Ten Characteristics of a Spiritually Plateaued Leader
I recently started reading Neil Cole's book, Organic Leadership. In the introduction (pp.22-25) he has a list of 10 characteristics of a spiritually plateaued leader that he borrowed from Terry Walling and adapted and elaborated on. They are...1. A spiritually plateaued leader avoids relationships of personal accountability. These leaders are removed from people. They have a degree of separateness that keeps them unaccountable to anyone. Often Christendom has reinforced such a separation and tried to justify it as biblical, to the detriment of the church, the world, and especially the leader...
2. A spiritually plateaued leader rarely applies the truths of God's Word to him or herself personally. Many Christian leaders have pursued education and have become experts on the Bible, thus believing they have no more to learn. These leaders no longer read the Word for insight into their own lives, but rather apply it to the problems others have. They read the Bible only to find solutions to other people's issues rather than with their own needs in mind.
3. A spiritually plateaued leader has replaced his or her joy, peace, and love with envy and resentment. People cannot simply manufacture godliness by modifying their behavior to conform to Christ's ideals. The fruit of God's Spirit, seen in every aspect of our lives, is evidence of our redeemed character, not the works we force ourselves to perform to demonstrate our religious behavior. Where the Spirit is not in control, the fruit is not evident, and no amount of hard work can make it so. Leaders who are no longer growing in their pursuit of the Lord cannot display the fruit of the Spirit and often exhibit instead sour religious attitudes. It's amazing how these ugly ways of thinking, when enough leaders display them, are accepted as the norm...
4. A spiritually plateaued leader frequently looks for greener pastures in other places. Often Christian leaders blame their church or organization for the lack of fruitfulness in their ministry. They attribute the success others have to the luck of landing in the right place at the right time. Leaders who think like this are always looking to move to a better place where their ministry will be truly appreciated and the success they deserve will finally come. This means that many pastors move frequently from one church to the next looking for success.
5. A spiritually plateaued leader finds faults in others more often than in self. The leaders find introspection difficult and rarely evaluate themselves, though they are often busy evaluating everyone else. They "find the speck in their brother's eye but do not notice the plank protruding from their own" (Mt. 7:3)...
6. A spiritually plateaued leader is burned-out from lots of busyness that has been substituted for simple intimacy with Christ. Spiritually plateaued leaders are exhausted because they are usually deceived into thinking that more effort and more activity are ways to gain closer access and blessing from God. This is a devastating lie from hell itself. There is no substitute for intimacy with Christ. More activity will never satisfy our deep need to connect with God and usually prevents us from having the intimacy we so desperately require... While carrying out religious busyness may grant us a sense of importance, it does not renew our hearts with joy and purpose. Instead it robs us of the strength we need...
7. A spiritually plateaued leader compromises on ethical principles once held dear. It is not uncommon to find such leaders have fallen deep into patterns of hidden sin. Using grace and liberty as excuses, they continue to function publicly without regret or remorse, while behind closed doors they carry out sinful practices...
8. A spiritually plateaued leader stays within safe areas of expertise rather than branching out into new learning endeavors. This sort of leader wants to be seen as an expert rather than a learner and therefore has no intention of exploring new fields or gaining new understanding... The idea of learning something new is scary because it implies that the leader does not have the expertise that has been part of his or her identity.
9. A spiritually plateaued leader is unable to acknowledge the wisdom of others. This leader talks more often than listens, is uninterested in what others have to say, and is easily offended if someone contradicts his or her idea. It is almost impossible to tell this person anything new...
10. A spiritually plateaued leader has reduced the Christian life to a routine. The plateaued leader is in a kind of holding pattern and is not moving forward in his or her walk with Christ. For this person life is a routine, trying to live the Christian life in the right Christian way. It is a static existence of maintaining what is, rather than developing anything new. It is a life of a few dos and many don'ts.
Neil suggests at this point that we might need to put the book down and spend some time alone with the Lord. I was already thinking that when I first read through it. I believe it does us all good to spend some time thinking about our own soul from time to time. Perhaps some of you might find this list as difficult, and helpful, as I did.
Peace out; and in.
Labels: books
posted by dan at 8:47 AM
38 Comments:
thanks, dan. i'll have to put some time on this. i really don't want to, but that's mostly because i know it's going to hurt. may God make me to trust Him and seek and know joy in Him beyond the pain of the road.
Dan,
I'm loving the book.
I have several thoughts about this list.
1. When you look at the whole CGGC and consider the entire universe of leaders, including what the Christendom gang calls 'lay' leaders, based on my years on the ERC Renewal Commission, many of our leaders don't even measure up to the characteristics of spiritually plateaued leaders. For us to have a leadership culture of spiritually plateaued leaders would be a move in the right direction.
2. From my study of Church of God history, in our movement days we had very few spiritually plateaued leaders. The norm was that our leaders were spiritually empowered.
3. It seems to me that the point that Cole makes, or at least implies, is that institutions create spiritually plateaued leaders. Movements are, well, moved by spirit-empowered leaders.
4. As is the case with nearly all of our problems, the solution to our leadership deficit begins on the macro level. The CGGC system is the real demon here. It drains called people of their spiritual vitality by forcing on them an institutional paradigm that has no basis in Scripture and we all suffer.
5. The MLI will fail because it is micro focused. It hopes to transform individuals but leaves the system intact. Until we summon the courage to call for macro-repentance, we will continue to decline into the institutional morass. Any of us who grow will be beat down by the institution unless we beat it into macro-repentance.
Bill,
I generally tend to think I am one of the most negative people in a room at any given time, but you, my friend, give me a good run for the money. :)
I have not read enough of the book yet to get a good feel for it. It does seem pretty easy to read (as was 'Search & Rescue').
Some thoughts I have in response to yours... I am a pretty simple thinker, and I don't have near the understanding of church history or CGGC history that you have... but in going through Reggie McNeal's dvd study of The Present Future he said something that might qualify some of our differences in how we see things.
I don't know if you've seen it, but in the second session (first video), he talks about the differences in generations (seniors, builders, boomers, gen-x, and millenials). He says boomers are the ones who have the hardest time with "church issues", because they tend to be the ones who think we can fix things - whether it be building a better church, better denomination, better company - or whatever (and I'm taking liberties with what Reggie actually said, I can't remember everything exactly). In other words, boomers seem to be more "systems" people. Gen-xers and millenials, on the other hand, could care less about the systems or trying to make things better on a larger scale. Not that they don't care, but they think it's something that is done on a more one-on-one basis.
I know it's not exactly the same thing, but that is sometimes what I hear when people talk about "macro" vs. "micro" stuff. I wonder how much a boomer mentality drives that, versus someone like me - who has more of a gen-x outlook (I fall kind of in the middle of different people's categories between boomer and gen-x; but probably am more aligned with gen-x).
(to be continued)...
(continuing)...
So... everything you say about the current and former cggc leaders may be true (I don't really know, and it really doesn't matter all that much to me). But I think we see the solution coming about in different ways. Rather than holding out for some kind of denominational/macro change, I understand the way of Jesus as being much more subversive (I don't know if you've read any Eugene Peterson, but that's what I'm talking about). Rather than an outside-in change, I think Jesus was more about an inside-out change... where we start with a few, who deal with a few, and we change the world one heart/life at a time.
Maybe that's considered too idealistic... or too "shepherd-like" (although I believe Jesus was the "great" shepherd)... But sometimes I think this call for a macro-change is more akin to Christendom thinking (changing the system).
Again, I say all that not being at all sure that I even have a good understanding of words like "christendom", "macro", micro", or anything else. This is just how things seem to me. I put up this post because it spoke to where I was, and I think sometimes we church leaders can tend to get so wrapped up in what everyone else is doing or not doing, that we forget to take a look at ourselves sometimes. Not that I'm saying you are... I'm just saying.
At any rate, I appreciated your comments... but to be honest, I hope you are wrong. I hope the MLI will be wildly successful (in the way that it needs to be); I tend to think Cole doesn't think we should rely all that much on developing leaders through our macro systems (have you heard of his LTG groups?), and I hope that when our history is written it will be more about how people's lives were transformed than how denominations were changed (not that I'm against changing things denominationally, but I don't really care how the denom functions near as much as I care about how people function).
So those are just some of my thoughts. Peace, man.
When Dan said, "I generally tend to think I am one of the most negative people in a room at any given time, but you, my friend, give me a good run for the money. :)" I laughed out loud. I assume Dan meant it to be a light-hearted jab.
Bill's post did have a very gloomy outlook.
My view is that I've grown pessimistic about all CGGC attempts to grow and change. However, while I'm not wildly optimistic, I am hopeful about initiatives like the MLI and the National Church planting stuff.
I have no idea how it will turn out, but I think both may be fruitful within themselves and may even spill over in some abundance into something new. They may spill into old regional forms, new regional forms, non-regional forms, or even new region regional forms. New wineskins ring a bell?
I'm a pretty big picture thinker, but I can't see any macro level initiative having any fruit at this point. Sorry Bill. Ig think macro comes at the end.
I believe primarily in micro. I just don't think real macro can happen without a lot of micro first.
I also think that there are places in between the micro (individual person) and macro (denomination or bigger) that can change and further lead the way.
I agree Dan that there are some in-between opportunities. I think I am beginning to see the beginnings of some in-between initiatives.
An absolutely light-hearted jab.
Dan H,
...boomers are the ones who have the hardest time with "church issues", because they tend to be the ones who think we can fix things - whether it be building a better church, better denomination, better company - or whatever (and I'm taking liberties with what Reggie actually said, I can't remember everything exactly). In other words, boomers seem to be more "systems" people. Gen-xers and millenials, on the other hand, could care less about the systems or trying to make things better on a larger scale. Not that they don't care, but they think it's something that is done on a more one-on-one basis.
I haven't seen the videos but I've heard Reggie do his generational hermeneutics and I agree.
What'd I say in response is that the Boomers and olders will kill the CGGC for everyone younger. For me, that is precisely the offense of the new highly Medieval credentialing document.
It is the sin of the pending 21,000+ word WE BELIEVE.
Boomers have determined how we will function for, what?, the next decade or 20 or 30 years with the new credentialing standards. And, they don't leave room for people who think younger than Boomers.
What Reggie says calls us to repent of the sins of the last General Conference.
You are right. He is right.
I agree.
Brian,
I'm a pretty big picture thinker, but I can't see any macro level initiative having any fruit at this point. Sorry Bill. Ig think macro comes at the end.
I don't understand Scripture that way.
What I see in the Bible, Old and New Testament, is that God sends prophets to call for big picture, macro change and that, when people repent and accept a new paradigm, He sends others, whom the New Testament calls apostles, to make the macro change a systematic micro reality.
For example, He sent John the Baptist in the prophet's role to speak in monumentally macro terms--"produce fruit in keeping with repentance"-- to prepare the way for Jesus to serve in an apostolic role and to train other apostles.
I don't see how we can change what we actually do until we repent of the very values that produced what we did.
Our actions are merely the fruit of what we believe.
I think that the problem in the CGGC since at least the beginning of my time is that we think macro change comes last. What I know is that thinking macro follows micro hasn't worked for us yet.
No, I'm convinced we still need to begin with a change of mind--with repentance--and then, after we make that change, trust in the Lord to give us the small pieces of the work He wants us to join Him in.
Biblically... yes the prophet calls for macro-change. Does he get it? No. I can't think of a time the prophet's call was heeded. And if you can think of one, there are ten other examples where it wasn't.
John the Baptist called for macro-change, and Bill... they cut off his head! Yet he had disciples. He baptized many. But this was a micro change, which opened a way for Jesus.
So yes, the Prophet calls for macro-change. But even Jesus began a micro-change.
Brian,
Biblically... yes the prophet calls for macro-change. Does he get it? No. I can't think of a time the prophet's call was heeded. And if you can think of one, there are ten other examples where it wasn't.
Well, the story of the Old Testament is that, with few exceptions, he didn't get it. There are exceptions. But, that's significantly what makes the two Testaments different.
John got as much of it as was needed.
Pentecost was a prophetic event. Read Acts 2:16-21. It produced tons of repentance.
The ministry of Paul and Barnabas came about as the result of the fasting of teachers and prophets. It brought about repentance in the church at Antioch--and bore the fruit of an apostolic movement that transformed the church and the world.
John the Baptist called for macro-change, and Bill... they cut off his head! Yet he had disciples. He baptized many. But this was a micro change, which opened a way for Jesus.
I don't think so. What was the micro-change that John's ministry produced? As I read the story, his purpose was simply to come before the Anointed One--to prepare straight paths--for the apostolic Christ.
So yes, the Prophet calls for macro-change. But even Jesus began a micro-change.
Well, now you're making my point. The apostle is the one who makes micro reality out of the macro change in values that the prophet announces.
But, there is no case that I know of that micro-reality happened prior to a change in values.
There's something that has been bothering me somewhat. I think there is a communication breakdown sometimes between what bill is saying and how it's percieved by others.
As someone who sort of stands in the middle - an APEST half-breed - I so resonate with the call to repentance. And yet I believe that the shepherds (including myself sometimes) are not hearing clearly.
bill, you call things sin that don't resonate with shepherds (and sometimes other leaders as well)as sin (I realize that this is part of the phophetic problem in general.)
But the situation here is that we are often talking about people who love Jesus and have given their lives to follow and serve him, not people with hard hearts who could care less what God has to say.
You say something is mideval and I think 'old-fashioned' not sinful.
From my perspective, when I think of things like documents like credentialing or We Believe, I think about whether they are helpful for us seeing God himself and His Word and God's mission for us clearly or not. The idea of the amount of words or the existance of a doument as sinful or not doesn't mean anything to me at this point.
Not of this is a criticism of valuing the prophetic, macro repentance etc.
I just can't help but thinking, if I don't really get it - and I want to - there are many, many shepherds who are not hearing at all. And I fear that because I love Jesus and his church and all of you brothers and sisters here. I want to hear what God is saying, but I'm having trouble.
Dan M,
I have thought for a long time that someone should write a book on communication across APEST. I know that each of the five have their own distinct value systems and lexicons. That's why the love chapter is in between 1 Corinthians 12 & 14.
When I say that the Standards for Credentials is medieval, I'm saying that it is Roman Catholic. I'm saying that it opposes the essential Protestant doctrine of the Priesthood of All Believers.
It is and it does.
It is founded on a theology that has no place in a body that has a Mission Statement that calls it to build churches on the New Testament plan.
I will second this notion of a communication breakdown. I am certainly behind a call for repentance, but I think of it more on a personal level than from a structural standpoint.
Just today I read in 'Organic Leadership' where Cole talks about "Reforming the People, Not the Structures" (p.93f). As he says right before that section heading...
"...I believe that even though the structures we employ in the church are from the world rather than from the Lord, a direct assault to try to change things will greatly disrupt the church and may not be necessary. In a sense, we must not break the old wineskins or we may lose the precious wine. There is, perhaps, a better way in which subtle changes are made within that lead to a new way of operating in submission to the King rather than through the chain of command. This may bring about subtle change, but I think this change can occur rapidly."
The rest of the section is equally good, and says better what I've been trying to explain. I'd be interested in your take on this Bill. Sometimes I don't know if we're saying the same thing, only in different ways, or not.
Let me take a small step toward Bill.
"Change takes time" -- the mantra of the system/institution. I heard it just the other day from one of the fringe leaders in church planting! The hair on my neck stands up every time I hear it.
Change does take time, but I believe it has become a standard deflection when absolutely no pressure is being applied for a change. It is an excuse.
I have enough history with the CGGC to know when change takes time and when we hope for a change without making any effort for change. No effort... no change.
We need some pressure on the system. We can't use any excuse for not challenging the system/institution at all.
The key may be to apply pockets of fringe/personal change back into the system at large. I think Ed may start to do this very soon.
I think that we ought to come to something of a general consensus (in this forum) as to what change is called for and then we can work for it together - perhaps some on a macro level and some on a micro level, but working toward the same end.
I'm not talking about anything formal, just a couple of core ideas - a core conviction about leaders, mission priorities etc. that we can gather around to push forward.
Brian said: "I have enough history with the CGGC to know when change takes time and when we hope for a change without making any effort for change. No effort... no change."
At various times when I have been involved in "Change Management" projects the team has used a "formula" to help understand the change process: CHANGE = D times C where D is the level of discomfort and C is the propensity to change. This formula illustrates why organizational change is so slow to take hold. In many organizations (including the modern church) the leadership is rooted in past traditions and successes and has a low propensity to change. Since propensity for change is innate, the discomfort level is the only variable that will lead to change. Therefore, unless the decision makers of an organization are VERY uncomfortable, change will usually not occur. In businesses and churches this level of discomfort usually occurs in leadership long after the point in time where change can make a difference in the trajectory of the organization.
DH,
"...I believe that even though the structures we employ in the church are from the world rather than from the Lord, a direct assault to try to change things will greatly disrupt the church and may not be necessary. In a sense, we must not break the old wineskins or we may lose the precious wine. There is, perhaps, a better way in which subtle changes are made within that lead to a new way of operating in submission to the King rather than through the chain of command. This may bring about subtle change, but I think this change can occur rapidly."
I couldn't agree with Cole more if I'd written it myself.
The structures are not an issue to me. The values are. We have muddled and confused values in which we define mission in terms of the New Testament model and credential leaders through a Roman Catholic model from the Middle Ages.
When we share values, structures are no issue because structure is secondary to values.
As far as miscommunication is concerned, I can tell you that, while I understand that the way I communicate is an issue to people with a Christendom lexicon, you need to know that when I go to Conference sessions with my New Testament plan lexicon which comes straight out of our Mission Statement and hear the word unbiblical word 'pastor' spoken in every sentence I get heartburn and heartache like you can't imagine.
David,
At various times when I have been involved in "Change Management" projects the team has used a "formula" to help understand the change process: CHANGE = D times C where D is the level of discomfort and C is the propensity to change.
I thought c = the speed of light.
Seriously, I think there are some in leadership who'd like to see change but are not willing to hurt feelings to do it because they are predominantly shepherds--the stewards of relationship in the Body.
Those who are not shepherds are beholden to the shepherd culture for their remuneration. And, there is a Shepherd Mafia in the CGGC. I've been being whacked by it consistently since 1976.
Brian,
We need some pressure on the system. We can't use any excuse for not challenging the system/institution at all.
I'll say again that I believe the change we need to address is first and foremost on the level of our shared values.
We have none. No shared values.
I think we need to decide if we are people of the Word, as reflected in the Mission and Vision Statements, or if we are internally focused, sectarians with a view of the church tied to the Popes of the Middle Ages.
As of this moment, we are trying to say that we hold to both notions of truth.
We're schizophrenic.
Leadership book after book talks about leveraging D (discomfort and discontent). "Change is slow" typically isn't leveraging at all.
Shared values - that's where it's at. Now I'm hearing clearly.
Once we agree on what's most important, I think we have some leverage to have discussion beyond feelings and opinions.
Gang,
In the course of my education and the earning of my degree, I have achieved a decent degree of mastery of English, French, German, Koine Greek and the Hebrew of the Old Testament.
But, I have great difficulty even trying to speak the language of Christendom--which I was raised on but have rejected.
I no longer speak it well. And, in my heart when I know I should speak it, my heart aches. That may be because I have repented of Christendomism and to speak its language feels like a repudiation of my repentance. It is difficult for me to speak that language just as an AA person would get queasy when tempted to take a drink.
Much of our problem on this blog and in the CGGC is a communication problem and I know that I'm a big part of the problem.
But, this is how I honestly feel:
If we are going to be people of
the New Testament
Mission
Kingdom orientation
external focus and
Ephesians 4
we are going to move beyond the language of
Christendom
sectarianism
internal focus and
Medieval priest-based ideas of leadership.
This communication problem, in my opinion, is a result of the fact that I have begun to speak the language of the the CGGC's Mission Statement and Vision Statement and that most of the rest of you are still speaking the language of the Standards for Credentials and both versions of WE BELIEVE.
I have spiritual difficulty going back.
If we are going to move forward, I believe that the whole CGGC is going to need to start using the lexicon that I speak from. If we all speak a new language the movement toward it will probably need to begin here.
Echoing Bill's comments...
In the course of my education (and current teaching role) I've spent a great deal of time exploring various issues and implications of human communication.
From my vantage point, it is a cop-out to suggest that the major issue here is a "breakdown in communication." This typically is suggested by those in leadership (and then followed by an apology to do better "next time") as an intentional effort to avoid confronting the real issue.
The "real issue" is what Bill's post is about. Don't fall into the trap of believing that we are having a communication issue. We understand each other clearly.
Back to the conversation.
One other thought (for what it's worth)-
On the concept of shared values. In much literature, the notion of values is a private item. A term I've adopted that contains a public element is "virtues." Values are individualistic and need not be shared by everyone; virtues are what tie us together as an organization.
I'm not blaming the language, but sometimes a new term helps us to see things differently.
Well... I only have a bachelors degree, and have not even mastered the one language I know how to write and speak. So apparently I have an understanding problem. Please forgive me for not understanding the difference between the language of christendom and the new testament. Apparently I'm too stupid to be able to understand, and I'm a little tired of having my ignorance brought to light time and time again. I will leave the conversation to you brainiacs.
peace,
dh
Brent,
It constantly amazes me that you not only say what I say better than I say it but that you UNDERSTAND what I think better than I understand it.
Dan,
I had no desire to be haughty. I was trying in the best way I can to explain why I think I speak differently than the rest of you do.
To further illustrate the lexicon issue:
Explain to me, from the New Testament, what a pastor is.
Then,
Think about what a priest is in Christendom.
Our problem is connected to the words we use and the tradition bound, New Testament-less definitions we give them.
We accepted, without comment, a Mission Statement that commits us to establishing congregations on the model presented in the New Testament. And, then, at our first opportunity, created Standards for Credentials that standardize our definition of leadership in reference to the Middle Age Roman Catholic model priest-centered, not on the biblical model, of leadership.
bill, your last couple posts were helpful in being constructive I think.
I will say this - I feel that you need to 'go back' in order to go forward. When you say you have another language that we don't speak, it makes me feel like we're all trapped in the matrix and can't find a way out. And you're out but can't come back to help us only tell us how much the matrix sucks. I KNOW WHOLEHEARTEDLY that you want us to change (repent to use your refrain) and that you care very deeply. But it come across to me as condescending personally, even while knowing that this is not your attitude/intention.
So my statement is this: If you want us to come along, you have to come back and show the way. Your last couple of posts were helpful. I agree with your list. I agree that we've made every leader a 'pastor' and forced something concieved upon us. I agree that we need to be outward focused, care more about what God is about than what we disagree with in other Christian groups...yes.
Who will stand up and disagree with these things? Not me. I don't think it's a different language, just very different meanings, undersatndings and applications of words and ideas we use.
Let's start a constuctive conversation together on these understandings / transitions.
Mass,
But it come across to me as condescending personally, even while knowing that this is not your attitude/intention.
I try as hard as I can not to come across that way. It is a truth that prophets, by virtue of their call, care more about truth than about relationship. I always these days speak the truth in love to the best of my ability. But, I never will compromise truth.
If you want us to come along, you have to come back and show the way.
You can't know how sick I feel inside when I use the Christendom lexicon. You can't imagine how sick I feel when I hear people talk about pastors. I do the best I can and I will do better to the degree that I can. But, this is no small thing to me.
I certainly don't want to bind your conscience, so to speak.
For me, the term pastor is an one-to-one synonym for shepherd. That's what it means. So I have no problem with the word. Additionally, given that Ephesians 4 particularly includes this, and to your own admission many of our leaders are shepherds, it seems to me that the term pastor is completely appropriate to use for SOME leaders who are primarily shepherds.
Please correct me if there is anything in the above paragraph that is incorrect.
The problem is not that we have pastors/shepherds. The problem is that that's all that we have or acknowledge and that we shoehorn everybody into one name (pastor) while comes along with the baggage of being a shepherd(pastor) while many are not that at all.
Take me forward from there...
M,
For me, the term pastor is an one-to-one synonym for shepherd.
There is no way under heaven that I could disagree with you more.
If it was not for the Christendom myth, the notion of the pastor would not be seen as being in any way similar to that of the shepherd.
We are victims of the Christendom myth. We can't escape that reality. But, we don't have to subordinate ourselves to it by looking for ways to insert it in Scripture.
Gang,
I just want to say to all of you that I considered my comment about the failure of MLI, which prompted much of this discussion, to be a passing comment.
The response to it, considering that so many things that I've said that were more direct were essentially ignored, surprises me.
You have a giant problem (in convincing people) then in that almost every English translation of the Bible uses the term pastors in Ephesians 4.
I know the word and agree that shepherd would be a better translation, but again, I still don't see why pastor can't be a synonym for shepherd. Obviously the bulk of translators think so.
M,
I still don't see why pastor can't be a synonym for shepherd. Obviously the bulk of translators think so.
Pastor:
The person who stands behind the pulpit at the worship service/s every Sunday morning:
who gives the announcements,
picks the hymns,
accepts prayer request,
prays to the Lord on the behalf of the lay members of the congregation sitting in sanctuary,
who gives the children's message,
who reads the Scripture lesson,
who preaches the sermon,
who leads all prayer meetings and Bible Studies,
who gives the altar call,
who is the primary altar counselor,
who does the pastoral counseling,
who performs weddings and funerals,
who visits the sick in hospitals,
who takes care of the shut-in,
who leads in the taking of the ordinances
who serves on the nominating committee
who is a member of all church boards, councils and commissions,
who attends Conference sessions,
who attends community and denominational ministeria
This is what Paul meant when he mentioned shepherds in Ephesians 4?
I know that you don't believe that.
There is no such role described in the New Testament plan.
I think that the role of a shepherd is to guide, protect, feed, nurture Christians in community around them. And most importantly point them to their true Shepherd who is Jesus.
A shepherd may do some of the things on that list, but they are not the characteristics of a shepherd.
When we make any role just about a list of tasks done on occasion, I think we've missed the point.
M,
A shepherd may do some of the things on that list, but they are not the characteristics of a shepherd.
If you do not have the unbiblical, medieval Christendom myth, you can't end up with a contemporary Christendom notion of a pastor.
The pastor is not in the New Testament plan anywhere.
Post a Comment
<< Home