Is it healthy for us to be so pastor oriented?

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

I can't help but note how pastor oriented our churches are. Even on NazNet we have constant questions about "pastors and...." Often the questions could just as easily be about "Christians and..." in general, but we tend focus in on pastors.

In fact, even questions specifically about churches and their practices are often answered as though they were asked about pastors. For instance, if someone asks, "How does your church go about receiving new members?" several will answer along the lines of "Our pastor does it this way." Or, if someone asks, "Does your church have a Christmas eve service?" many answers will be something like, "Our pastors does thus and so at Christmas."

That kind of answer concerns me because I can't help but think it is better for a church to have traditions that it continue even through pastoral changes. Shouldn't a church sometimes say to a new pastor, "We want you to know that our church always has a candlelit Christmas eve service that concludes with the singing of 'Silent Night'" rather than asking, "Well, pastor, what do you want us to do Christmas eve?" (Please, if you respond here, that is just an example, not a specific concern.)

The story of the Levite in Judges 17 comes to mind. This Levite was passing through an area and when it is found out that he is a Levite he is hired to be the priest of a certain family. Later on, men from the tribe of Dan steal him so he can be their priest. Apparently, having clergy was pretty important to them since they were fighting over this poor Levite! Maybe there is a lesson here about churches stealing pastors from other churches!

Why do you think it is that we are so pastor oriented? Do you think it is a good or bad (or somewhere in between) thing?

[Mark Metcalfe]

Why do you think it is that we are so pastor oriented? Do you think it is a good or bad (or somewhere in between) thing?

There are movements between "pastor is the leader of the church" and "pastor facilitates as one of us." I subscribe better to the former than the latter, except when leadership might go to the head of the pastor to become somewhat dictatorial. The leadership Christ exemplified was as a servant, but he certainly had authority! Striking the authorative balance with service for a person is the narrow path to find. But the shepherd ("pastor") should lead, and therefore the sheep are oriented around the leader.

I realize that people have different styles of leadership, but leadership is at the head.

Mark

P.S. Authority is granted, and the best leaders have people who WANT to follow.

[Andrea Larabee]

I totally understand what you are saying and honestly have never given it much thought.


I would think this is not a good thing. But it would be a hard habit (thought process) to change. I attend a large church. I really haven't been around the pastor a whole lot personally and am not on the board. We got this new pastor almost two years ago. I heard him say once how much he's heard about the last pastor. I got the funny sense that people were doing just that.... "Well, Pastor Lee did this and that"... "Well Pastor Lee never did this that way"... Now that I think about it, that would really put a lot of pressure and even blame on a pastor. In reality, pastors don't make all the decisions if they've got a good board and church. The church and board make decisions and traditions. I don't think it would make a new pastor feel very welcome if most people started comparing him to the previous pastor. That happens all the time. Poor pastors! :basic04

[Alisa Stoll]

While the pastor and the lay leaders form a partnership that partnership gets it's primary direction from the pastor. Of course it is the wise pastor who accepts ideas from the lay leaders. A thriving church is going to have both strong pastors and lay leaders. But I think the Bible speaks about headship and there needs to be one - given the role of a pastor, I think it would be unlikely to be anyone else.

Alisa

[Ian Gentles]

I think the church should have a constant strategy so they can survive between pastors, often a long wait, but pastor also must in comming to a church be able to add affresh to what is already there

[Meghan Schoonover]

You know, I've thought about this. I've seen it different ways in different churches I've been a part of...some more pastor-centric than others...

[Jim Franklin]

During Pastor Appreciation Month is interesting timing in posing the question.

[Hans Deventer]

I can't help but note how pastor oriented our churches are.

Exactly.

Why do you think it is that we are so pastor oriented? Do you think it is a good or bad (or somewhere in between) thing?

I think it's bad, very bad actually. I don't believe it was ever meant to be that way in the Kingdom of God. I'd say the idea was that everyone would use the spiritual and natural gifts one had for the benefit of all. Some, with specific gifts, would be set apart for full time or part time ministry. But it wasn't meant to create a separate "class" of Christians. And certainly not to burden those poor folks with duties and expectations far beyond what they can carry or have been gifted for. It's one of the tragic ways we've distorted the liberating message of the Kingdom of God :basic04

[Ryan Scott]

I think anytime people refer to something their congregation does without using "we" there is an issue of ownership or involvement there.

There are a number of ways to do things well, so I'd hate to say what is "right," but if people do not feel they are actively a part of what is going on, some things could be changed.

[Tami Martin]

Years ago, when I did the bulletin for a church I worked at, I would print "Pastor .......... so-and-so / Ministers...........all Christians." The pastor pointed that out a few times, but I know his message fell on deaf ears.

That church was nearly cult-like it was so pastor centered. If the pastor wasn't going to be at a function, it was not well attended. And when he left, the church fell apart. It took two years to replace him and the church is so completely different now than it was then.

I think it's in large part like what Ryan said about ownership. But also an issue of responsibility. It's the pastor's responsibility to take care of everything from cleaning the toilets in the restroom to evangelizing the neighborhood.

But on the other side, I wonder if there's a special "Micromanaging" class at seminary/bible colleges these days. Congregations can certainly lack maturity and responsibility, but pastors can also lead the drive to pastor-centered churching.

[Gina Stevenson]

Well, rather like marriage, I'd say it's best to discuss all possible aspects of an issue, but if it comes down to some decision [say, the board is evenly deadlocked], an issue is tabled, and there's still no resolution, maybe --- unless it's something that will so financially strap the congregation well after he's gone --- the pastor's the "last word" as their designated leader? But even then, might be best to forgo whatever, and let it lie, rather than putting him in the precarious position of 'tiebreaker.'

So, as pastor/shepherd/leader, even that's---as some have said---to be a position that considers others, as servant-leader.

What is not good, definitely, is when some will mindlessly suggest their pastor be the authority regarding everything, since "s/he's the leader!" Hey, s/he's human, too, isn't s/he? :rolleyes: The old cliche', 'God didn't command us to leave our brains at the door' fits well here.

[Sara Sheppard]

I think this is a 2 way street Scott. Sometimes lay people are too focused on the pastor and have this expectation that the pastor is to do everything. But I've also seen where pastors think it is their "right" to basically run the church as they please with no regard to the history of the local congregation. I've got a specific case in point that I'll refrain from sharing too much about but it involved a very special family tradition for one family's baby dedications. A new pastor came along and said basically "I don't do them that way".

Also, if we want to move away from this concept then I think we would no longer require staff to resign just b/c a senior pastor does. If the staff is "working" and the local congregation is happy with them, then the senior pastor moving on shouldn't change that.

I had one senior pastor in my past (in a rather large church by Nazarene standards) that was so "power" driven - he wanted to review and basically approve or change the menu of women's ministry events. Seriously....let it go already.

So.....I really do think its a two way street. Sometimes lay people expect too much from their pastor and put too much focus on them. But sometimes pastors want the "power" associated with being the leader.

This is the same in businesses too. Some managers are micro-managers and want their fingers in everything and don't trust their employees to make decisions and "run with things" having faith that the employee is educated enough, driven enough, and disciplined enough to seek manager input when they need too. When people are managed by these type of people they either become what their manager has set as the expectation (basically unable to do anything on their own) or they feel suffocated until they leave. (I've literally known managers who dictated what font setting their employees used in emails or the color of hi-liter used on reports). Other managers are not like this and allow more freedom, trust, and responsibility among employees. This may grow over time as the manager becomes more comfortable with his/her employee. Now, some can also take this to the extreme and be totally uninvolved. I think the best is a combo of the two. More involvement in the beginning with less over time but still available for questions/guidance/mentoring. The manager may set the overall objective of a project but doesn't control every detail of the process to meet those objectives. This is also true in ministry. The pastor usually does have the vision (hopefully along with the lay people) and communicates that. How involved the pastor is in seeing that vision unfold in each specific ministry is varied.

Sara

[Gina Stevenson]

Well said, Sara. ;)

[Ryan Scott]

But on the other side, I wonder if there's a special "Micromanaging" class at seminary/bible colleges these days. Congregations can certainly lack maturity and responsibility, but pastors can also lead the drive to pastor-centered churching.


I think this is true in a way, even though the class comment, I assume, was facetious. There is a heavy emphasis on thinking theologically in most of my classes, which is important and valuable. Sometimes, though, I wonder how well I'm going to be able to lead a congregation in and help people learn to think theologically on their own, rather than doing the work for them. In my view this could easily lead to micro-managing things.

I'm more and more convinced that my job as a new pastor in a congregation will be to become a part of the congregation before I worry too much about changing what's going on. At least I hope I'll be able to do that.

[Tami Martin]

I think this is true in a way, even though the class comment, I assume, was facetious.

Yes. It was. I don't think seminaries offer "Micromanaging" anymore than I think med schools offer "Really Bad Handwriting."

[Ryan Scott]

Yes. It was. I don't think seminaries offer "Micromanaging" anymore than I think med schools offer "Really Bad Handwriting."


Well, I didn't know for sure, since it's a pretty astute observation.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Yes, I have heard people speak as if the pastor and sometimes his wife as the bosses. That is completely wrong. Christ is the head of the church. The pastor leads the board meetings, but should be open minded to the ideas of the people. Then, in return, they will probably respect his opinion, and vote for them, just in the same way, he would back them.
When there is a question of something, that cannot be resolved by the head of the department, it should eventually go to the board, and may possibly at times end with the pastor having to make the final decision--but with consideration of the opinions of the dept. head or board.
Also, the people would many times come to me instead of Dwayne, as if I was the go between.

[Gina Stevenson]

Yes. It was. I don't think seminaries offer "Micromanaging" anymore than I think med schools offer "Really Bad Handwriting."

... or "Bedside Manners that Encourage an Early Exit," financed by insurance companies [recalling a very poor bedside manner or two] :eek:

[John Kennedy]

I would agree that a 'pastor-centric' church is not a healthy situation. I'm just kind of surprised that it isn't more pervasive than noted. The church organizational role models furnished to pastors are certainly conducive to this mind-set.

I can't really think of any mega churches that are not pastored by strong, dominant, take charge and get things done right now people. And these organizations and the leadership characteristic of them are held up as the ideal.

To be sure, the tendency of too many of the laity to expect the pastor to do everything is a factor. But, I sometimes wonder if that tendency is a cause of effect.

Sara alluded to what may be a contributing factor to this problem, the provision for a total turnover of staff with a new senior minister. I was in another denomination for a number of years that did not have this policy. I knew of a situation where a particular associate minister served in that capacity under three different senior pastors. His ministry provided a significant element of continuity during times of transition.

I have also observed in many churches, not necessarily Nazarene, that have a congregationally oriented polity, a tendency towarda relatively weak cadre of lay leadership.

[Billy Cox]

There is a heavy emphasis on thinking theologically in most of my classes, which is important and valuable.


I think that some college/seminary graduates 'catch' the idea that theological precision is so important that one cannot really trust an untrained ordinary layperson to do anything more theologically demanding than writing tithe checks and bringing a covered dish to the potluck.

[Hans Deventer]

I think that some college/seminary graduates 'catch' the idea that theological precision is so important that one cannot really trust an untrained ordinary layperson to do anything more theologically demanding than writing tithe checks and bringing a covered dish to the potluck.

If so, they're proclaiming they're doing a terrible job at training the laity.

[Billy Cox]

Sara alluded to what may be a contributing factor to this problem, the provision for a total turnover of staff with a new senior minister. I was in another denomination for a number of years that did not have this policy. I knew of a situation where a particular associate minister served in that capacity under three different senior pastors. His ministry provided a significant element of continuity during times of transition.


When I was in seminary, I aspired to specialized staff ministry. I wish that someone had told me that the Church of the Nazarene had effectively destroyed associate ministry as a viable career path.

[Marsha Lynn]

If so, they're proclaiming they're doing a terrible job at training the laity.

Or maybe the laity is hopelessly dense concerning theology. Pastors slave away with their hoes, trying to uproot stray theological ideas. And the minute they turn their attention elsewhere, those theological weeds pop right back up again. In an atmosphere where weed seeds fly freely, they dare not relax their diligence for a minute. Once those ideas get a foothold, it can take a huge effort to stamp them out.

Marsha
(one of those weedy laypeople :basic03)

[Hans Deventer]

Or maybe the laity is hopelessly dense concerning theology.

Perhaps. The disciples didn't exactly get it right away either. That was no reason for Jesus not to entrust them with ministry.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

I think that some college/seminary graduates 'catch' the idea that theological precision is so important that one cannot really trust an untrained ordinary layperson to do anything more theologically demanding than writing tithe checks and bringing a covered dish to the potluck.

I find it interesting that in a discussion about how churches are pastor oriented that, somehow, it becomes the pastor's fault. As I pointed out, even an simple question on NazNet about how, say, churches approach Easter Sunrise Services, results in posts about "Our pastor does...." and a question that could just as easily be "What kind of car is it appropriate for the average Christian drive?" is, instead, "What kind of car should a pastor drive?"

Now, here we are at the same point again -- this time, instead of "Why is it that churches are so pastor oriented?" we are in the neighborhood of, "Why is it that pastors insist churches are oriented toward them?"

In other words, it is a fine example of my concern. Once again, everything is focused toward the pastor.

[Hans Deventer]

I find it interesting that in a discussion about how churches are pastor oriented that, somehow, it becomes the pastor's fault.

It takes two to tango, like we Nazarenes always say :basic03, that much is certain.

[Marsha Lynn]

I'm reminded of a conversation I had a few years ago with a pastor who was at a church with which I had a long acquaintance. He asked if they had always been so independent of their pastor. Yes, they had. They go right on with church life between pastors and actually seem to thrive during those times.

It's definitely a different mindset than the one you describe, but not necessarily better for either laypeople or pastor. This pastor was trying to figure out exactly what the church wanted from him other than the occasional sermon. He moved soon afterward (and, in fact, had possibly already resigned at the time of our conversation). The church lost a wonderful pastor, but I doubt they were overly concerned about him leaving. It's not like they really needed him.

Although I maintain that it's not inherently better or worse, I do see the mindset you described more frequently than the independent church. The reason I would tell you how my pastor takes in members is because there's no one else in the church who is going to invest sufficient mental energy into the matter to come up with the ideal approach for our local congregation and then market that procedure to future pastors. The layleaders haven't accepted the responsibility for "praying through" on such things and charting our own course. The pastor is the one who will lead us through various exercises. And when he goes, we will have little ownership of his philosophies, other than turning them into "we've always done it like this" traditions with no underlying reasoning. When the next pastor comes in with different ideas, we'll have to choose between supporting his leadership or lifting up our traditions as sacred, even though we had no role in developing them.

Maybe that's what makes long-term planning such a challenge in small churches. We could pour much time and energy into shaping the future of the church, but if our current pastor moved, all of that effort would have been wasted because the new pastor could easily start his or her ministry by tossing the contents of the "long-term planning" folder in the filing cabinet and substituting his/her own dreams, and we would either need to follow his/her lead or be seen as clinging to the past.

I think part of what we're seeing is that in a small church the pastor acts as a one-person staff. He/she has all of the authority and casts a vote that trumps every other vote in the church. No one else comes close to exercising that much power. Only by organized resistance can a pastor's veto be overridden by the laity. And at what cost? Dare we override the vote of God's servant? If we're going to have unity in the church, it seems that the first step is to support the decisions of the one-person staff.

Is there a better way? To continue my example, how would a less pastor-oriented church approach long-term planning in a way that respects the authority of the pastor? Who would take the lead in the planning process? Who would be responsible for implementing the formulated plans? What would happen to those plans when there was a pastoral change?

Marsha

I can't help but note how pastor oriented our churches are. Even on NazNet we have constant questions about "pastors and...." Often the questions could just as easily be about "Christians and..." in general, but we tend focus in on pastors.

In fact, even questions specifically about churches and their practices are often answered as though they were asked about pastors. For instance, if someone asks, "How does your church go about receiving new members?" several will answer along the lines of "Our pastor does it this way." Or, if someone asks, "Does your church have a Christmas eve service?" many answers will be something like, "Our pastors does thus and so at Christmas."

That kind of answer concerns me because I can't help but think it is better for a church to have traditions that it continue even through pastoral changes. Shouldn't a church sometimes say to a new pastor, "We want you to know that our church always has a candlelit Christmas eve service that concludes with the singing of 'Silent Night'" rather than asking, "Well, pastor, what do you want us to do Christmas eve?" (Please, if you respond here, that is just an example, not a specific concern.)

The story of the Levite in Judges 17 comes to mind. This Levite was passing through an area and when it is found out that he is a Levite he is hired to be the priest of a certain family. Later on, men from the tribe of Dan steal him so he can be their priest. Apparently, having clergy was pretty important to them since they were fighting over this poor Levite! Maybe there is a lesson here about churches stealing pastors from other churches!

Why do you think it is that we are so pastor oriented? Do you think it is a good or bad (or somewhere in between) thing?

[Marsha Lynn]

It takes two to tango, like we Nazarenes always say :basic03

Cute, Hans. Maybe we can include tango lessons among the workshops at the next General Assembly?

:M)

[Mark Metcalfe]

I find it interesting that in a discussion about how churches are pastor oriented that, somehow, it becomes the pastor's fault.

If there is a generalization that churches are pastor-oriented, then the generalization that pastors create that condition should also be allowed.

I might soften the generalization to say that sometimes pastors create the pastor-oriented situations; sometimes the congregations do.

I think that a healthy church can be pastor-oriented.
I think that an unhealthy church can be pastor-oriented.
I think that a healthy church can be pastor-assimilated.*
I think that an unhealthy church can be pastor-assimilated.

So, Scott, sometimes it is the pastor's fault (but not the fault of all pastors).

Mark

* Is this term okay? I thought that "pastor-disoriented" might carry another connotation altogether.

[Hans Deventer]

Cute, Hans. Maybe we can include tango lessons among the workshops at the next General Assembly?

:M)

I have no problem with the principle, but forget about it when it comes to the practice. I'm terrible at dancing. It has been 34 years ago, I remember the occasion vividly (and every one can sleep well, it was before I became a Nazarene) that I have attempted some dancing. Let's say that it wasn't a great success.

[Gina Stevenson]

I have no problem with the principle, but forget about it when it comes to the practice. I'm terrible at dancing. It has been 34 years ago, I remember the occasion vividly (and every one can sleep well, it was before I became a Nazarene) that I have attempted some dancing. Let's say that it wasn't a great success.

'Stepped on Hannie's toes, didja, Hans? ;)

[Tami Martin]

There are families that are child centered. It's not generally healthy. I have to work with many parents who have lost sight of their own lives and are usually on the brink of a breakdown.

Here's my point, if both the pastor and the congregation contribute to the brokenness of this relationship (and anything other than Christ-centered would be broken in my mind), in whose court is the responsibility to initiate fixing it?

The sheep or the shepherd?

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

in whose court is the responsibility to initiate fixing it?

The sheep or the shepherd?

Good point, but I would ask the question from a different point of view. If you are a layperson who realizes you have been pastor centric, is it the pastor's responsibility to fix it?

[Matt Zimmer]

I've been interim at a church this fall and although there are things every church could work on, including the one I filled in at, the church I filled in for was truly the Body. I'm proud to say I saw the Body of Christ in action. Sure they'll need some senior leadership in the days ahead, but they march forward as His Body. It's good to see that in action, and not only that but I believe even greater days are ahead for them.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

So, Scott, sometimes it is the pastor's fault (but not the fault of all pastors).


It seems to be a consistent feature of NazNet that if a person takes a moderate stand that their position is assumed to be the most extreme one. For instance I think that noting that we can't even talk about churches being pastor oriented without somehow finding a way to blame pastors for even that is just an example of what I said in the first post. I have never suggested that pastors are always blameless in this matter.

[Marsha Lynn]

Good point, but I would ask the question from a different point of view. If you are a layperson who realizes you have been pastor centric, is it the pastor's responsibility to fix it?

Scott, how would you propose that a layperson become less pastor-centric? When the pastor is the de facto head of every board and committee and can summarily brush aside any idea coming from laypeople, how does a congregation even begin to develop their own personality independent of the pastor?

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

Scott, how would you propose that a layperson become less pastor-centric? When the pastor is the de facto head of every board and committee and can summarily brush aside any idea coming from laypeople, how does a congregation even begin to develop their own personality independent of the pastor?

Marsha, I think we are talking about apples and oranges. Note that my examples are issues that should impact the church as a whole: what kind of car? What does your church do to observe events? Stuff like that.

The question you quote is specifically about an individual who realizes that they are too pastor oriented -- pretty much an agreement with Tami, except that she seems to put the responsibility for an individual to put their focus on Christ rather than on the pastor, on, yes, the pastor! That is more pastor centric thinking.

I'm not saying a pastor can't realize that people are too focused on him/herself and try to wean people away into a more healthy relationship but surely we don't have to say that it is the pastor's responsibility to change attitudes in people who know they need a change of attitude!

Years ago I pastored a church that expected the pastor to attend the ladies' meetings. When they first mentioned it to me I laughed thinking it was a joke. When I didn't show up at the meeting, they asked Jackie why I wasn't there! She said, "He isn't here because this is a ladies' meeting and he isn't a lady!"

That is being pastor centric. If you want to know what I did to fix it -- well, you just read what I did -- I refused to play the central role in their meetings that the ladies thought I should.

[Marsha Lynn]

Marsha, I think we are talking about apples and oranges. Note that my examples are issues that should impact the church as a whole: what kind of car? What does your church do to observe events? Stuff like that.

OK. Thanks for explaining. I guess I still would differentiate between your two examples. I agree completely that there's no need to focus in on pastors when discussing car-purchasing decisions. A car purchase is an individual decision and if there's a spiritual element to it, it's the same element for any Christian, lay or clergy. However, when you shift to how a particular congregation observes events, you are then moving into a community where leaders are making decisions. The answer is determined by a) the pastor, b) a layperson or persons, or c) some combination. If the pastor customarily makes such decisions, then every time a question about how an event is observed comes up, everyone will look at the pastor to see how he or she answers.

If the janitor were making the decisions, we would consistently say, "Well, our janitor has decided that we will have all weddings on the front lawn so that the sanctuary doesn't get messed up on Saturday after she cleans it." Or "The janitor has implemented a policy that communion will be served using sealed cups with spill-proof lids." I don't think the janitor is calling the shots in many churches. The pastor is.

I would say that I can discuss how things happen in my young adult Sunday School group without focusing in on the pastor as long as I don't go too deep into curriculum selection. We exist as a small group within the bounds of the church but have a fair amount of autonomy. However, whenever I start to discuss curriculum, I have to consider what material is likely to be approved or disapproved and the "the buck stops here" sign for that decision is sitting on the pastor's desk. It's not within my own authority. It's not the Director of Adult Ministries or the Sunday School superintendent. I can consult with those people, but the final decision will be made by the pastor. Thus, if you ask what sort of SS curriculum we use in our adult classes, I am likely to focus in on what sorts of things our pastor will approve.

Also, I don't think I can discuss the various facets of being pastor-oriented without talking about pastors.

That said, however, I will think further on this matter. Maybe we laypeople hang too close to the fences maintained by pastoral authority and need to move further afield where we're not so focused on those fences. There do seem to be a lot of them, however, even when the pastor is not given to being authoritarian. It may take some creative thinking to get past them and focus more on the church as a whole entity.

If I'm still missing your point, I apologize and thank you for your patience.

Marsha

[Gina Stevenson]

Years ago I pastored a church that expected the pastor to attend the ladies' meetings. When they first mentioned it to me I laughed thinking it was a joke. When I didn't show up at the meeting, they asked Jackie why I wasn't there! She said, "He isn't here because this is a ladies' meeting and he isn't a lady!"

That is being pastor centric. If you want to know what I did to fix it -- well, you just read what I did -- I refused to play the central role in their meetings that the ladies thought I should.

I'm sorry, Scott [well, really not, I guess, otherwise I'd not be posting like this :basic05], but as soon as I read Jackie's response, I had to LOL and think, "Well, Scott! You should have just gotten your dress out, put it on, and gone to that meeting!" :cool:

That was rather odd, tho', wasn't it? Can hardly believe that, tho' I do, having heard enough other bizarre stories in my lifetime .................

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

I think you are right about the examples being different. There's a difference between something that should apply to all Christians and that which is more under the direct control of the pastor.

I will mention though, that they were just attempts to illustrate pastor oriented behavior and I don't believe the inadequacy of the illustrations undercut the basic question I was asking.

OK. Thanks for explaining. I guess I still would differentiate between your two examples. I agree completely that there's no need to focus in on pastors when discussing car-purchasing decisions. A car purchase is an individual decision and if there's a spiritual element to it, it's the same element for any Christian, lay or clergy. However, when you shift to how a particular congregation observes events, you are then moving into a community where leaders are making decisions. The answer is determined by a) the pastor, b) a layperson or persons, or c) some combination. If the pastor customarily makes such decisions, then every time a question about how an event is observed comes up, everyone will look at the pastor to see how he or she answers.

If the janitor were making the decisions, we would consistently say, "Well, our janitor has decided that we will have all weddings on the front lawn so that the sanctuary doesn't get messed up on Saturday after she cleans it." Or "The janitor has implemented a policy that communion will be served using sealed cups with spill-proof lids." I don't think the janitor is calling the shots in many churches. The pastor is.

I would say that I can discuss how things happen in my young adult Sunday School group without focusing in on the pastor as long as I don't go too deep into curriculum selection. We exist as a small group within the bounds of the church but have a fair amount of autonomy. However, whenever I start to discuss curriculum, I have to consider what material is likely to be approved or disapproved and the "the buck stops here" sign for that decision is sitting on the pastor's desk. It's not within my own authority. It's not the Director of Adult Ministries or the Sunday School superintendent. I can consult with those people, but the final decision will be made by the pastor. Thus, if you ask what sort of SS curriculum we use in our adult classes, I am likely to focus in on what sorts of things our pastor will approve.

Also, I don't think I can discuss the various facets of being pastor-oriented without talking about pastors.

That said, however, I will think further on this matter. Maybe we laypeople hang too close to the fences maintained by pastoral authority and need to move further afield where we're not so focused on those fences. There do seem to be a lot of them, however, even when the pastor is not given to being authoritarian. It may take some creative thinking to get past them and focus more on the church as a whole entity.

If I'm still missing your point, I apologize and thank you for your patience.

Marsha

[Hans Deventer]

'Stepped on Hannie's toes, didja, Hans? ;)

No Gina, that was 5 years before I met her.

[Tami Martin]

Scott, I think I'm seeing some of the "apples and oranges" that have been going on here :)

If there is a pastor who is micromanaging, heading up every ministry, approving every little detail - the problem is his. And those who are mature have a duty to go to him and tell him about it.

If I, as a layperson, am cultishly following a pastor, I would hope that someone who is mature would talk to me about that. I probably wouldn't receive it well, as I doubt the pastor in my first example would receive it very well. But the responsibility of a prophet is not making people do what he says or heed his words, but rather to speak them.

I do remember a time when a pastor of mine used the Sunday sermon time to announce that he was no longer going to fix toilets and make sure there was toilet paper in the restrooms and vacume and do the yard work around the church. He basically told us all to grow up and start taking responsibility for those things. He had been a micromanager for many years and that point marked a big change in him. He grew a little at that time just as much as we did when we (the part of the congregation who stepped up to the plate) did.

[Billy Cox]

Yeah, I don't think the disciples were sanctified when Jesus sent them out to preach and heal.

[Rick Morton]

Sometimes I think our brothers and sisters in the United Methodist Church have the right ideal. Rotate the pastors and the laypeople have to learn to stand on the own.

[Mike Schutz]

Sometimes I think our brothers and sisters in the United Methodist Church have the right ideal. Rotate the pastors and the laypeople have to learn to stand on the own.


And since we find that there is a strong correlation between length of pastoral tenure and church growth...


It seems that what we are discussing here can be a chicken or the egg dynamic. I pastor a church where the older folks believe that the pastor should visit them in their homes on a regular basis, even though they are not shut-ins. They don't think seeing their friends or members of their small group is enough. The previous pastor either encouraged or went along with this perspective (I don't know which). So, having a lay visitation ministry is difficult, because it is seen as something that the pastor should do.
When a new pastor comes into a church that expects the pastor to have his or her hand in every committee and every ministry, and he/she refuses to do so, and encourages lay leadership, this may be seen (in my case, by the older folks) as not fulfilling his or her pastoral responsibility.

[Billy Cox]

I find it interesting that in a discussion about how churches are pastor oriented that, somehow, it becomes the pastor's fault. As I pointed out, even an simple question on NazNet about how, say, churches approach Easter Sunrise Services, results in posts about "Our pastor does...." and a question that could just as easily be "What kind of car is it appropriate for the average Christian drive?" is, instead, "What kind of car should a pastor drive?"

Now, here we are at the same point again -- this time, instead of "Why is it that churches are so pastor oriented?" we are in the neighborhood of, "Why is it that pastors insist churches are oriented toward them?"

In other words, it is a fine example of my concern. Once again, everything is focused toward the pastor.

The operative word in my post is 'some pastors'. It is certainly not true of all pastors. Is it any surprise that laypeople would see a pastor-centric church and conclude that is what the pastor wants? Is it any more of a surprise that a pastor would see a pastor-centric church and conclude that is what the laypeople want?

[Ryan Scott]

When a new pastor comes into a church that expects the pastor to have his or her hand in every committee and every ministry, and he/she refuses to do so, and encourages lay leadership, this may be seen (in my case, by the older folks) as not fulfilling his or her pastoral responsibility.


I guess that's why it's so important to go over the job description beforehand.

[Hans Deventer]

When a new pastor comes into a church that expects the pastor to have his or her hand in every committee and every ministry, and he/she refuses to do so, and encourages lay leadership, this may be seen (in my case, by the older folks) as not fulfilling his or her pastoral responsibility.

As Larry Norman sang: "If you got a Scripture, show it to my face, why should the pastor do all of the ministry? :basic03

[Hans Deventer]

I guess that's why it's so important to go over the job description beforehand.

Yeah. And even more, to be honest about it.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

As a pastor Dwayne usually deferred to the decision of the persons over each department, unless he had an idea or suggestion he might sometimes make. Having studied and learned how to be an administrative person, coupled with his personality, he had few problems with people.
Once in East Tennessee, when he was the Director over the "Welfare Department" for the county and a pastor, he ask me to be there to answer the phone, during a special luncheon. A lady missed the lunch, as if she did not trust me to be in the office. One lady was so aggravated with her. She said, "By gum, he is the boss." She knew that he had a good head on his shoulders, and did not try to dictate how they did their jobs, unless he really needed to speak with them about a situation.

[Gary Swartzlander]

Sometimes I think our brothers and sisters in the United Methodist Church have the right ideal. Rotate the pastors and the laypeople have to learn to stand on the own.

Having been raised in that environment, there are many more reasons not to do it that way than there are to do it that way.

The church I was raised in is nearly closed down. The Nazarene church I have been in for 20+ years has had the same pastor for most of that time. It's no contest.

As a child and teenager, we could have little or no consistancy in ministry beyond 2 or 3 years, thankfully the youth leaders were consistant, but not much else was. If was very frustrating.

I was a youth representative on that church board for several years. It was not where I learned the most about church leadership.

[Billy Cox]

So, we have a bunch of laypeople who perceive the pastor as having too much control...and we have a bunch of pastors who perceive the laypeople as being too passive. For laypeople, church is one activity among many, while for the pastor, the church is THE activity.

What then is the way forward? A culture of equipped lay leadership and involvement does not happen overnight and it generally doesn't happen by accident or coincidence.

[Ian Gentles]

Sometimes new pastors out of Seminary can be so theological they preach above their peoples heads. Great pastors, take their knowledge and make it understandable and workable for members.
A pastor, called, is Gods spiritual leader for an individual church, church shouldent call him/her if it dosent fully realise this. On other hand pastors should, and most do, realise that they arent dictators and must work with a fellowships framework, this may mean giving way on some points.

[Glenda Harvey]

Sometimes I think our brothers and sisters in the United Methodist Church have the right ideal. Rotate the pastors and the laypeople have to learn to stand on the own.

This was the way of most Nazarene Districts for years. While Pastors are voted in rather than appointed, the Districts seem to encourage frequent moves. I have always felt that this was one reason that Nazarene Churches remained so small. A study of large Churches generally will show that the Pastors have remained in those Churches (larger Churches) for 10 years or more.

[Charles W Christian]

So, we have a bunch of laypeople who perceive the pastor as having too much control...and we have a bunch of pastors who perceive the laypeople as being too passive. For laypeople, church is one activity among many, while for the pastor, the church is THE activity.

What then is the way forward? A culture of equipped lay leadership and involvement does not happen overnight and it generally doesn't happen by accident or coincidence.

These wonderful discussions seem to move toward a discussion of trust. Do pastors trust non-pastors (for lack of better term) in the congregation, AND do non-pastors trust pastors?

SOME strong non-pastors/laypeople who are overly concerned about pastors having too much "say" or "power" are, in my experience, generally unhealthy in their relationships regarding accountability. They simply want to trade one perceived form of dictatorship (the pastor) for another (their own!). This often causes pastors to over-compensate in a way that ends up alienating others who do not wish to control, but rather, to contribute. It's a vicious cycle.

A good job description worked out and "tweaked" over time in dialogue with other leaders in the congregation seems to be a good remedy. Pastors having good boundaries (like those Scott described in his women's ministry example!), along with laypeople who are trusted and who seek to earn more trust from the pastor (i.e., they don't get an inch and then try to take ten miles!!) seems to be helpful, too!

As a pastor, I want to trust people to do what they have agreed to do, and I really want them to excel in whatever God has called them to do. I do NOT want them to model an overly-individualistic kind of mindset, no matter how talented they are, however! I do not want to model the latter kind of mindset either. So, we have to trust each other. I have to find opportunities for people to be challenged to take initiative and show creativity and flourish (or fail). Lay-leaders in the congregation must try to do the same for me, too. Otherwise, it will be too one-sided: either too pastor-centered, or too "lay-centered", and Jesus as Center will not happen ultimately!

It's easy to be a politician or used car salesman toward my congregation. They will like me, but they won't respect me. I can last, but I will be part of building a secular thing, not the Kingdom of God!

Conversely, it's easy for a layperson to just defer everything to the pastor and not step up to take any initiative. The work may get done eventually. Heck, it may even get done better in some cases! However, it will not achieve the goals of the Kingdom, and it will not reflect the kind of harmony, mutual submission, and mutual respect that the Church is supposed to (according to Jesus and the NT) model!

Just spewing forth a bit....

Thanks,

Charles

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

These wonderful discussions seem to move toward a discussion of trust. Do pastors trust non-pastors (for lack of better term) in the congregation, AND do non-pastors trust pastors?
.. and so on to the entire post.

Charles, I'm glad you don't post this kind of stuff right off. If you did, I wouldn't have anything to write about.

(Intended to be a back door tip of the cap)

[Ian Gentles]

I have known pastors, esp in small churches, who saw the board as just something they had to put up with, even twisting and turning church law, and ignoring Roberts Rules to suit a personal agendas. Fortunatly these experiances are few and far between, but i have experianced it.

[Charles W Christian]

.. and so on to the entire post.

Charles, I'm glad you don't post this kind of stuff right off. If you did, I wouldn't have anything to write about.

(Intended to be a back door tip of the cap)

Kind of you, Scott! I'm such a "fan" of so many Naznetter posts, including yours!

God bless,
Charles

[Brad Mercer]

SOME strong non-pastors/laypeople who are overly concerned about pastors having too much "say" or "power" are, in my experience, generally unhealthy in their relationships regarding accountability.

My dad's churches were frequently ruled by a "church boss". I'm convinced he was right in everything he said at home about how carnal and wrong they were.

On the other hand, he tended to view anyone as carnal who disagreed with him and as saintly who consistently agreed with him.

The fight between him and the leading layman was a fight between two people who wanted to be the church boss, out of comparable motivations.

Learning to trust and get along with people and work toward consensus rather than victory is something neither person had ever really been taught.

Brad

[Marsha Lynn]

I wonder if part of this has to do with the "modern" mindset. When we start pinning things down into absolutes, there is one will of God for the church and our responsibility is to find it and implement it. If I (being pastor or layperson) diligently seek the will of God and come away from my prayer closet with a specific idea as what God's will looks like, what do I do with those who have other ideas? As I heard just this week: if two people pray for insight into the will of God for the church and they come away with different answers then at least one of them is wrong. Unity in the church depends on everyone being on the same page.

Being slow-witted, particularly when pressed for immediate response, I had nothing to say in response to that statement, but it really set me back on my heels in light of this discussion. Having faith that God will reveal His will to those who seek it and knowing the effort I have put into seeking that revelation, if I have too narrow a view of God's will it will be easy to conclude that those who have different ideas than mine are less in tune with God than I am.

Given that narrow view of God's will, when a pastor is charged with leading a church and diligently seeks God's perfect will for that church, what need does he or she have for input from laypeople, particularly people whose lack of spiritual depth is evidenced by the fact that their prayers don't always lead them to the same conclusion as the one in leadership? How can a person with that mindset ever learn to trust that those who see things differently than they do might also have the mind of Christ?

Of course, the whole carnality thing makes this an even more difficult task. Not only have those other people reached a different conclusion as to the direction we need to go, but their power-grubbing ways heighten the danger of trusting their spiritual discernment. The pastor then can only trust himself to discern God's will for the church. The laypeople can either fall in line, demonstrating their own spiritual maturity by deferring all spiritual discernment in regards to the church to the pastor, or become a source of disunity.

Marsha

My dad's churches were frequently ruled by a "church boss". I'm convinced he was right in everything he said at home about how carnal and wrong they were.

On the other hand, he tended to view anyone as carnal who disagreed with him and as saintly who consistently agreed with him.

The fight between him and the leading layman was a fight between two people who wanted to be the church boss, out of comparable motivations.

Learning to trust and get along with people and work toward consensus rather than victory is something neither person had ever really been taught.

Brad

[Billy Cox]

The question: "Is it healthy for us to be so pastor oriented?"

The short answer: "No."

There are obviously pastors and laypeople who consciously or unconsciously prefer for the local church to revolve around the pastor. Otherwise, there would be no churches in which the universe orbits the senior pastor.

[Billy Cox]

These wonderful discussions seem to move toward a discussion of trust. Do pastors trust non-pastors (for lack of better term) in the congregation, AND do non-pastors trust pastors?


How then does trust emerge? The divide between clergy and laypeople is fertile ground for mistrust and that divide is not getting any smaller. In the meantime, people on both sides knowingly and unknowingly fan the flames.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

We never had situations like that. Dwayne knew how to calmly interact with people. He has never been a personality that had to have his way. But, on the other hand, the Lord seemed to help him know how to disfuse conflict. It was me that they disagreed with. It was me they brought their gripes to, as if I would not tell Dwayne. He knew how to answer in ways that would bring peace. It amazed me. I try very hard to be that way. We had church bosses in two churches. But, one church, when we visited, the people took the attitude that they would never attend that church as long as so and so was there. He never acted that way with us. I told them that the only way I knew how to judge him, was by the way he acted with us. Once, I called this man to tell him that Dwayne had had an accident, not far from his house. He said that he thought I would never hang up, and let him get to his pastor. I did not talk that long, but that is the way people always felt about Dwayne.
Dwayne did get 3-4 votes once against him, one time, when we were at a transient church of members. We had a military commander there, whom some of the military retirees or active personell leaned toward, to make decisions according to what he wanted. But, there was never any type of eruptions on the board meetings.

You may have a tendancy to feel that some things I write are unreal, but they are not. God knew what kind of husband to give this strong personality of a wife.

[Gina Stevenson]

You may have a tendancy to feel that some things I write are unreal, but they are not. God knew what kind of husband to give this strong personality of a wife.

So, Duane's mellow, eh, Miss Anne? Tho't so when we all met up at Lambert's. He's a bit quieter than that wife of his, too, huh? ;)

[Larry Wilson]

Pastor-centric churches? Great thread, with some insightful commentaries! We must not forget that there is a huge cultural component to this. In Haiti, and Haitian churches elsewhere, there is much more a sense of a church belonging to the pastor than would ever be the case in the U.S. Korean churches also have a highly pastor centered view of the church. Those familiar with other cultures could shed some insight. Then, I suspect there are denominational differences colored by the form of government and polity. Our Nazarene blend of congregational and episcopal practices is unique. And, I don't think we can find a New Testament model that we could consider normative.

The truth is that a pastor-centered church could be a healthy church, but I think it is ultimately dangerous. In my new assignment, I haven't been terribly successful in trying to decentralizing some of the functions of the church. People are willing to do a tremendous amount, but are reluctant to take responsibility. I think that is fairly normal, esp. if we aren't used to it. On the other hand, there are a host of things that go on in the church that I have little or no involvement in. That is partly because these things were already in place and functioning well. While I like to know what is going on (that takes some time to learn), I certainly feel no need to control it all.

Sometimes I come to the board for a decision on some matter and they look at me as if to say, "Why are you asking us?" Then, the next time I don't, and I get, "Why didn't you ask us first?!" Argh.

So, finding that right balance between being authoritarian and leading by consensus is pretty tricky.

[Mike Schutz]

This is one of those threads that causes me to remember that, while no one in my congregation is a member of Naznet, they may be lurking. Causes me to remember that if I say it behind their back, I should say it to their face.

Ryan mentioned job descriptions. Even if a job description is accurate and clearly delineates the expectations the board has for the pastor (and that, in and of itself, is difficult), it would not limit the expectations of the congregation.

There are several wonderful saints in our congregation who seem to believe that the most important thing I do on Sunday mornings is control the temperature of the sanctuary. Not in the job description, but still their expectation. Of course, no one can agree on what the temperature should be. I told one dear saint, "Maam, Brother Jim over there is in charge of that. It might be more helpful if you spoke to him." Her response, "Well, it seems to me that if you want us older ladies to come to church, you would at least set the room at a comfortable temperature." The fact that I did not respond with the first thing that popped into my head is living proof of the power of the Holy Spirit over the tongue.:w)

[Roy Richardson]

Exactly.



I think it's bad, very bad actually. I don't believe it was ever meant to be that way in the Kingdom of God. I'd say the idea was that everyone would use the spiritual and natural gifts one had for the benefit of all. Some, with specific gifts, would be set apart for full time or part time ministry. But it wasn't meant to create a separate "class" of Christians. And certainly not to burden those poor folks with duties and expectations far beyond what they can carry or have been gifted for. It's one of the tragic ways we've distorted the liberating message of the Kingdom of God :basic04 :w)

As a prospective pastor, I concur. The Reformation sought to address the issue of the division between the clergy and laity, and in many ways we have recreated it. We put such expectations on a pastor - preacher, counselor, leader, finance director, motivator, disciplinarian, encourager etc - and then we wonder why he/she gets burned out when they are constantly hearing from people whose expectations are not being met.

The church needs to be the church and not delegate roles to the pastor that do not belong in that office. And pastors need to stop creating codependent relationships with their congregations that lead to this.

Stepping off soapbox now.

That is much easier said than done, partly because it is a cultural norm within the church.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

In my new assignment, I haven't been terribly successful in trying to decentralizing some of the functions of the church.

We have a running joke that the church can't eat unless I pray first. It has taken several years, but these days it is fairly common for someone else to step forward and pray at church eating events.

However, it's still there. Last night we had around 20 people who went out to eat. Just as the food was being served, I had to step out for a minute. Apparently, it created a (smiling) crisis because I wasn't there to ask the blessing.

When I got back several (smilingly) informed me that they had to get someone else to pray because I wasn't there.

A quick glance at the current crop of NazNet posts shows that we are still quite pastor oriented.

[Hal Paul]

We have a running joke that the church can't eat unless I pray first. It has taken several years, but these days it is fairly common for someone else to step forward and pray at church eating events.

However, it's still there. Last night we had around 20 people who went out to eat. Just as the food was being served, I had to step out for a minute. Apparently, it created a (smiling) crisis because I wasn't there to ask the blessing.

When I got back several (smilingly) informed me that they had to get someone else to pray because I wasn't there.

A quick glance at the current crop of NazNet posts shows that we are still quite pastor oriented.
When I'm out with a group of people from church, I usually start that thumbs up game, you know the one where the last person to put their thumb up prays for the meal. Usually the pastor knows what's going on, and puts his thumb up before everyone else, and someone other than the pastor usually winds up praying. Londa usually makes sure any guests know what's going on, or volunteers to pray if a guest is a bit slow on the draw.

http://www.sonoma.edu/pubs/nb/4_19_04/images/thumbsup.jpg

[Susan Unger]

I can't help but note how pastor oriented our churches are. Even on NazNet we have constant questions about "pastors and...." Often the questions could just as easily be about "Christians and..." in general, but we tend focus in on pastors.

Why do you think it is that we are so pastor oriented? Do you think it is a good or bad (or somewhere in between) thing?

My former church was excessively pastor oriented to the point of utter dependancy on him. The pastors and the DSs would tell the church that this isn't right as it will lead to burn out of the pastor. But the congregation would just look so bewildered when they were told that. I think for that group alot of it was a rock bottom self-esteem that told them they couldn't be a leader like so and so thus why try? And even though the pastors would always leave burned out, and the church could only grow as far as the pastors energy allowed him to grow it, and we could never seem to survive pastor changes...they just couldn't stop being utterly dependant on him.

It was kind of sick after awhile with their utter dependancy on every thing pastor oriented even to the point of "pastor said..... so it must be true". [insert that non-existent vomit emoticon here]

My current church is just the opposite. There are lots of lay leaders with lots of involved groups. Everyone is working together for the kingdom and the common good. It is very refreshing...and the pastor isn't burned out either! :)

[Marsha Lynn]

We have a running joke that the church can't eat unless I pray first. It has taken several years, but these days it is fairly common for someone else to step forward and pray at church eating events.

A quick glance at the current crop of NazNet posts shows that we are still quite pastor oriented.

Ah, Scott. You're taking all the fun out of my joke about asking the pastor to pray for us "because he's a professional." Sigh.

I suppose it's time to quit teasing him about working only two hours a week, too?

That's the problem with a long-term pastor. All the standard jokes wear thin.

When I'm out with a group of people from church, I usually start that thumbs up game, you know the one where the last person to put their thumb up prays for the meal.

I'm never sure what I think about that game, which I first learned at NYC in Switzerland and my Olivet daughter starts consistently. Is it really appropriate to play a game where all the winners get out of praying and the loser has to do it? "Ha ha! You lost! Now you have to pray to the God of the universe to thank him for our food."

I'm not usually a stickler for proper language in regard to God and don't make a big deal about this, but it does bother me a little. It seems that having groups of people punishing the slow-witted by making them be the ones to talk to the "Big Guy" might be as tiring as worn-out pastor jokes.

Marsha

[Hans Deventer]

A quick glance at the current crop of NazNet posts shows that we are still quite pastor oriented.

I'm working on it, Scott. Where ever I can, till everybody understands that "It was He who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ."

[Martijn van Beveren]

Exactly.



I think it's bad, very bad actually. I don't believe it was ever meant to be that way in the Kingdom of God. I'd say the idea was that everyone would use the spiritual and natural gifts one had for the benefit of all. Some, with specific gifts, would be set apart for full time or part time ministry. But it wasn't meant to create a separate "class" of Christians. And certainly not to burden those poor folks with duties and expectations far beyond what they can carry or have been gifted for. It's one of the tragic ways we've distorted the liberating message of the Kingdom of God :basic04

Another influence from the official structured church?
In our church we are beginning leadership/talent courses, for people to discover their own talents and use them, so the church will grow as a whole instead of leaning on the pastor alone. I really hope this will work out for people to become teamplayers instead of just audiance.

[Tami Martin]

Is it possible that Naznet is so pastor focused because such a high percentage of the regular posters ARE pastors?

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

As NazNet continues its pastor centric ways, this thread once again comes to mind. On our recent trip we visited four churches. In three of the four churches everything that happened orbited around the pastor. He or she made the announcements, read all the scripture, led the responsive readings, prayed all the prayers, called for the ushers, and preached the sermon.

What would you laypeople do without a pastor! I've about decided to just go with the flow and consider it all job security! :)

[Jim Franklin]

Scott, at Five Mile Church of the Nazarene in Boise, ID the service starts when the Worship Team leads in a few songs, then one of the laymen gives the announcements, then there is fellowship time, a board member is in charge of the offering collected by teen ushers, the pastor does pray a pastoral prayer, then there is more music led by the Worship Team, the pastor starts preaching at about 12 Noon and we get out of church about 12:30 PM to 12:45.
So other than the pastoral prayer and the sermon the rest of the service is led by lay leadership.

[Susan Unger]

As NazNet continues its pastor centric ways, this thread once again comes to mind. On our recent trip we visited four churches. In three of the four churches everything that happened orbited around the pastor. He or she made the announcements, read all the scripture, led the responsive readings, prayed all the prayers, called for the ushers, and preached the sermon.

What would you laypeople do without a pastor! I've about decided to just go with the flow and consider it all job security! :)

I grew up in a church like that - no thank you!

[Wayne Paul]

As NazNet continues its pastor centric ways, this thread once again comes to mind. On our recent trip we visited four churches. In three of the four churches everything that happened orbited around the pastor. He or she made the announcements, read all the scripture, led the responsive readings, prayed all the prayers, called for the ushers, and preached the sermon.

What would you laypeople do without a pastor! I've about decided to just go with the flow and consider it all job security! :)

Who lead the music? The pastor's spouse?

[Marsha Lynn]

As NazNet continues its pastor centric ways, this thread once again comes to mind. On our recent trip we visited four churches. In three of the four churches everything that happened orbited around the pastor. He or she made the announcements, read all the scripture, led the responsive readings, prayed all the prayers, called for the ushers, and preached the sermon.

What would you laypeople do without a pastor! I've about decided to just go with the flow and consider it all job security! :)

My pastor is missing the next two Sundays while accompanying the district "Teen Care Corp" to Alaska. We may have to close the doors! Worse, the county fair is happening during his absence and the church is selling food at one of the fair booths. How can we do THAT without our pastor?! Who will smooth down all the ruffled feathers that come from too much "church family togetherness"? Who will fill the gaps for people who don't show up to work? How can we do this all by ourselves?

At last week's pastoral review, the DS suggested that after 14 years of service it might be time for us to offer our pastor a sabbatical. (D'ya think?) This may be a test of that idea. If we're still functional as a church after the next two weeks maybe we can consider it.

:fav11

Marsha

(Actually, the county fair fundraising project is an example of what happens when the church does NOT look to the pastor for leadership in all areas. That entire undertaking is lay-driven and may be a much greater threat to church unity and survival than two Sundays without a pastor.)

[Pete Vecchi]

Why do you think it is that we are so pastor oriented? Do you think it is a good or bad (or somewhere in between) thing?


I haven't been able to be on NazNet much lately due to family sistuations with which I've been dealing. I haven't read any of the 70-some replies that this thread has generated as I am typing this response, so if I repeat things or take things in a direction other than where this thread has gone thus far, please forgive me.

I have experienced a number of Christian denominations in my life. I I consider attending services in the same church/congregation more than one time as having personally "experienced" the denominations, they include (off the top of my head) Roman Catolic, Lutheran (Missouri Synod and what is now called ELCA), United Methodist, Baptist, Assemblies of God, Reformed, Wesleyan, UNited Church of Christ, Church of the Brethren, and various non-denominational churches. Of course, I have now been Nazarene since the early 1990's.

My experience has been that different denominations (and even different congregations within those denominations) treat clergy differently. Overall, I'd say that the roman Catholics generally seem to place the most emphasis on the priest/pastor as being the head of the parish/congregation. Not talking about the form of the Catholic Mass/Worship service (because the form is supposed to be more or less universally used world-wide in the Roman Catholic Church), these congregations seem to put much more emphasis on the clergy. They refer to the priests more often as "Father" than as "Pastor." It is not uncommon to hear Roman Catholics say, "Well, Father said..." and simply accept what was said with basically no questions asked. The priest is the authority in the local congregation.

The more I have studied this issue, the more I believe it is rather Biblical (other than the fact that they call their priests "Father"--but that's another issue). The New Testament seems to indicate that there should be people more or less set apart or called as clergy. It doesn't make them better Christians, it simply means that God has called them to a specific assignment within His church. They are to be the human leaders of the organization we call church. They are to be shepherds. Even our own Nazarene Manual uses the words "The pastor who is in charge of a congregation..." (emphasis mine) in giving the duties of a pastor.

It has been my experience that in trying to distinguish one denomination from another, denominations can tend to emphasize different aspects that set them apart from other denominations. This has taken place throughout much of church history. Martin Luther didn't set out to begin a new denomination, but rather to "reform" the church. However, the "Protestant reformation" became the catalyst for separation from the Catholic Church centered in Rome. When the Roman Catholic Church finally did reform some of it's ways, it became known as the "Counter-Reformation."

Wesley didn't want to break from the Anglicans; he wanted to reform them. But the Methodist Church came into being because of Wesley's work. The Nazarenes and other Holiness denominations came into being after their attempts to "reform" the methodists didn't pan out.

With every "reformation" there seems to have been some things that have separated the "reformed" from the "non-reformed" (I'm just using those words for clarification--not in any way trying to demean any particular denomination).

To bring this back to the original question, it seems to me that one of the things that has happened over the years in many denominations has been the lowering in respect for the clergy. I can include the Church of the nazarene in this. As a district superintendent said to me recently (not a verbatim quote, but the main idea is here), the Church of the Nazarene is set up in such a way so that the pastor is in charge, but the people have the power.

Sometimes, I wonder if we've lost some respect for the offices of clergy in our denomination. How often do we hear of congregations wanting to control how things are done in the local congregations--be it the way we do Christmas eve services or whatever--when a pastor, who is called by God to be in charge of a congregation, might see that the way things are currently being done are holding the cingregations back from being what God wants them to become? It often causes problems and conflicts.

Let me make it clear that in God's sight, we all have equall standing as far as the kingdom of God. There is no Jew nor Greek, male nor female, slave nor free. I believe there is also no clergy nor laity when it comes to our standing before God. However, I believe that the biblical pattern shows that God has indeed set up a structure for his church which includes pastors needing to be in charge of the local congregations (and bishops or others in charge of the pastors). The highest authority should be God, especially as He has revealed Himself through the Scriptures.

[Gina Stevenson]

Marsha, you do sarcasm well. :laughing

My pastor is missing the next two Sundays ....... We may have to close the doors! Worse, the county fair is happening during his absence and the church is selling food at one of the fair booths. How can we do THAT without our pastor?! Who will smooth down all the ruffled feathers that come from too much "church family togetherness"? Who will fill the gaps for people who don't show up to work? How can we do this all by ourselves?

At last week's pastoral review, the DS suggested that after 14 years of service it might be time for us to offer our pastor a sabbatical. (D'ya think?) This may be a test of that idea. If we're still functional as a church after the next two weeks maybe we can consider it.

:fav11

Marsha

(Actually, the county fair fundraising project is an example of what happens when the church does NOT look to the pastor for leadership in all areas. That entire undertaking is lay-driven and may be a much greater threat to church unity and survival than two Sundays without a pastor.)

[emphasis mine. ;) gs]

[Billy Cox]

To bring this back to the original question, it seems to me that one of the things that has happened over the years in many denominations has been the lowering in respect for the clergy. I can include the Church of the nazarene in this. As a district superintendent said to me recently (not a verbatim quote, but the main idea is here), the Church of the Nazarene is set up in such a way so that the pastor is in charge, but the people have the power.

Sometimes, I wonder if we've lost some respect for the offices of clergy in our denomination. How often do we hear of congregations wanting to control how things are done in the local congregations--be it the way we do Christmas eve services or whatever--when a pastor, who is called by God to be in charge of a congregation, might see that the way things are currently being done are holding the cingregations back from being what God wants them to become? It often causes problems and conflicts.


This is exactly why churches should seek to grow by getting people saved as opposed to harvesting the throw-aways from other churches.

When I go to someone else's birthday party, I know that there will be gifts and I won't be the one receiving them; I won't be the one blowing out the candles. New Christians seem to understand this about the church they attend.

Another bonus to having alot of new Christians around... If the pastor acts like he is in charge and is accountable to nobody, they will most likely believe him and go along with it. :basic03

[Marsha Lynn]

Marsha, you do sarcasm well. :laughing


Thanks, Gina. I'm not sure sarcasm is really a good medium for me in print, however. I fear my words come across as harsher than intended after being dunked in the ether. I certainly didn't intend to imply that Scott's observations were not valid. We do indeed depend much on our pastor and wife and will miss them more than a little while they're gone. In fact, I just reminded my daughter a little earlier that, as fill-in song leader on a day when the pastor is gone, she not only needs to handle the music and facilitate the offering in place of the regular song leader, but also find someone to do the announcements and pray the "pastoral" prayer. I presume someone else has been asked to unlock and lock the doors and adjust the thermostats. (Scott probably didn't see the pastors doing those things at the churches he visited.) We'll figure out some way to get the announcements onto the screen in the absence of the pastor's wife who generally types the bulletin and updates the slides.

As for the county fair, I'm not sure if things will go better or worse in the absence of the pastor. Maybe being on our own to keep the peace and get over the ruffled feather problems will be a good thing. One can always hope.

Marsha

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

I presume someone else has been asked to unlock and lock the doors and adjust the thermostats. (Scott probably didn't see the pastors doing those things at the churches he visited.)

I do the call to worship, then stand and hold the offering plates while the church sings the doxology. We have a meet and greet time, and I introduce it. I preach and pray the pastoral prayer.

Someone else does the announcements, leads in the responsive reading, leads the singing. Most everything is on "automatic" -- I've seen pastors who not only did everything, but when, for some special reason, someone else was supposed to do it, the pastor introduced it, i.e. "Mary Sue is going to come and talk to us about VBS right now."

If I get to the church first, I open it up, but others would do the same. I do "fire up" the sanctuary each Sunday - turning on the sound system, lights, and computers. I start the video "pre-service" slide show and put some music on.

Since our English service is followed by a Spanish service, all of us English speakers just walk out the door and leave it in the hands of the Spanish folks.

Our our thermostats are automated, so no one touches them.

Through the years I have had many women (never men) complain that it is too cold or too hot during the service. I have always responded with good natured belligerence saying, "Well what do you want me to do about it? I'm the only one in the whole church who is working -- do you want me to stop preaching so I can go back and adjust the thermostat?" I'm smiling as I say it, but they know it's the truth.

[Gina Stevenson]

Thanks, Gina. I'm not sure sarcasm is really a good medium for me in print, however. I fear my words come across as harsher than intended after being dunked in the ether. I certainly didn't intend to imply that Scott's observations were not valid. We do indeed depend much on our pastor and wife and will miss them more than a little while they're gone.
Well, maybe "sarcasm" wasn't such a good word choice, after all ... maybe "satire" would've been better. While close in meaning, satire seems the more humorous of the two, whereas sarcastic can seem to lean more towards "caustic." Sorry for the word choice. :o We realize you do appreciate, so will miss, them. ;)

As for the county fair, I'm not sure if things will go better or worse in the absence of the pastor. Maybe being on our own to keep the peace and get over the ruffled feather problems will be a good thing. One can always hope.

Marsha

Sort of like parents do to kids sometimes so they learn to work things out on their own. :cool:

[Gene Tatsch]

.....
Why do you think it is that we are so pastor oriented? Do you think it is a good or bad (or somewhere in between) thing?

As I understand the New Testament, the role of pastor (shepherd) is to lead a flock, and (as someone mentioned on another thread) to equip the saints.
What I've often noticed is the "pastor" manages a specific non-profit organization, whose main function is to keep the property in reasonable repair. So I see a distraction from being a shepherd to being a manager; between leading us all to increasingly live out the Great Command and the Great Commission and managing a 503(c) corporation.
And its sad/tragic to see God-called folks diverted to trying ineptly to be business managers!

And even in business, I read much of the value of getting everyone involved in carrying out the mission of the organization - sounding a lot like "small group" sort of multi-leadership. Except we :basic01 can depend on the Spirit to lead us.

[Greg Farra]

This is exactly why churches should seek to grow by getting people saved as opposed to harvesting the throw-aways from other churches.

When I go to someone else's birthday party, I know that there will be gifts and I won't be the one receiving them; I won't be the one blowing out the candles. New Christians seem to understand this about the church they attend.

Another bonus to having alot of new Christians around... If the pastor acts like he is in charge and is accountable to nobody, they will most likely believe him and go along with it. :basic03


Billy,

I hope you don't view us who came from other denominations 'throwaways'.
That seems rather harsh and unwelcoming.

[Billy Cox]

Billy,

I hope you don't view us who came from other denominations 'throwaways'.
That seems rather harsh and unwelcoming.

Not at all. Just using a less euphemistic term than 'transfers'.

[Greg Farra]

Not at all. Just using a less euphemistic term than 'transfers'.

Transfers doesn't work either. Maybe we should use the Seinfeld model of playing for different teams, but we're all in the same league. Of course, that may imply competition, so never mind!

[Gene Tatsch]

On quick scan of some of the responses, I submit this counter-question:

Is there biblical - especially New Testament - authority for the church to be so pastor oriented?

If we can't answer that question with a rather unequivocal "yes",
then by what authority does a declared disciple of Jesus support the practice?

[Pete Vecchi]

On quick scan of some of the responses, I submit this counter-question:

Is there biblical - especially New Testament - authority for the church to be so pastor oriented?

If we can't answer that question with a rather unequivocal "yes",
then by what authority does a declared disciple of Jesus support the practice?

There is Biblical support for pastoral leadership. Ephesians 4 says that it is Christ who gave (or called) some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers. The pastoral office is part of God's design for the church.

The next part of the Biblical support comes from understanding the Greek words that the NIV generally translates as "overseer" and "elder", especially in 1 Timothy 3 and 5, respectively.

Now, I am not a scholar--especially when it comes to Greek--but I have studied this issue somewhat, and found that the word translated as "overseer" in 1 Timothy 3 is the Greek word EPISKOPOS, which is from 2 Greek words, EPI (meaning over) and SKOPEO (meaning watch). In other words, to watch over, or oversee. This is the word that was used by the Greeks to describe someone who was in charge of (or overseeing) an assembly, either non-religious or religious.

In 1 Timothy 5, the word that is translated as "elder" is PRESBUTEROS, which basically is the Greek word for what the Jewish people called someone who was in charge of an assembly. So in essence the words translated in these NIV passages as "overseer" and "elder" are pretty much synonymous and in essence interchangeable.

In 1 Timothy 5:17, the Bible says that there are elders who direct the affairs of the church, and mentions that there are elders whose work is specifically that of preaching and teaching. This passage says that these elders are worthy of "double honor" (NIV). Acts 20:28 says that overseers are to be shepherds of the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made them overseers.

Taken all together, this tells me that pastors, overseers, and elders are generally pretty much synonymous terms, and that God calls people into these positions for specific purposes which include preaching and teaching, shepherding the flock of God, and directing the affairs of the church.

I believe, therefore, that the Bible does indeed show that there is supposed to be pastoral authority within the structure of the church, of which Jesus Christ, according to Colossians 1, is the head.

[Hans Deventer]

On quick scan of some of the responses, I submit this counter-question:

Is there biblical - especially New Testament - authority for the church to be so pastor oriented?

Yes and no. There is support for the authority of several offices in the church. From the earliest beginnings, people were set apart for specific purposes. Also, the administrative structure of the synagogue was followed (the elders). However, through time, the various gifts and graces became narrowed down to the episkopos, the presbyteros and diakonos. Among whom, the episkopos became the most important one until and soon it got to the statement "Ubi Epíscopus, ibi Ecclésia", "where the bishop is, there is the church" (Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, 68-107).

In our church, we actually merged both the offices of elder and episkopos, which generally isn't the case in most Protestant churches.

In conclusion, the wide variety of offices in the church has, through time, been narrowed down to the pastor. There is no Biblical support form him/her being the ONLY authority figure in the church. There is, however, more than enough support for people with spiritual gifts to be set apart for ministry and leadership positions.

[Gene Tatsch]

...
In conclusion, the wide variety of offices in the church has, through time, been narrowed down to the pastor. There is no Biblical support form him/her being the ONLY authority figure in the church. There is, however, more than enough support for people with spiritual gifts to be set apart for ministry and leadership positions.

Yes, there's authority for multiple distributed, ministry and leadership positions (e.g., each disciple is a high priest)
But I think Scott's original question was "... so pastor oriented?" - and what I'm understanding is that its in implementation of the Biblical model we're twisting things ... as we so often do :basic04 .

I much appreciate being able to ask questions ... and get a kind, direct Biblical answer :basic05 !

[Scott Daniels]

Sorry to join this thread so late and I apologize if this has already been mentioned, but I think the pastor-centered issue is directly tied to liturgy (or lack of it).

Some of the denominations or traditions mentioned where pastors are moved around with some sense of ease are for the most part highly litugical traditions where the liturgy (literally "the work of the people") is more prominent in worship and the preaching (usually a "homily") only takes 15 to 20 percent of the service.

In a non-liturgical revivalistic tradition like ours most services of worship devote 35 to 50 percent of the service to the proclamation of the Word. In that case the quality of worship is highly dependent upon the exegetical and communication skills of the minister.

I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing but it means that in our system the "success" of a church is highly dependent upon the preaching ability of its pastor. There are certainly a lot of other skills needed to do well, but in non-liturgical traditions the weight of worship is upon the sermon.

[Meghan Schoonover]

That's interesting, Scott. <thinking> Having grown up in a liturgical church I think there is still quite a bit of emphasis on the pastor. We had "good" and "bad" pastors throughout the year and while yes, the liturgy remained the same or similar, the pastor had quite a bit of weight in the "tone" of the service. We had several interim pastors while I was growing up and many laypersons giving the sermons, too, and you could very much tell the pastor was gone. Subtle things like most laypeople read versus chanted during the liturgy (congregation sung the responses, though), and more obvious things like a layperson would never have led communion, so we waited for a "real" pastor for that (normally we'd have communion every other week).

It is interesting to me now, visiting my folks' church or whatnot, and truly how much congregational participation there is, though, compared to my Nazarene church (where basically the only "participation" is to sing). I also felt like I was just settling in for the sermon and it's over (although his preaching was clear and concise!). Lots easier to keep my kids occupied during a 10-15 min. sermon vs. a 45 minute one, though! Heh.

[Susan Unger]

It is interesting to me now, visiting my folks' church or whatnot, and truly how much congregational participation there is, though, compared to my Nazarene church (where basically the only "participation" is to sing). I also felt like I was just settling in for the sermon and it's over (although his preaching was clear and concise!). Lots easier to keep my kids occupied during a 10-15 min. sermon vs. a 45 minute one, though! Heh.

I would like more participation in church than just to sing [which I can't do]. I have often wondered why I am needed in church for this reason.

And I visited my friend's liturgical service one time - by the time I was all settled in, the pastor was done! How annoying!

[Meghan Schoonover]

Heh! I think we're conditioned to feel that re: the sermon...10-15 mins. used to feel like a long time, but the last several times I've felt the same way as your experience!

[Meghan Schoonover]

I would like more participation in church than just to sing [which I can't do]. I have often wondered why I am needed in church for this reason.


Oh, I meant to address this...what did you mean by not being able to sing? Like you don't have a good voice or don't feel comfortable doing it? (Curious, b/c I'm the music co-ordinator and often see people not singing and am wondering about it and how I can help them feel comfortable or include them more...).

Also, do you have any ideas about participation? This is something I've thought lots about. I've organized special services that have relied heavily on layperson participation, but our typical services don't outside of a few singing on the praise team or giving announcements...but not really those sitting in the pews. Hmmm...

[Jim Monck]

Exactly.



I think it's bad, very bad actually. I don't believe it was ever meant to be that way in the Kingdom of God. I'd say the idea was that everyone would use the spiritual and natural gifts one had for the benefit of all. Some, with specific gifts, would be set apart for full time or part time ministry. But it wasn't meant to create a separate "class" of Christians. And certainly not to burden those poor folks with duties and expectations far beyond what they can carry or have been gifted for. It's one of the tragic ways we've distorted the liberating message of the Kingdom of God :basic04

I agree with you Hans; that is why I'm looking for a Bible written by a committee. It is clear to me that God never used strong leaders in the New Testament times.

Have you ever been in a small group that didn't have a leader? Gone to a Board Meeting where no one was in charge?

Good leaders develop the talents and gifts of others and also prepare others to lead when they are absent, but they do lead.

Even Paul said follow me as I follow Christ.

Great pastors build great churches because they lead and because of it many people use their talents and abilities. Very few churches suffer from pastoral leadership. Now some do suffer from pastors who do it all but that is not leadership. John Maxwell says "if no one is following you, you are not a leader, you are just taking a walk."

Now if you are leading most likely not only are people following but telling others they are excited about it. Maybe the right answer to the question is not "pastor did it this way" but rather our pastor has lead us in some of the most meaningful Christmas Eve Services, our pastor has shown us the value of doing it this way.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

Sorry to join this thread so late and I apologize if this has already been mentioned, but I think the pastor-centered issue is directly tied to liturgy (or lack of it).


On my recent sabbatical I visited four churches, three of which used considerably more liturgy than the average Nazarene church. Two of those three churches were very pastor centered with the pastors doing the announcements, receiving the offering, and doing all the praying.

While your approach sounds logical to me, my experience on that trip plus other, similar visits, don't bear it out.

Also, my original thoughts on the topic (not that it really matters at this point) weren't so much about pastor centric worship services anyway. I noted how pastor oriented the conversations are on NazNet. If you ask, for instance, about Christmas eve services, a number of laypeople will respond by saying "Our pastor does thus and so" as though the church has no traditions of its own and simply follows like meek sheep whatever the pastor does.

We see an abundance of threads that ask questions that could be answered by any Christian but, instead, they are asked with only the pastor in mind. (I'm trying to pick an example here that has NOT been asked on NazNet) like, "What Bible translation do you pastors use for daily devotional reading?" This kind of stuff is what I'm thinking about when I talk about being pastor centric.

[Susan Unger]

Oh, I meant to address this...what did you mean by not being able to sing? Like you don't have a good voice or don't feel comfortable doing it? (Curious, b/c I'm the music co-ordinator and often see people not singing and am wondering about it and how I can help them feel comfortable or include them more...).

Also, do you have any ideas about participation? This is something I've thought lots about. I've organized special services that have relied heavily on layperson participation, but our typical services don't outside of a few singing on the praise team or giving announcements...but not really those sitting in the pews. Hmmm...

I would say I don't feel gifted to sing. The only time I sing is when I am driving and can't stay awake. Then being told that the only way I can "properly" worship God is to sing in the morning [I am not a morning person either], just doesn't light any fire in me.

For weekly participation in church, it is hard to say. As has been noted by others, the revivalistic non-liturgical typical nazarene service doesn't lend itself to group participation much. For what I am thinking of, one would have to really change the worship style [ie. incorporate dancers, or banner wavers].

[Gene Tatsch]

... We see an abundance of threads that ask questions that could be answered by any Christian but, instead, they are asked with only the pastor in mind. ...

My experience (more or less) in a series of a few Nazarene churches in different times and places is that input from a "mere layman" is not really welcome - oftimes actually rebuffed (in a diplomatic way, of course, that only is clear later). Hence, whatever a non-pastor would do is purely hypothetical for me.

And I much appreciate that you, as a "pastor", opened the discussion.

[Hans Deventer]

I agree with you Hans; that is why I'm looking for a Bible written by a committee. It is clear to me that God never used strong leaders in the New Testament times.

Jim, I don't mean to offend, but you didn't understand what I wrote. Try to understand what I wrote, ask me to explain where it's vague, and then lets continue the conversation.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

And I much appreciate that you, as a "pastor", opened the discussion.

You are welcome Gene. Frankly, as a Christian and as a pastor I have real concerns about all this.

I want our churches to be healthy -- not anemic gatherings in which everything is propped up against one person. I want to see individual believers become settled, mature followers of Jesus rather than followers of some person who will, intentionally or unintentionally let them down. I want to see people find their place as productive members of the body of Christ and not see themselves as second rate believers.

I also want to see pastors be able to enjoy doing the ministry to which they were called rather than be strung out doing stuff for which they are not gifted. I want to see their ministry as teachers and preachers of the gospel be where their energy is used. I want to see them administering the sacraments and representing Christ to people.

Frankly, I think many church people will applaud their pastor right into the grave and then tell stories of their dear departed pastor to the next pastor to make him feel guilty if he doesn't measure up!

I think it is unhealthy for churches to be overly centered on the pastor and I think it is unhealthy for pastors to be placed in that role.

[Billy Cox]

Now some do suffer from pastors who do it all but that is not leadership. John Maxwell says "if no one is following you, you are not a leader, you are just taking a walk."


Interesting that you mention this quote. I have heard pastors say this, but then turn around and castigate the congregation for being aimless and apathetic. Leaders may like to quote Maxwell, but when it comes to taking responsibility for their leadership, they are apt to blame the followers for not following.

What am I missing? Where is it written that laypeople respond positively to getting beat up? Sure, a pastor could be 100% right in holding the congregation's feet to the fire, but what is more important, being right? or making the right changes?

Perhaps alot of congregations flounder because their pastor is 'taking a walk??'

[Jim Monck]

Jim, I don't mean to offend, but you didn't understand what I wrote. Try to understand what I wrote, ask me to explain where it's vague, and then lets continue the conversation.

Sorry, I must not understand this thread. I did not understand it to be if churches were to have pastors or not but what kind of pastors. I was simply saying pastors should be leaders.

When I preach and people don't understand what I preached, I don't blame them for not understanding what I said; I listen to their feedback and try to say it again.

I was simply saying I believe pastors should be strong leaders and that means they are not dictators, do not do everything themselves and prepare the church to go forward after they are gone.

[Jim Monck]

Exactly.



I think it's bad, very bad actually. I don't believe it was ever meant to be that way in the Kingdom of God. I'd say the idea was that everyone would use the spiritual and natural gifts one had for the benefit of all. Some, with specific gifts, would be set apart for full time or part time ministry. But it wasn't meant to create a separate "class" of Christians. And certainly not to burden those poor folks with duties and expectations far beyond what they can carry or have been gifted for. It's one of the tragic ways we've distorted the liberating message of the Kingdom of God :basic04

Hans, you said to ask you to clarify so...........are you saying you do not agree with ordination? Would that be a class (ordained and not ordained)? Are you saying pastor's should not get paid (they get paid for serving the Lord, laymen have to pay to do it.)?

We probably are not as far apart in our thinking as you may think, but you do raise some interesting questions.

I have said for years that the pastor is the only one who gets defined by his work on Sunday morning. No one greets someone by saying "hello plumber John or hello teacher Sue."

[Hans Deventer]

Hans, you said to ask you to clarify so...........are you saying you do not agree with ordination?

No, I absolutely agree with ordination as in the Biblical idea of setting apart people for a certain task. May be a lifetime thing or temporary, may be parttime or fulltime.

Would that be a class (ordained and not ordained)?

When you set people apart, you create a difference. That much is clear. To build the entire governmental structure of the CotN on that difference however, is going way, way too far.

Are you saying pastor's should not get paid (they get paid for serving the Lord, laymen have to pay to do it.)?

No. On the contrary, "The worker deserves his wages" (1 Tim 5:18). I actually hate the system where missionaries have to beg by having to create and maintain their own support group. I very much appreciate the system where the church is responsible for those it sets apart for that purpose.

I have said for years that the pastor is the only one who gets defined by his work on Sunday morning. No one greets someone by saying "hello plumber John or hello teacher Sue."

When I visit my dentist or general practioner or see him walking down the street, I say, "Good morning, doctor". If I knew them better, I'd be using their first name. As I do with my pastor. That would be, "Good morning, Erik".

Jim, try this one: ask a person who (s)he is. I think you'll get the following answers: I'm a plumber, I'm a teacher, I'm a pastor, I'm a stay at home mom. We ALL define ourselves by our jobs.

I've read about one who didn't, or at least, put another accent: John, who called himself "the disciple whom Jesus loved".

[Pete Vecchi]

I want our churches to be healthy -- not anemic gatherings in which everything is propped up against one person. I want to see individual believers become settled, mature followers of Jesus rather than followers of some person who will, intentionally or unintentionally let them down. I want to see people find their place as productive members of the body of Christ and not see themselves as second rate believers.

This is so true. I have been finding that we need to understand that the structure of God's church and an individual's place within that structure is different than a person's standing before God. God has designed the church to have leaders who have different levels of authority within the organization, but whose standing before God is exactly the same, no matter what the position the person has in the church. Unfortunately, I believe that these lines can tend to become blurred. Just because a pastor is called to lead a local congregation doesn't mean that he/she has any better standing before God than any member of the congregation.


I also want to see pastors be able to enjoy doing the ministry to which they were called rather than be strung out doing stuff for which they are not gifted. I want to see their ministry as teachers and preachers of the gospel be where their energy is used. I want to see them administering the sacraments and representing Christ to people.

In my approximately 13 years of ministry (9 as an evangelist, 4 as a pastor), I have seen pastors put up with a lot. I was at a church as an evangelist once where the pastor told me that people would call his office during the day just to make sure he was there working. The pastor received a phone call during a "Prime Time" luncheon at the church one day when I was there, and the people of the congregation got all quiet except to be telling each other who they thought the pastor was talking to and telling each other the pastor's wife's work schedule that day, etc. There was little or no respect (in my opinion) for that pastor or his call of God to that pastoral position within that group of people.

Pastors shouldn't have to be accountable for every minute to people in the congregation. They should spend their time primarily with the Word of God and Prayer (Acts 7), directing the church -- not doing all of the tasks personally, but seeing to it that they get done -- (1 Timothy 5:17), preaching and teaching (1 Timothy 5:17), and shepherding the flock (Acts 20:28). Pastors should be given sufficient time to carry out these duties, which means they shouldn't be used as "gofers" or "errand boys (or girls)." They should be accountable primarily to God for their time management.



Frankly, I think many church people will applaud their pastor right into the grave and then tell stories of their dear departed pastor to the next pastor to make him feel guilty if he doesn't measure up!

I've seen this many times. For instance, a District Superintendent once told me about a situation where a pastor had resigned due to health issues. The new pastor came in and was often being compared by people in the congregation to the previous pastor (of course, with the previous pastor having done things better, in the congregation's opinion). It got to the point where the pastor was beginning to feel as though the the people wanted the previous pastor back, since his health was improving. The D.S. said something along the lines that the congregation must have a short memory, because