Council hates them as much as he does.
His idea of a Council meeting is for him to cast his leadership vision and for others to embrace it and follow him--at his pace. Pete’s often called a tyrant or a dictator. And, despite his vision and obvious gifts, his pastorates are always short in duration. They always end in conflict before he has a chance to bring his incredible vision into reality.
Still, if you get to know him, you know that Pete loves the Lord and is passionate about the future of the church and you can‘t deny that his calling to ministry seems genuine.
When you boil it all down, Pete may be called to ministry but he is one just lousy pastor.
Jerry’s story is different from Pete’s but the bottom line is the same.
Jerry is passionate about the Lord and it is clear that he loves the church. He loves the Word and spends hours reading it and studying it and meditating on it. He has much of it committed to memory.
When Jerry prays aloud, more of his words are the words of Scripture than are his own words. Unlike Pete, Jerry seems capable of staying in one ministry setting for a number of years, but his ministry never really goes anywhere.
Jerry is a Bible scholar.
You wonder if he wouldn’t be better off if he were teaching in a college or a seminary. He is one of the rare people who likes Greek and Hebrew, has actually retained them from his school days, and is better at reading them after a few years in ministry than when he was in school. He’s the guy who loves to tell you what the Greek word is in the passage, what the verb tenses and moods signify and which other verses that word appears in.
So, yeah, Jerry loves the Word; you just wish he had as much love for his people as he does for the Word.
He spends hour upon hour in sermon preparation and Bible study. He leads the midweek service and a few other small group Bible studies as well. However, he is slow to make his visits and, except for his sermons, doesn’t provide a lot of ministry to his people. He has sound biblical ideas about ministry but little success in putting those amazing ideas into practice.
Generally, though, the people in his congregations like him--the ones who stay, at least.
His congregations usually hold their own in attendance for a few years. Lots of people leave, but nearly as many start attending because they like the sermons. Jerry has his critics, but others defend him passionately. He’s usually safe from his critics, even after attendance starts to decline, because he is obviously so spiritual a man and the care he takes in preparing his sermons places him above reproach in the minds of many in his congregation because the people there believe that the Bible is the Word of God.
Everyone who knows him agrees that Jerry has a genuine call to ministry. His passion for the Word is unassailable. His performance in the pulpit is average or better.
Still, the Great Commission compels the church to be making disciples and that rarely happens to a significant degree in Jerry’s ministry. In the end, after five, seven, ten, or twelve years, the congregations he serves have declined.
As hard as it might be for you to say it, based on the fruit his ministry has produced over the years, the truth is that Jerry is a devoted preacher but a lousy pastor.
Phil is an exciting flash in the pan.
His presence lights up every room he is in. He arrives in a blaze of glory and leaves with spectacular drama. Phil is a pure people person who knows to the core of his being that everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. He is a natural born witness. Every time you see him, he’s inviting someone to receive Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. He seems to know exactly what to say to lead an unbeliever to the point where he or she is willing to make a commitment to Christ.
Phil is well known in your Conference. The churches he pastors are always at the top or near the top of the list of churches whose attendance increased most in the last year.
One problem with Phil, though, like Pete, is that he never stays at one place very long. And, more often than not, a few years after he has left a church it loses all of the growth his ministry produced and, sadly, it often loses more than it gained and is wracked with division.
And, while Phil is a popular guy with a winning personality, he’s not really a great preacher.
His messages are interesting. But, his thinking is a mile wide and an inch deep and is filled with clichés. You get almost all of his theology in the first ten minutes of the first sermon you hear him preach. Sometimes the people in the congregation wonder if he even prepares his sermons. Long-time believers in his congregations are unchallenged by his teaching and preaching. For the most part, the droves of new believers that enter the congregations he’s led don’t mature as believers and seem to love Phil more than they love Jesus.
Phil’s ministry is often characterized by conflict in the congregations he serves in which the new people and the old people do not get along.
What’s more, because Phil’s ministry is so effective in bringing new people to a decision for Jesus, he is in demand as a guest speaker in other congregations. Phil thrives on those guest-speaking opportunities. If the congregation he serves allows him to accept all or nearly all of the invitations, the people soon become resentful. If he is restricted from accepting those invitations, Phil believes that he is being denied an opportunity to serve the Lord in the way that he is most effective and he becomes angry.
When Phil is at home with the congregation he pastors, he is restless. He pays little attention to the needs of the people of the congregation. His record of visiting long-time church families is poor. He seems distracted at Council meetings. He is a very poor organizer and administrator so that while large crowds are a part of the ministries he leads, those ministries are often characterized by confusion and distraction.
Nevertheless, Phil’s calling to ministry can’t be doubted. His love for the Lord is beyond question.
His passion to see people come to a saving relationship with God through Jesus Christ is clearly the core of his existence. But, you just know that if you look up ADD/ADHD in the dictionary there will be a little sketch of Phil right beside it. He comes and goes with drama and fanfare.
When you look at the long-term record of his ministry honestly, you can’t escape the conclusion that Phil is a poor pastor whose congregations ultimately suffer from his ministry.
------------------------------
Gang, I know a bunch of Petes and I know a few Phils. Believe me, I know a Jerry. And, I know churches who have suffered because they have been 'pastored' by them.
I admit to being a lousy pastor.
I believe with all my heart that my calling to ministry is genuine. I am compelled by the Spirit to be in ministry. I often say, “I can’t not do this.” And, when I've been able to live within my gifts and calling, I have been effective for the Kingdom.
I’m called; I know I am. So are all the Petes and Jerrys and Phils leading our churches. We are called to ministry.
We’re just lousy pastors. Because we’re not called to be pastors.
The Word says in Ephesians 4 that “until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature…,” Jesus will give the church apostles and prophets and evangelists as well as shepherds (AKA pastors) and teachers.
The Petes, Jerrys and Phils in the church are testimony that the Word is true and that our Lord is true to His promise.
Pete is a lousy pastor because his gift is not to be a shepherd. Pete is an apostle, compelled to lead the church to fulfill the Great Commission. The Jerrys of the church are evidence that our Lord is still being true to His promise to give the church people called to be prophets, consumed by love for Truth. Phil is one of the evangelists the Word promises Christ will gift us. To the very core of his being, he is passionate about the saving of the lost.
The American church is losing its culture. There are many reasons that is so.
One of those reasons is rooted in the reality that we have turned our backs on the truth revealed in God’s Word and have become hapless followers of a tradition that traces back to a medieval notion that every parish should have its priest. The American Protestant church has both Americanized and Protestantized that folly so that we restate it in this way:
"Every church should have a pastor."
Well, that just ain’t biblical.
Not every person with a calling is called to be a pastor.
God is still gifting Christ’s church with apostles, prophets, evangelists as well as shepherds and teachers. The Word says that “until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God,” He will continue to bless us in that way.
And…
…as long as we continue to blindly embrace a medieval tradition, our apostles, prophets and evangelists--some of whom are immensely gifted--will merely live out their callings as…
…LOUSY PASTORS.
posted by bill Sloat at 8:31 AM
38 Comments:
I believe we can not learn in a vacuum. We learn in community so maybe the community can help me answer some questions raised again by this post.
First I have to admit that in some ways I am a lousy pastor. There are things I am expected to do that I just do not do well--I don't negelct these responsibilities but I do not do them all well.
Secondly, I know "Pastor Pete". I have worked with him and it ain't easy. My doctoral thesis was on the management styles of independent fundamental pastors and they are, by their own admission, dictators (Lone Arrangers) whose departure often leads to the church board becoming the dictator.
But here is my dilemma, we have to give a clear statement of our call to be pastors in order to become pastors. Are we deluded? Seriously!
I am clear about my call to ministry. That is what has kept me going through difficult times BUT I do believe we need to take a serious look at the New Testament, as did John Winebrenner, to see if we missed the point. However, acknowledging we have missed the point may not help me sleep any better.
I have been thinking about this subject much since the recent podcast of 'apostolic leadership'
I would love for someone (us?) to begin to think about how we can move to be more faithful and effective.
How would our churches look if we rearranged to be more biblical? Several local churches sharing staff? More unpaid people serving in these capacities? More conference level staff?
I am convinced that you are on the right track, but what next?
Gang,
I got an email from a friend of mine who is a lurker on this blog. He reponded to this thread. With his permission, I'm going to enter his note to me and my response.
Wm.
I don't post on blogs , not yet anyway.
Concerning the various types of models your presented we all can say we come up short. There is no one who can be the perfect Pastor, absolutely no one. In a make believe world it could work.
I will yell till I am silenced NCD works but most simply are unwilling or not bright enough to work it. I am amazed that we are still chasing after another researcher like ???? for the answer.
If Business people would do what we do and many do and that is why you wonder why they went out of business!!!!!!!
When we renewal takes a church under consideration like ******* we need to bring ALL the resources available to us from local pastors to every commission in the conference. They need the full package to be renewed. By the way we don't need EXPERTS we need expert workers.
Secondly we need a plan that is REPRODUCIBLE. We can take the plan to ********** or ********** and by modifying it a bit make it work for all locations the conference has all the stuff in place they are simply misusing the tools.
Now I know I have drifted a bit from your point on the blog but in reality not as much as you might think. NAIL me to the wall because I want my plan to be transparent
Back to the original post.
As ministry is presently structured we will never fit your model of Ephesians 4 :11.
Business's know that and have Plant managers, Credit managers , Human Relation managers and so on There never was, nor will their ever be one size fits all.
-------------------
My reply:
Quite a few thoughts, there.
Could the problem with NCD [Natural Church Development] be that there is not enough balanced help from outside a willing congregation to make it doable? In order for NCD to work, it may be that you need some apostolic, prophetic, evangelistic, shepherding and teaching participation in the implementation of a ministry plan. Many congregations don't have access to that from within and need help from outside.
Another problem, of course (and a more basic one) is that NCD amounts to a call for specific items of repentance and that many congregations--and even many 'pastors'--are not willing to repent of the ways they do what they do.
There is the most basic spiritual confrontation at hand every time NCD is presented. You could say that it goes back to Yahweh's call to Abram to leave everyone and everything he was accustomed to and to go to the place that Yahweh would show him. Most 'pastors' and congregations aren't willing to be the Lord's people exclusively. Don't you agree?
As far as my Ephesians 4:11 model: Well, of course, first of all, it's Jesus' model.
You are exactly correct that as ministry currently is defined, we'll never get there.
I'm becoming convinced that the Doctrine of the Church that we operate on is heresy. It is based on a Medieval Roman Catholic theology that is entirely disconnected from Scripture.
In the CGGC, we say that the Bible is "our only rule of faith and practice" and then ignore the Word as far as its teachings about the church are concerned in favor of a tradition that is Catholic at its root--and Middle Ages Catholic at that!
Would we do that with the Doctrine of Salvation? Of the Holy Spirit? Of God? Of Mary?
But, as far as the way we operate our congregations and employ for the Great Commission the people called and gifted by the Holy Spirit to be in ministry, we take what is Catholic and tweak it only very slightly and are content.
How despicable!
No wonder congregations fail and people in ministry burn out! We are mindlessly and blindly quenching the Holy Spirit.
You are correct about businesses using the various gifts effectively.
Frost and Hirsch make a similar point in The Shaping of Things to Come. They provide not only a theological argument for the Fivefold Ministry but also what they call a 'Sociological Argument.' Hirsch extends that in The Forgotten Ways. They make the very point you have made. You are correct.
Blessings, bro.
bill
Bill -
Thinking back to the conversation about seminary training...
So much of theological education prepares students to serve an institution and not as missional leaders.
There is much blame to spread around.
Brent,
I know I sounded like a whacko in that conversation. But, there is very little that is right about theological education today.
It is, as you say, institutionally focused. It does not prepare people to be missional. In fact, I believe that it is often the case that people arrive at a seminary campus filled with spiritual gifts empowering them to be missional believers/leaders and have that zeal and passion institutionalized out of them by the time they take off the cap and gown and limp into pastoral ministry.
dan m,
You raise excellent questions. The sort I hoped this thread would inspire.
We need to form answers to them and put those answers into practice.
I was hoping that people would engage your questions in this thread.
Sadly,...
Here's a thought: If this reading of Ephesians 4 continues to our day (I too believe that it does) then it is the responsibility of each church (especially leaders) to ensure that they are including each of these areas of leadership. How that happens will vary by church. Very large churches probably can have each of these leadership giftings as paid staff or lay elders (or a combination thereof).
Smaller and Medium sized churches might need to get more creative. Maybe it means leveraging conference staff more, maybe it means targeting key unpaid people with these leadership gifts. Maybe it even means local churches forming some sort of a small network with an apostolic leader helping all of them.
If this is as important as we seem to think it is, we can't wait for someone else to do it. I think that if we can model it effectively, others will see what's going on more effectively then trying to make an arguement for its importance.
Thoughts?
Right on, Dan.
The church needs to see models of it...rather than more talk.
Dan,
I agree that a balance of the ministry of apostles, prophets, evangelists and pastors and teachers needs to become a part of the ministy of all of our local congregations.
Even in smaller congregations that balance may be present through the spiritual gifts of people who don't have what we think of a ministerial credentials.
I think I've pointed out here beforer that there is no biblical precedent for our odd notion that every church should have its own single pastor--none at all. That idea is, as the missional movement people would say, a Christendom notion. It does not come from Christ, who sent out His disciples in groups of two and called a body of twelve of them.
It doesn't come from the Apostles, who were nearly always doing things in groups of at least two.
I think the time for our General Conference and Regional Conferences to have the courage to tear down that Christendom model of ministry, which John Winebrenner didn't employ and to take to heart our supposed belief that "the (Bible) is our only rule of faith and practice."
To do so will take courage. It will require creativity. It will demand that we be in prayer for ourselves and our leaders.
I'm convinced that the change you are speaking of needs to come to the local congregations from leadership. And, that with as many declining congregations as we have, the movement toward radical change needs to begin yesterday.
I believe that doing things as we are now, we are defying the New Testament model of ministry and are, thus, quenching the same Spirit Who is moving powerfully in many parts of the world that are not polluted by unbiblical Christendom models of ministry.
And, Don, I agree with you. It's not time to be talking. It's time to get moving!
Bill,
I have two questions. Forgive me if this topic was discussed on previous posts...but (1) how does the role of elders in the church mesh with the need for congregational leaders, and (2) is a part of the problem the possibility or likelihood that the elders selected in many congregations do not have the kind of giftings needed for ministry leadership (or they have not been properly trained in how to use those giftings) so that the congregation is able to not only function but flourish without a single lead pastor in place?
I'm a late-comer to this conversation, having just come off 10 days in Haiti and our New Life for Haiti banquet (crazy week).
First-- Bill, your basic picture is right on. I feel God has gifted me personally with a number of these gifts, but even then the one "expected" of me most in the Christendom model church is that of pastor. The result is usually that I spread myself too thin, that the apostolic things get knocked from the top of the list, and sometimes that I pastor poorly. I realized reading these posts that my leadership team needs to know which of these they fit and live in those.
Second, to Don's question, yes, churches pick Elders who don't have these gifts because we think in terms of "church boards", rather than APEST Leadership Teams. This is a different and better lens for assembling a team of leaders.
Dan's comments about models were interesting to me, especially the idea of several churches choosing to network under an apostolic leader... Hmmm... where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, it was the New Testament. But this raises serious questions about denominational leadership perspectives, even (and for us especially) in the CGGC. I have been saying for some time that not only are we almost completely lacking apostolic leadership in the CGGC, but (as Bill noted) it's not part of our paradigm. If I asked, could someone produce a list (made before this blog) of every known apostolic leader across the CGGC or within one Region?
As a side note, Bill, I've added this whole topic to my list of ideas for future Grass Roots Gatherings.
I get irritated frequently by "sweeping generalizations" that tempt me to stay away forever....but here I am again.
For example, I disagree with the suggestion that "churches pick elders who don't have these gifts because we think in terms of church boards." That may be true in some places but certainly not all...and maybe not most. What's the basis for such statements?
My experience is just the opposite. Elders were chosen for their giftedness in pastoral care, evangelism, teaching, leadership, etc., not because they made good board members.
It would be interesting to include in our annual statistical survey a question such as "what criteria does your church look for in recommending someone to serve as an elder?"
And, Bill, in response to an earlier comment, I talk to lots of people about NCD (as I have done here in Sweden as well as in the States), and it does seem to be an effective tool if people use it in the way it was intended. The problem is that it is not a quick fix, and people in the States want an easy solution to a problem that has been years in the making.
Don,
About NCD: Just on the face of it, as someone who believes, along with the Apostle Paul, that we live in the midst of a spiritual war, that 'our battle is not against flesh and blood but against the rulers, against the authorities against the powers of this dark world...,' that any resource that offers a "Natural" strategy for victory, is ultimately and deeply flawed. In the best case, it would be inadequate.
My greatest problem with NCD is theological and based in its very assumptions. It is with the "N".
This may be long. I want to join the conversation.
Dan said, "I would love for someone (us?) to begin to think about how we can move to be more faithful and effective."
That is exactly what we are doing with Grass Roots.
Bill responded to an email, "Could the problem with NCD [Natural Church Development] be that there is not enough balanced help from outside a willing congregation to make it doable?"
I tend to agree with the emailer that the problem is that we aren't a movement. And Bill acknowledges that we don't bring regional apostolic leadership to bear on a church that helps an NCD work on a local level. NCD isn't a bad program. The problem is at a much more foundational level.
Hirsch quotes Bill Easum in the Forgotten Ways:
“Bill Easum goes on to note that every organization is built upon “an underlying systems story.” He points out that “this is not a belief system. It is the continually repeated life story that determines how an organization feels, thinks, and thus acts. This systems story determines how an organization behaves, no matter how the organizational chart is drawn. It’s the primary template that shapes all other things. Restructure the organization and leave the systems story in place, and nothing changes within the organization. It’s futile trying to revitalize the church, or a denomination, without first changing the system.” [Unfreezing Moves, p 31] Drilling down into this systems story – the paradigm, or mode of church – is, Easum suggests, one of the keys to change and constant innovation.” – p 54
Don Dennison points out that in his experience churches do pick appropriate elders. I think I agree with Don. I'm thinking of a local church that identified appropriate elders who were much younger than expected, but they have been ineffective because the underlying story is wrong and it renders them unable to be fruitful. Therefore an NCD type program would not be overly helpful to them because the church is built on the wrong story. Their story is institutional. All decisions are based on institutional thinking. Their story instead should be sacrifice and redemption.
That is why we must talk about books like The Present Future to orient that church to the appropriate story.
Don added, "The church needs to see models of it...rather than more talk."
I don't understand that comment at all. I do get irritated when people talk about foreign missions but never go. I get irritated when people talk about racial problems but don't have any diverse friendships. But we are talking about leadership models and we are working on our own models. The communication between churches, at least in the Midwest Region, is non-existent. We must create opportunities to talk.
Don asked about elders. Talk about model development, we are putting our first elders in place at the end of the month. We have waited so that we could have the appropriate people with the appropriate model. I've thought ideally what an elder would be, but then you have to put that against the personal gifting of those who God has chosen for your church.
I have also found (more accurately they have found me) people in our congregation with pastoral abilities, which honestly is not my strength. And they have risen up to touch people and make connections. Thank God!
Don, as for "sweeping generalizations" that make you not want to come back, get over it and continue to engage us with the apostolic leadership that God has so generously given you. Believe it or not, we long for a leader to speak to our ministries. But that leader can not continue to tell us to "settle down" and "work within the system." The stakes are too important.
Don,
(1) how does the role of elders in the church mesh with the need for congregational leaders,
Good question. I believe we need to find a good answer to it--one that is drawn from Scripture and not from the traditions of Christendom. I suspect that we may have to reexamine the clergy/laity distinction. Neither of those terms, as far as I know, are biblical.
(2) is a part of the problem the possibility or likelihood that the elders selected in many congregations do not have the kind of giftings needed for ministry leadership (or they have not been properly trained in how to use those giftings) so that the congregation is able to not only function but flourish without a single lead pastor in place?.
IMHO, yes.
I had a lot of catching up to do when I came to the blog this morning. Great stuff, a lot to think about and I will but I wanted to comment today about two items of interest about emerging and emergence. One, the current issue of Fuller Seminary's magazine is about the emerging church and what I have read is good. Secondly, I just got notice of a new book by Baker Books "The Great Emergence". In the research of the writer, Phyllis Tickle, every 500 years the church goes through a great change (it certainly takes that long in most local churches). Guess what? We are living in that 500th year time frame. Is that exciting or what?
As to this ongoing discussion maybe we should make 2009 a year of prayer for discernment and change. If we have it wrong let's commit to asking God to help us get it right.
Did any great change come without prayer? I know most of us are already praying and I appreciate your sensitivity but what about a year (or a month if that is all it takes) of concerted, targeted prayer?
I have been part of a large denomination where the Pastor of the Church is the only elder in the church and the congregation has a Pasto/ Parish relations committee. I have also served in a role where the preacher is considered just a minister and not an elder/pastor and the church is governed by those who are the elders and have equal if not more authority than the preacher.
Both systems seem very flawed to me. I have found and believe my heart is aching for a team model. When I read the New Testament and try to remember polity at all, from my other denominations I see the role of Pastor and Elder being the same thing. I think I remember them both being from the Greek word Episkapos (lousy spelling I know). And that Congregations were ruled by a plurality of elders. And if that is true than I believe that Elders in congregations should fit the role of a Pastor and Vice a Versa. But maybe instead of calling them elders we should call them according to their Eph. names. I don't know.
A movement that I have become quite familiar is the Acts 29 movement, and part of their DNA is to find leaders from within their walls to fill as many roles as possible. They also try to pay as many as their elders as possible. There is no division between hired elders and volunteer elders. Both groups are considered Clergy/Pastors in the church. They are both ordained to the same position and hold each other accountable. To me this makes the most sense utilizing peoples gifts and allowing them to truly follow their calling. Thus fulfilling the Eph. 4 model.
To me an apostle over many house churches makes sense, but to have an Apostle separated from an area leading seems to bother me. It seems very top/down solution orientated verses bottom/up. And I think if we look to see the fastest growing churches in the western world right now we see it’s the bottom up churches, grass roots churches, rather than Heavy handed denominationally run churches (I’m not saying the CGGC is that way).
To me though teamwork seems of the most importance. Weather it is locally, with our regions or nationally.
My family has benefited greatly from the support of the CGGC nationally with our premature son. And I wonder if churches would partner with churches the way they partnered with my family what amazing things could be done.
I guess though, the pride of pastors might prevent that. They might feel they have the best ideas and don’t want others help or input. I know I've been there. I hope I’m not anymore. But that is another discussion.
I'm sorry for the randomness of this post. I'm on a quick break at my secular job, but this (this idea) is what my church and my heart need.
thanks-
Justin
Oh ya, I've been a Pete and a Phil. I hope I'm growing out of it. Time will tell.
Fran,
Bill, your basic picture is right on. I feel God has gifted me personally with a number of these gifts, but even then the one "expected" of me most in the Christendom model church is that of pastor. The result is usually that I spread myself too thin, that the apostolic things get knocked from the top of the list, and sometimes that I pastor poorly. I realized reading these posts that my leadership team needs to know which of these they fit and live in those.
Fran,
You are so right on! You are living the pain that the unbiblical, tradition-bound Christendom model of ministry inflicts on everyone who is not a shepherd.
You are a church planter. The current form of the Christendom model has at least figured out that shepherd types can’t do that. So, in ‘boot camps’ Christendomites unwittingly search for people with the fruit of the apostolic gift to plant churches.
Here’s the thing, though: Once they have done that, they then define the apostle’s task as that of shepherd and designate the planter to become the PASTOR of a church plant.
I defy EVERYONE to show me the biblical model for today’s common practice of demanding that the planter of a church be a pastor.
What shepherd-based arrogance! (How’s that for an oxymoronic phrase? “Shepherd-based arrogance.” But, that’s exactly what it is.)
Fran you will always feel this tension as long as our Christendom generated notion that every parish should have its priest dominates--even in the task of planting churches.
If and when we recommit ourselves to a biblical model of leadership, you will be allowed to live right smack dab in the bulls eye of your calling and the unbiblical and theologically corrupt ‘expectation’ that you do the work of a pastor will not be foisted on you.
But, if any of us will ever get there, it will be because some of us choose to fight the good fight against the system on the macro levels of Region, General Conference and, ultimately, within the entire Christendom-plagued body of Christ. Dealing with it in the context if your own ministry will only apply a bandage to a deep and serious wound. (That's what Hirsch says in Chapter 2.)
You up for the struggle, bro?
Don... sorry for the "sweeping generalization"-- perhaps it was too broad, but the reality is that in the Christendom model, many "elders" in church do not really function as fully released APEST leaders, because they are not clergy, and they often do become more "decision makers" than people doing some piece of the 5-fold ministry. I'm GLAD your experience is different, but there are many places where this is the reality.
I think Brian's comment that the underlying issue the "systems story", particularly whether the church is caught up more in institution or movement, hits the nail on the head when it comes to what we are groping for here. When the church is a movement, she puts into play all those gifted in these 5 roles, because the nature of movement requires it-- she can't live without them. Conversely, once the church has become institutionalized-- as it mostly has now in western culture-- it requires the apostolic and prophetic people to be renewed and awakened again, and these tend to be the very giftings sifted out in the institutionalization process. Kind of a catch 22, if you get my drift.
I am very convinced that it is not just a change in leadership paradigms, though, which will renew the church, it is fresh paradigms for the gospel and the mission of the church. This is what Hirsch says apostolic leaders bring-- they hold forth a fresh "missional DNA" and embed it in the leaders who choose to follow them. This is what seems so obviously missing in the CGGC today: both the apostolic leaders and the fresh paradigms of the gospel and the mission they might impassion leaders with. What an apostle holds forth, other leaders hear and say, "Yes! That's it!" And then they chase it, and sacrifice to see that gospel and mission penetrate lives and form new communities and bring transformation.
Oh man oh man oh man.
I cannot believe I am dipping my toe into the murky waters of this conversation.
Before I continue, I need to give a hearty agreement to Brian's nail on the head posting. Models are not the cure to this problem. It is rather putting the cart before the horse. Until we get the story right, the model is merely a band aid over a self inflicted bullet wound known as the failure of the Western Church.
I suspect when we get the story right, you will find that many models will work to express the story.
Dan had some really interesting thoughts and I will give my replies to them.
"I would love for someone (us?) to begin to think about how we can move to be more faithful and effective."
You are off to a good start.
"How would our churches look if we rearranged to be more biblical? "
They would be smaller and few Evangelicals would feel welcome in them, but you would see a new breed of people who have become God's forgotten children the last few decades.
"Several local churches sharing staff? More unpaid people serving in these capacities?"
This requires less insular bodies and that is gonna be a huge habit to break, but I think it would be cool. I just got space for the humble little plant I am merrily putting together. Our "ministries" are dovetailing off the work of Lifespring. I am also sharing ministries with the Congregational church that owns the space I am renting and I even dabble and help out with the Catholic church 2 towns over. Do we share staff? Not paid staff...but we share the resources of our people to help others...at least we are starting to pop our missional cherry in that direction.
Do I make a good pastor? Nah. Never really thought of myself as one. I am some guy who is called by God to start this church...yet I am not a church planter (I love this, but never wanna do it again). I see me as a minister and a Shepard...actually less of a Shepard, but more of a vet finding sheep out there with broken legs who cower easily because of all the abuse they suffered at some abusive shepherd. I do not see myself as a CEO, MC, and member of some bored dictators...I mean board of directors.
In some ways, as we journey down the road of the Grass Roots, I see my walk along this road as easier than many of you.
Your hearts are changing, your asking the right questions, but you have to steer a huge ship with a small rudder of questions in a sea ripe with land mines, ice burgs, and sirens while a albatross has mysteriously perched on the bow. In the process of change, it is going to likely be slower than any of you want and some people are gonna jump ship claiming you are a stinky captain. I have a clean page from which to start and it is the wisdom of some of you and others in my life that is helping me build what I pray is a small and nimble little ship able to turn wherever the Holy Spirit guides us.
I think I had a point when I started this...no...I just wanted to give a thumbs up to some of the thoughts I heard and say I'm with ya on this messy journey.
Captaintux-
Would you explain these two comments?
They would be smaller and few Evangelicals would feel welcome in them...
&...but you would see a new breed of people who have become God's forgotten children the last few decades.
I think I know what you are saying. I just want to make sure.
And then also how do we balance these ideas with the Contemporary Church planting models that require numbers to keep affiliation with certain groups and keep certain Status (for instance existance)?
Maybe the answer is we shouldn't fund church plants and have them just make it on their own or only be daughtered off certain, specific churches which can lead to very limited funding.
I know as a church planter I was more than blessed with our church plant funding and I would hope that others recieve that benifit.
But if the goal is smaller more service minded groups is the funding ultimately needed?
I don't know. Just thouhgt I would ask.
Fair questions.
Before I go on, lemme say that in many ways, I feel like a newbie surrouned by statesmen here so I am more than willing to be told I am off base with skewed perspectives.
In reference to smaller with fewer evangelicals feeling welcome. I think that when you ask older Christians who have been in the faith for a few decades to live like the first and second century church by way of being more missional...this is gonna make them bristle. Many are looking for a consumer Jesus experience. Half caf Christ skinny with a dash of cinnamon. When we reach beyond small groups and better music and sermons that revolve around tips and tricks to better marriages and financial wellness and dip into the realm of working at food pantries, welcoming the poor and homeless(who tend to smell bad) into our midst and look at the tithe as a storehouse to help the community as opposed to plush chairs and bigger campuses...they will move on to the next consumer attractional church. If this path is truly narrow, when you talk about this real and rich and deep road...those who look at church as a swell sunday service with great programs would rather keep that than ask the tougher questions. Most of our current church planting and growth is marketing based shuffling of the sheep as opposed to honest change.
The new breed of people. As I start this church. Ny "core" consists of few "churched" folks and is more or less people I have met hanging out with college kids, going to karaoke, going to Rocky Horror and just getting to know them. They know about Jesus. They have even been to church as a youth, but saw no relevance. I have a lot of single moms. In evangelical culture we have a culture war between working and stay at home moms. These alternative folks who are single moms or stay at home dads almost never feel completely welcome in church. Here is an example. The church I used to go to had a married life live program. 4 times a year couples drop off their kids at the church gym and go off for a few hours on a date and come back and there is a sermon geared to them. The single moms are good enough to watch the kids but not to have their own night like this. The ladies groups in most churches take place during the day while kids are in school and hubbie is out. This is not the reality a single mom who lives in a one bedroom apartment with THREE kids and two jobs lives in. I could go on with examples of 20 somethings, stay at home dads, gay people, and a lady I know who is a stripper trying to figure out life (who keeps leaving churches when she is found out..usually because a congregant went to her club for lap dances but he is not made to feel uncomfortable). In other words, God's forgotten children are those who our subculture does not welcome because of the insular folkways and mores we have established in what sometimes becomes a protection from the world club as opposed to being a salt and light to a flavorless and dark world.
"And then also how do we balance these ideas with the Contemporary Church planting models that require numbers to keep affiliation with certain groups and keep certain Status (for instance existance)?"
Personally, I feel our church planting models need serious re appraisal. More to come as I go.
"Maybe the answer is we shouldn't fund church plants and have them just make it on their own or only be daughtered off certain, specific churches which can lead to very limited funding.
I know as a church planter I was more than blessed with our church plant funding and I would hope that others recieve that benifit.
But if the goal is smaller more service minded groups is the funding ultimately needed? "
Wow. Some deep thoughts here. I turned down an opportunity for $150k funding from the WCA to be part of a grass roots "daughter" relationship with my "parent" church. THe friendships, advice, love, and council I get from them has garnered me FAR more than the cookie cutter model that not even Willow Creek was actually built on could have ever given me. Yeah, I got next to zero money and this thing is financially gonna be a wing and a prayer...but there is no evidence to suggest that bigger and more means more substantial.
I do think SOME level of funding needs to happen. But in the parent church planting another church thing..that can happen with a love offering.
Back to the church planting. When I was made the offer that I rejected, here is the way I see it.
Overall, I think it is churches that should be in the business of making churches and minsters in the business of training ministers. I hate to use Star Wars as a reference, but I think the Master and the Padawan is the best thing. Now, a gathering of churches be it an association or a denomination is a helpful thing. Church is not a building..it is like Ubuntu…you and me and all of us on a journey to follow Jesus and live like Jesus. That said, I think the denominations and associations need to loosen up the formulas and allow God the opportunity to lead this thing. If we believe he made all of this and if we believe that God used ordinary people in the Bible to do his will and accomplish some great things…then we need to know that God may call people who do not fit into our molds to do God’s will. God seems to have a funny sense of humor or irony or something in that the least of these tend to do some pretty cool things.
Now, let's take a look at that offer I refused. It will be fun! First, you will think you have a call of God on your life to be a vocational minister. If you do not happen to have a divinity degree from a Liberal Arts Bible College…you will have to go into debt to the tune of 40-100 thousand dollars. Okay, so now you have to take your broke and indebted a** that has not worked for four years and send in an application. Contained in the application will be the following sorts of things:
- Personal Information (including photo)
- Resume
- References
- Testimony & Call to Plant Questionnaire
- Marriage & Family Questionnaire
- Theology, Core Values, and Pastoral Theology Questionnaire
- Planting Strategy & Timeline Questionnaire
- Personality Profiles
- Phone Interview
- Preaching Sample
- Confidential Questionnaire
All of this is put through a matrix to determine your worth as a person of God and ability to cut it. If the matrix says you are a swell guy and your wife is swell and kids are cute…well, they will take the time to get to know you and develop a relationship. See, we must make sure you score well in a number of areas relevant to the characteristics of a successful church planter before we get to know you. I mean, to do the subjective before the objective would be…well…crazy.
So hey, now you are a lead-planter applicant! Wheeee! You now get a personal assessment interview and then your spouse is interviewed to make sure she falls in line. What I mean is they will sit down for an interview/coaching time with you and your wife (required) and scrutinize your background, your plans, your strategy and perform a SWOT analysis!!!! Now comes another step to determine your readiness and potential in planting. If you pass this, you will hit the next stage. Develop of their…uh..I mean…your strategy and plan your next steps. If you are ready to plant and they and the cosmo magazine plagiarized tests claim you are ready, you are approved as a candidate as they help you establish your action timeline, and you get permission to gather your core group and funding. Sounds like CEO boot camp so far. Now, from here we will do demographic analysis of your preferred residential area of ministry, perform a financial viability analysis, canvass the area with marketing to create awareness and excitement and create a dynamic and entertaining worship service to draw people into the Sunday structure and tithing dynamic and get a building project underway with attendance goals for the first three years based on a formula. Failure to reach said goals may result in reassessment and/or loss of central funding. Once you have a spiffy building…consider it a starter home as one day you will go for a campus…along the way…you might even help some people.
Tell me again what I am missing out on? Man, it is a wonder Jesus and 12 kinda dense guys and couple of unmarried chicks ever got this whole thing started. I mean…it is clear that based on all this…they did it wrong.
Do I have the right answer to how to re engineer church plants? No. Time will tell if God's hand is on ours. But I am at a point where if it is 12 of us gathered in a room for the next five years and we make a difference...I call it a win.
Okay, I was very verbose and not in the mood to grammar check. Sorry for any poor spelling.
BTW, name is Pat Green.
I wanted to make the funding question a separate issue.
When you have a church and you are a "statesman" it is easy to look at the missional model and say they need limited funding. I agree that we should have far less funding than the purpose driven attractional models do. But we do need funding of some sort.
In the ideal world, if I had 6 months to a year of the rent for my space, my liability insurance, my vonage phone, and website, and a little printing costs covered....I could make a go of this missional direction with far less worries.
Do I need 150k a year? Hell no! (To you know who-this is NOT a hint) However, if I could bank on 1k a month for the first six months to a year...we could do some amazing things.
In my case I have an advantagious situation in that I do not need personal income from tithes or a church body. However, there is a VERY distinct possibility that could change on me sooner rather than later. Should that happen..well...I have experience in private security and could relationships with a few hip clubs, concert venues, and so forth. I am good with drunk and high people and I could do late shift bouncer work if I had to. :)
Don't give the new planter coin for income, but let him or her have something for the bricks and mortar.
Welcome Captain Tux. If I'm reading who you are correctly, I'll finally meet you in a couple of weeks.
As for Justin's thought on funding and size expectations, and as the guy who wrote up his funding and size expectations, I would say two things.
One, both ideas are vestigial from earlier modern models. No doubt.
Second, many times, church planters don't realize how many people they can engage in a short time and make part of their core. Whether they are bashful or have problems with time management (I'm not naming any names Justin so don't worry), they often put their efforts in the wrong area. The main area of a church planter should be engaging people to be in the core. I can't imagine the Apostle Paul did it any different.
Planters of any sort (modern or post-modern) rarely want any written expectations. But if Captain Tux is going to continue to pay the rent, somebody needs to be giving something!
And as I've told Justin before, it is my belief that you can add more to your base congregation prior to launch than after. (You may even object to the word launch, but don't miss the point.)
I may or may not be a jedi young padawans but then again...
maybe we should start a new entry on church planting for this conversation.
Also, I'd love to hear some of you guys offer a perspective on beginning to change the culture of a local church to become more missional.
I agreae that denominational leaders and seminaries need to embrace a different (more biblical?) perspective. But right now, how does a church of, say 60-80 or 100 with a solo pastor and a congregation generally willing to change get started?
I will first address my thoughts on Dan's comment.
I agree we should start a new one on church planting.
Actually I think denominational leaders and seminaries are going to be the last to change and they may find that their change has come too late as they walk into obsolescence while small meeting happen all over and rise from the ashes.
How does a small church with a willing batch of folk get started? You just do it. Get some coats for the homeless, get involved with something like New Life for Haiti and get people out of their comfort zone and into the third world. Don't overthink it, just start with a series of small acts of missional life. It is in the eyes of the beggar and the single mom and the dying aids patient that we will see Jesus and it is in our eyes when we dispense love that they will see Jessus. It is a symbiosis and the beginning of the realization that love needs to be felt before it can be explained.
Now to Jedi Brian. Yeah, we will be meeting soon, sir. I would agree whole heartedly that planters do not realize how many people they can engage in a short time. But I also think it is important for planters (padawans) and the coach pastor (Jedi Master) to establish a common definition of core and launch. Dovetailing off earlier comments by you...we must be telling the right story. If we are not, no model will work. If we are, many models and expressions can come into play as long as the story is authentic.
So now comes the deeper question. What is a core and what are we launching? If we are launching a worship service on sunday morning, we are launching the wrong thing. If our core is a group of people meant to establish our attendance for that sunday service, we are telling the wrong story.
Jesus started with 12 for the most part and started this whole thing. Realistically, my church will likely max out at 70 or maybe even 150. If that is the community max, what does the core need to be before we go to a Sunday service? Better question...how many people do we need to start acting in love, thinking missionally, making a difference, living Matthew 25, and making real disciples? When we change our story, the number becomes smaller and our definition of launch becomes different.
So let me try to bring the two threads toghether. How in a small and/or brand new church, do you bring these ideas together of having the Eph. Model Church with your group full of new to nonchristians.
To me, this is a great discussion for church planters or new churches to be in on, so we can get it into our DNA early on.
I understand being missional. Our faith community serves dinner to homeless every Sunday night. Also the majority of our congregation is homeless or formely homeless.
Also we provide Transitional housing for homeless families. Matthew 25 is a major part of our DNA.
But how do we fit in this idea of having Christs model from Eph 4. I know how it works in the Charismatic/ Pentacostal Churches ( i probably own to many books on the topic from that point of view)
I'm wondering how to get the Cooperation, we've talked about, through those offices in the church/faith community setting?
I am a mixture of Pete and Phil, some of it is my immaturity, but I also think it is some of my gifting. I think I have some of the Apostle Paul Syndrome in me. I go to a town and think "man we could plant a church here. Give me 6 monthes to a year and I could round up a group of folks and with the power of Christ we could really change this town."
I also like the idea of empowering people to do ministry and pick up were I left off. Where I see my down fall in that is, maybe I'm good at getting people to follow me and not Jesus. I've had my share of leaving a church in bad shape after leaving, even though God blessed us with large amounts of growth, but I wasn't a good steward of that growth.
I stuggle in the area of Discipleship. In fact River City Church (our faith community) is having Dr. Mike Householder from Global Church Growth Discipling, come and help us develop a discipling method so all our core group is on the same page. Our goal is to have a uniformed method to take a person from Salvation to leader in a couple of years.
How would the Eph 4 model fit into that. Is there an Eph 4 spiritual gift assement? I say that somewhat jokingly and seriously. I know I should hopefully learn to know my people good enough to identify those gifts in them. But honestly I don't know what I'm looking for.
At this point in time we as a faith community don't have the Dogma and Tradition of most churches, so let me say I think we are a good canidate to experiment with. Help me to understand what this looks like. Disciple me. Let's try to put into action these ideas we have been talking about. Every sunday I share with our group that I want us to be the church of the New Testament.
If you all can help us get there together. I'm all for it.
When I hear about Ephesians 4 church and missional churches I often see one community. You are asking the people to be active participants in the journey.
In the big show on sunday, that means finding ways in which the service is not merely a passive event. In modern church growth movement, the show is more entertaining, but it is still passive by nature and if that is the central hub that people see the church as, we have set a week by week precedent of passivity.
To act out on ones spiritual gifts and to be missional means the people have to do something and our job is to not only train and equip people to do these things, but we also have to create an atmosphere where people feel comfortable and welcome to step up to the plate.
Cap'ntux,
Just to let you know that I'm catching up on your posts and have read two.
So far, I'm with you.
Welcome in more ways than one!
Dan M,
I agreae that denominational leaders and seminaries need to embrace a different (more biblical?) perspective. But right now, how does a church of, say 60-80 or 100 with a solo pastor and a congregation generally willing to change get started?
My passion is 'renewal.' I work on the Commission in the Eastern Region. From what people tell me, we are ahead of other Conferences in doing congregational transformation and we are not very far into a biblical process.
If you want to pick my brain about you setting, I'll be glad to chat.
Models that the CGGC is currently using are, for the most part, corrupted by the modern worldview and a Christendom-entrenched doctrine of ecclesiology.
pbsloat@Yahoo.com
Justin,
Great questions about Ephesians 4.
Thanks.
We really all need to get together in one place to talk this through and to begin to pray together for power and guidance.
BTW, I met you last year at General Conference and have prayed for you and the River City community each day since.
BTW, we are trying to get Bill to the November Grass Roots conference so if we do, Bill WILL get to hang out with Justin and Capn Tux. Anybody want to help us out to fund Bill's travel?
I don't have much, but I think I can come up with $25 or $50. Bill I also Remember Brian introducing us at General Confrence. Thank you for the prayers. It would be great to be able to spend some time with you in November. Laura Beth and I hope to be there early Friday.
Brian do you need help with Reg.?
I'm a church planter 15 years into it, now trying to spark something more than a church plant here and there. So I know about being a new and small group with mostly new Christians and few leaders. The import of Ephesians 4 is that God HAS already given these gifts-- apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds and teachers-- to his church. If I, as a solo, start a new church without finding any of the other APESTs to put on my team, and all the people who come are new Christians, then we will be a church led by one of those giftings, rather than a church where several of them play their part. That's life, and may suggest that as we plant churches we need to know which of these APEST giftings we are, and search for those who are gifted differently to help us.
Don't get distracted by discussions of "multi-staff" at this point, because there is nothing in Scripture to suggest that God only calls people into these APEST functions who have been to seminary or get paid for doing ministry. I would submit that since most church communities are smaller, then in most church communities these will be what we like to call "lay people". I have several elders in my church-- most are shepherds (along with our small group leaders), one is more teacher and prophet. I lean apostolic, which I've discovered usually means a guy has some of all the others, but is somewhat jack-of-all-trades and master of none. My point is that APEST is lived out in my church MOSTLY by unpaid, non-seminary people.
Captain Tux is planting from under us-- one of my concerns is that he needs to find some of these people as he gets going. It's hard to go it alone (most of us have been there, right?), and a team brings the balance God had in mind.
If you guys haven't read Hirsch's stuff on how the APEST roles fit inside one another (The Forgotten Ways), it's worth it. I think God's APEST idea is that the apostles will shape the big picture and call us to the mission, the prophets will speak the truth that keeps us healthy, the evangelists will ensure that we are the "city set on a hill" bringing the message of life and freedom beyond our walls, the shepherds will attend to the details of people's life-journeys, and the teachers will keep deepening our understanding of the Word and the Way. WOW-- I want to be a part of a church like that-- God has a great concept here!
The first step is to know what you are, then you'll know what you need around you.
Well said, Fran!
Bill, how much do you need to go to grass roots?
Justin,
I'm driving my fuel efficient Honda Civic Coupe and traveling with my best friend Jerry who'll share the fuel expenses. I'll be able to swing it financially.
Thanks so much for your willingness to assist me, though.
bill
Post a Comment
<< Home