Mega-Church Conundrum
Posted: September 9th, 2009 | Author: James Downing | Tags: andy stanley, Church, mega-church, shepherd, Worship | 34 Comments »First, note the new signature. On a few occasions now, readers have mixed up James Duncan and myself. While this is much more damaging to his reputation than to mine, a little clarity never hurt.
Now, I’d like to open a discussion about mega-churches. Let me make it clear that I have never heard James Duncan speak against mega-churches. These views are mine and mine alone. He is certainly capable of agreeing or disagreeing with any of these thoughts, as are each of you. I will attempt to put forward a scriptural view of what Church is, and how it should look. However, admitting that some of this is grey area, I am open to correction.
Two straw-men that must be burnt before we can engage in any authentic discussion on this matter:
- There is no concrete cut-off number where a church has become too large. It would be impossible to pinpoint such a number. Thus, forcing me to do so would effectively change the point of this discussion and kill any other argument that I may be able to make.
- To insinuate that large attendance of a particular church is necessary for the sake of thousands of salvations, is to completely misunderstand the nature of salvation, the purpose of church, and the power of the Almighty God. If God can save souls at a certain mega-church, he can also do so at a small rural congregation, or even in some open field in China where there is no established church of any size in sight.
For the sake of this discussion, we’ll use Hartford Institute’s definition for a mega-church, which it gives in it’s simplest terms as a Protestant congregation of two thousand or more regular attenders. Again, don’t get caught up in a specific number, but it will help if we all work from the same definition.
With all this in mind, I will now try to answer:
What is Wrong With a Mega-Church?
- It usurps the shepherd/sheep relationship that a pastor is to have with his congregation. We’ve seen here where some pastors have been down-right scornful with members of their flock who would hope for their pastor to care about them specifically. True, one man cannot faithfully minister to 10,000 people, but a pastor’s heart should be to care for his sheep. Here’s what Andy Stanley said in a 2006 interview with Leadership Journal: “Should we stop talking about pastors as “shepherds”?
Absolutely. That word needs to go away. Jesus talked about shepherds because there was one over there in a pasture he could point to. But to bring in that imagery today and say, “Pastor, you’re the shepherd of the flock,” no. I’ve never seen a flock. I’ve never spent five minutes with a shepherd. It was culturally relevant in the time of Jesus, but it’s not culturally relevant any more.
Nothing works in our culture with that model except this sense of the gentle, pastoral care. Obviously that is a face of church ministry, but that’s not leadership.
I think most of us understand that you can’t just throw out biblical terms because they are problematic to our methodology, but that’s exactly what Stanley has done, as have hundreds of other “pastors” who see him as a mentor. We must change our methodology to fit scripture, even if that means not packing thousands of seats with people you have no intention of ministering to. It only makes sense that a pastor should not be over a congregation that is too large for him to meet their needs. Of course, some of this physical work is delegated to deacons, but if a pastor is to be held accountable for all the sheep entrusted to him, he needs to have a relationship with them. Some pastors may be able to faithfully attend to 1000 or more members. Some may only be able to care for 20 or 30, but if a person is going to church and not being ministered to, they are actually just attending a performance.
- It fuels the cult-of-personality, celebrity pastor driven congregation. The majority of these mega-churches are headed by charismatic, purpose-driven leaders. These guys are very driven towards their goals. I would assume that most of these guys could be just as successful running any business as they have been in running a church. That leads me to ask, is this why thousands of people are showing up on Sunday morning? I don’t recall Paul, when giving instructions to the churches he planted, asking, “Who among you has the most charismatic personalty? Who is the most fashionably dressed? Who has the most clever wit?”. No, the things he looked for in church leaders (listed in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 ) all dealt with character and righteousness.
- It raises questions about the motivation for a pastor to have such a church. As in, why do you need 12,000 people in your church, 11, 500 of whom you will never have any contact whatsoever? Are you the only minister in your town capable of delivering the Gospel? Isn’t it possible that a large majority of these peoples could be more effective elsewhere, where there attendance will be much more noticeable? Is it a pride issue? Does it make you feel powerful to know their are thousands of souls hanging on your every word? One could assume that a congregation of 12,000 probably pays better than a congregation of 500. Is that an issue?
- It makes it impossible for all attendees to be involved in worship in any meaningful way. The real worship will have to be performed by those on stage, while thousands of others watch from the seats. 1 Corinthians 14:26 paints a picture of all members being vitally involved in a worship service. This is completely impossible at a mega-church. The ministry is then left to the professionals, while the normal people sit and watch. This is also in contrast with Ephesians 5:19. I could also argue that this is against the Priesthood of Believers described in 1 Peter 2:9.
I’m going to stop here for now. If there is sufficient discussion, I may do a series on this, but this should be plenty to get us started.
Similar Posts:
- Another ignoble and gratuitous slam at the church
- Preventing problems with podcast preachers
- Was Jesus just a dumb hick?
- Is church a building?
- Introducing the Turnstile Church
Downing
Let me first address the mega-church size issue. I believe mega-churches are Biblical. I get that from Acts, wheere the church grows from around 150 to 2000 in a single day. Based on numbes today, thats a mega-church, based on church sizes then, im think that was a super mega-chuch.
Second, Le me addrress a pattern I see with the pastor having to do everything and care for his flock but he can’t be a “superstar”. You complain about mega-churches being a one man show but, in a church that size the lead pastor CAN’T do it all, it is not possible for it to be a one man show, it requires other people to step up and help out. You want Perry to do more as a pastor, but if he did more or if the church were smaller would it not become even more all about the pastor? Yes, perry doesn’t do it all, but they HAVE people who ministry to others, they have counseling staff, they have prayer teams, they have marriage counselors, they have financial people, they can help you, so what if it is not the senior pastor doing it, the church as a whole is ministering to other parts of the church. By wanting to lead pastor to do it, you are essentially making it aboout him. Let me also throw in the story in Acts where the apostles have to delegate out the work so they may continue to spread the gospel, they didn’t do that hands on, they voted on someone else to do that ministry for them, actually, there is no mention of them partaking in any part of that ministry, so they did not directly care for that group of people, but instead created a group to care for them, which is, in a way, caring for them.
I would like to throw in here that I know mega-church pastors who know their congregation, who are more hands on but they don’t do a majority of it.
The last point about worship, well, I will not judge whether or not they are worshipping God, and I don’t think you should either. I know of some really great people who get really involved in the worship as they sing to God. That is a dangerous topis to assume that they are not worshipping.
Also, why do you need a church that big? well, first off, Perry’s 10 year plan for NS was to maybe have 5,000 if they were lucky. But God decided to step in and explode their growth. So why need a church that big? Ask God, he made it that big (or for some of you out there allowed it to get that big) Different churches reach different people. And Perry’s style, reach’s people. other churches reach people by different ways also.
In conclusion, I will say that mega-churches are biblical, and that a lead Pastor not doing it all is also Biblical. So pretty much, I disagree with this post. And i should mention that the church (refering to all christians) is made up of millions of people, I consider that a pretty mega mega-church, so I don’t think God is against mega-churches.
Seth – It’s pretty clear that I am talking about a local body of believers, not the universal body of Christ.
Two – Is there any evidence that the large number of poeple who were saved at different points in Acts ever met together as one congreation? I don’t think so. After being added to the universal church by becoming believers, they most likely started meeting with a much smaller local congregation afterwards.
Three – Ask God? That works for any situation though, right? So, your point is that since it is taking place, God allowed it to happen, and therefore, it must be right. So, I ask, why are Children molested everyday in our country? Ask God. He allows it to happen, right?
Fourth – I will judge if what a congregation is calling worship is biblical. I don’t see how it is possible for a mega-church to look like 1 Corinthians 14:26.
Lastly – The one man show…ah, another straw man I should have taken care of earlier. The “one man show” argument does not assume that the pastor is doing all of the PHYSICAL work. In fact, most of theses pastors do very little in the way of “pastorly” activities. I definitely think the shepherd of a flock should be more intimately involved, willing to get his hands dirty. As I said, there is a great deal of that load that can be delegated through deacons, but the flock is still the primary responsibility of the shepherd.
Wow, that’s a devastating quote from Stanley. (One might even say it was totally jacked up. One wouldn’t, but one might.)
Downing, when I read it I was sure you’d been taken in by some parody site and was wondering how we could delete it and apologize for defaming the man.
I shouldn’t have doubted you, but I’m sure going to starting doubting Stanley more.
I’ve updated the article to add a link to the Christianity Today article with that quote.
Yeah, it was referenced alot during the early days of Elevation.
James Downing,
Great post and great attempt to start a timely discussion. From Seth’s point of view, he is a mega church kind of guy and as such should accept the good with the bad in this environment. What needs to be understood is that a variety of challenges do occur if it’s megachurch you have and want. It is a fact the worship is less personal (not completely impersonal though) and as my wife and I observed from our few weeks visit at NS, it appears that people can come and go, unless of course they take direct initiative to get involved. I would postulate that it is the large crowd atmosphere that may actually lull people into the notion that they can just show up for the show and be done with it. I mention NS, but that would be applicable in any other place.
I sense the debate goes deep into what is the church supposed to be and do. Is it the place to get saved, or is it a community. If it is to be a community, then there needs to be touch points, where people can connect, build trust and feel safe. A mega church has to think harder about how to accomplish this, whether through small groups or some other avenues.
Lastly, we are actually missing something in this discussion. This something is the role of elders, overseers, or as the bible would sometimes call them: Shepards. The Community Church in general and historically has ignored the role of elders in the church, opting instead to run a paid staff operation to mobilize and coordinate a corp of “volunteers”. It is, in my view, the local elders that should be on the forefront of protecting the flock, and both doing and coordinating spiritual and physical care, with primary assistance from deacons. This is a biblical model and I wonder that it is not being done, and why?
A mega church can do this, but will they?
For you and Seth both, what do you do during the day that allows you to blog at 2:30 and 4:30 in the morning? I tell my college age son that there is nothing good happening at those hours and go get some sleep.
I have a full-time time job, a part time job, a wife and two kids, and college classes. No time for sleep
I just happened to be awake. Going to pay for it today, Got the The National Leadership Forum today and tomorrow, should be really good stuff.
But back on topic, First, I’m not saying, nor did I that mega-churches have it all figured out nor do they get it right all the time. BUt I do see it as Biblical, and I do see worship going on, and I do see ministry taking place.
I am not knocking more traditional churches by any means, nor am I knocking smaller churches, all churches start off small anyways.
As for the broken world we live in, well, it is a broken world with broken sinful people, so bad things are going to happen, as to why they happen, so we as a people can be broken, be driven closer to God, bring glory to him and praise him in the good and bad times.
So what do you do?
Tell people to stop coming to church?
Perhaps you partner with other churches in your area and spread out the membership so that all are taken care of?
Maybe send out another plant from within your church?
I don’t know, there are tons of options outside of telling people to stop coming to church.
Downing — First of all, good insightful post. Thats 2 in a row for you (not including last nights youtube video, it wasnt a full post). JT brought up a good question though…do we just tell people to stop coming to church? The Holy Spirit will move whether a church has 50 people or 10,000 people attending so its not really our job to judge or contend those salvations, its not right, period! Im not saying anyone was, I just feel thats important to say from the get go. Perry opened up Unleash in the Spring with a statement similar to “there’s nothing great about Newspring, the same God that is working here, can and is working at your church.” Doesnt it also come down to the Faith of the church? Do they believe God can move in a mighty way? Like Seth said, knocking the traditional church is not the answer because two wrongs dont make a right. Are we supposed to say to people at the door, “I’m sorry folks, we have 1,999 people in our service right now and if we go above that number, it wouldnt be right. Maybe next time though!” ??? Those who blog against mega-church pastors on here also assume they dont attend funerals, go to hospitals and so on. Now I realize some have said that and that’s fine but just because one doesnt do these things doesn’t guantee they all don’t. As far as Worship Downing, you are just guessing. I’ve been in large churches and traditional tiny churches and I worshiped more freely and felt the presence of God ALOT more in the larger church. It wasnt the band or the atmosphere, it was ME AND JESUS!
keitho – you said “at NS, it appears that people can come and go, unless of course they take direct initiative to get involved” Why would you not want to get involved in any church? Show initiative!!
also…you said
Lastly, we are actually missing something in this discussion. This something is the role of elders, overseers, or as the bible would sometimes call them: Shepards. The Community Church in general and historically has ignored the role of elders in the church, opting instead to run a paid staff operation to mobilize and coordinate a corp of “volunteers”. It is, in my view, the local elders that should be on the forefront of protecting the flock, and both doing and coordinating spiritual and physical care, with primary assistance from deacons. This is a biblical model and I wonder that it is not being done, and why?— I am a volunteer, do you have something against me? I get up at 6am on sunday and work until around 2, setting up and breaking down church because CHURCH IS NOT A BUILDING IT’S THE PEOPLE GLORIFYING JESUS!
Anthony: “Are we supposed to say to people at the door, “I’m sorry folks, we have 1,999 people in our service right now and if we go above that number, it wouldnt be right. Maybe next time though!” ??? ”
This was covered in strawman #1. Noone is in any way making that out to be the case.
Anthony: “As far as Worship Downing, you are just guessing.”
No. It would be impossible for everyone in a mega-church to be involved like we see in 1 Corinthians 14:26. That’s not a guess. That’s also not to say that noone worships there, but to say they aer intimately involved like we see in the Corinthians passage is just nor logistically possible.
And that youtube post last night was awesome. You should’ve learned a lesson from it.
Downing, the one criticism that I tend to agree with you is “It fuels the cult-of-personality, celebrity pastor driven congregation.”
However, this is a danger for any church, not just mega-churches. I’ve seen plenty of churches with 100-300 members who are pastor-centered instead of Christ-centered.
And I’m puzzled by this statement: “The majority of these mega-churches are headed by charismatic, purpose-driven leaders. These guys are very driven towards their goals. I would assume that most of these guys could be just as successful running any business as they have been in running a church.”
What’s wrong with that?
Nothing “wrong” with that, so to speak, but it is just another thing that makes you question: Is this church big because of God, or because of a keen marketing strategy?
It just sounds like you believe that any mega church cant be of God? Why cant God be bringing massive amounts of people to a single church?
Does it really sound that way? God can do whatever God wants to do. I’m just presenting the other side of the coin, to the best of my biblical understanding.
This by the way would be a Level 3 disagreement. Worth talking about and discussing, and trying to get it right, but I wouldn’t break fellowship over it. I prefer a smaller congregation, and think the New Testament model backs me up on that.
Anthony,
I agree, why wouldn’t anyone want to be involved at the local church and show initiative. I was suggesting that many people don’t (for whatever reason) and the crowd tends to create a cloak of anonymity that allows them to slip in and out. Anyway, you missed my key word: “postulate”. What did I say that led you to believe I know this as fact. It’s a working hypothesis that explains alot of observed behavior when I walk into a crowd, whether it be church or business related.
Regards to my second point; you are taking me to task unfairly because you are reading way more into my comments and questions than you should. I volunteer to, and am not an elder or deacon. I simply observed that a clear model of shepharding and care that is found in the bible via local elders and deacons is largely being ignored by many christian denominations (the Community Church being just one of many). I am just wondering why? What did I say to suggest that I am somehow diminishing the role of volunteering?
I asked what I thought was a reasonable question, and instead of dialogue from you I got attitude instead. Calm down and take a breath! I don’t go to NS by choice but it does not mean that I hate it, or would want to diminish anyone’s committment to Christ simply on the basis that they go there. As everyone I know there has told me “its not for everybody”. I believe them. It’s not for me.
Downing, thats what it comes down to as well is preference. You prefer a smaller congregation and I prefer medium to large. Your post was well thought out, I think I said that before, we just disagree on some things and thats fine I dont dislike you for it.
Keitho, my goal on here is to watch how I say things. So if you thought I came across with an attitude, I am sorry. That was not my purpose at all. I agree that shepherding is important as well. Again sorry if I came across too strong.
Anthony,
Those are good goals. Keep up the good work.
This is a hard issue to think through. a few thoughts…
1. The size of the church, in my opinion, is not neccessarily a problem. i think the issue is the health of the church. There are certain characteristics that the Bible teaches should be in the local church. Mark Dever has written an excellent work entitled, “9 Marks of a healthy church”. He lists 1. expository preaching 2. Biblical theology 3. The Gospel 4. Biblical understanding of conversion 5. Biblical understanding of church membership 6. Biblical church discipline 7. Biblical understanding of evangelism 8. Concern for discipleship and Growth 9. Biblical church leadership. I would add personally 10. Prayer Now, how many mega churches or smaller churches for that matter, actually ahve these characteristics? Most don’t even pass number 1.
2. It is true, the pastor cannot be in the lives of every single person. The issue i see with mega-churches as well as smaller ones is the attitude of “how few can i shepherd” instead of how many can I. I astounded at Noble, Furtick, Stanly, list goes on who have such an unbiblical understanding of the role of pastor. Also, the pastor is to train others to do the of ministry as well. How can he effectively and biblically when it is not being modeled before them?
3. Lastly, I don’t understand why mega church pastors often don’t want to visit, be involved and get in realtionships with as many as possible in their church. Knowing the people’s struggle, needs, etc. helps a good pastor preach the Wrod more faithfully and directly into their lives. People want to be loved, and know God’s WOrd. That’s the role of a pastor.
I’m curious as to your opinion about Driscoll, Chandler, and Piper who have churches larger than the “defined” number. I understand the number is not the point, but surely you don’t think that Driscoll and his pupils are meeting the 1 on 1 needs of his flock?
I think they could be probably serve better with a smaller congegregation. Everything said above still applies to those three, even though I may like their theology /preaching better than others. That being said, Piper is committed to planting new congregations. His stated goal is that the new congregations use his preaching on video for a while, to get the church started, but then would all be turned over to a local pastor, likely sent out from Piper’s church. I think that’s a good idea. We’ll see how well he follows through.
Driscoll, on the other hand, seemed to be committed to planting with his Acts 29 Network, but now has stated he hopes to start 100 video campuses within the next year. I personally thin that is rediculous, and hope he gets back to his earlier goal of planting new congregations.
And I’m sorry, but I know very little of Chandler.
Downing said, “I think they could be probably serve better with a smaller congegregation.”
We are become more effective by serving fewer people?
It’s statements like that that are turning this site into a parody of itself.
JT,
I’ve got a parallel example, that while not perfect, I think makes the same point: Why do you think fine dining establishments have small kitchens and small seating areas, compared with … Chinese Buffets, cafeterias, Cici’s, or Hot Dog stands? Because they know that quality cannot be mass produced, and volume (eventually) correlates to a lesser experience, product, and overall quality. It’s the simple difference of eating at a fast food place compared to an upscale one.
Is church to be managed like a restaurant? No. Don’t press the issue to absurdity. Think about the overall comparison, not the minutiae.
It appears all Downing is trying to say is (and JDowning has every right to come in and correct this if I’m wrong): it’s hard to be a community of believers gathered for fellowship, worship, and learning to be mass produced on a large scale. The closeness, quality of fellowship, and ability to minister to a very large crown is threatened, if not diminished, when the numbers explode. What to do when growth explodes? spin off and plant another fellowship of believers, transplanted to repeat the process as God directs.
Tommy,
Nice reply.
However, the larger-is-less-intimate argument doesn’t stand up when compared to the realities of large churches. Every “mega-church” I’ve ever seen has a vibrant small group program where believers fellowship. Yes, it’s true that on Sundays you probably won’t know everybody that you see at church, but this doesn’t mean there is no fellowship happening for those who attend large churches.
Also, Downing’s point with the “they could be probably serve better with a smaller congegregation” remark was specifically addressing the effectiveness of pastors, not the church. Downing seems to think that when a congregation gets too large (how large is too large, he won’t specify), it ought to split into a separate congregation with it’s own pastor to shepherd the congregants. What he doesn’t realize is that “mega-churches” use this approach very effectively through small group leaders, volunteer coordinators, and countless pastors and church staff. To insist that the pastor with the biggest title has to be the one who ministers to my needs is absurdly self-centered.
We are commanded to love and minister to each other, not to demand the love and ministrations of a senior pastor.
JT – Tommy answered it well. Think of it in terms of education. Smaller class sizes are always preferred. It only makes sense that a teacher can give more attention to 5 students than to 500. Not a difficult concept to grasp.
Another thing is, why do you need the large service is you are getting your fellowship and nourishment at the small groups. Just cut out the middle man, and you’ve got it made.
As far as a guy like Piper – Is he doing a great work? Sure. Without question. Still, I wonder what it would be like if he had the opportunity to really pour his life into a smaller group of people. I’m sure Piper has even asked the same question.
I still don’t understand why you would be opposed to planting more congregations for the purpose of ministering to the people more effectively.
JT, no-one here has ever argued that the senior pastor has to do all the mercy ministries of the church, though it’s a common straw man created by you and a few others. We have objected to attitudes that indicate that ANY mercy ministries are beneath a CEO pastor and are a waste of his time.
How about limiting the size of the church to how many members the pastor can know? That doesn’t say he has to minister to each person’s every need, but that he should at least have some kind of relationship, besides performer-audience, with the people in the church. That would create a flexible limit on size depending on how well the pastor creates and maintains those relationships.
Look at how much the biggest superstar minister of them all, Paul, knew about the lives of the “little people.”
It’s also consistent with the Biblical model of pastors as shepherds, not commercial ranchers.
JT,
Downing is simply stating that bigger is not always better.
If PNoble proposed spinning off groups of his church to plant new churches, what would be the reply?
What if God sent Perry a vision for this? Would people be in favor of leaving? Of course, this is unlikely to take place. Noble doesn’t appear capable of seeing anyone leading any spin-offs of NS. He certainly could have promoted such a move for G-ville, Cola, etc.
And I don’t think it’s self-centered to assume that the role of pastor-shepherd is to meet, greet, and care for his sheep. Can he do this every day for every one? No. But, Noble prides himself on not even trying. Noble feeds his church this line so that he can free himself from ministry to focus on leadership. Problem is … Jesus didn’t tell his disciples: lead organizations, promote vision, and share your personal thoughts. He called them to feed his sheep, which implies they function as shepherds (no doubt you’ll think this is an archaic term – you’re wrong).
Finally, are you opposed to this idea because it comes from JDowning, or would you be more open to it if PNoble acknowledged the basic premise (and Downing’s classroom example is far superior to mine – I wonder if he’s a prof).
That’s a lot to respond to… here goes:
>>Downing: “it only makes sense that a teacher can give more attention to 5 students than to 500.”
Agreed. However, you are once again assuming that it is the senior pastor’s job to pay attention to everyone. Why can’t the 500 be given attention by their small group leaders, volunteer coordinators, church staff, etc.?
>>Downing: “Another thing is, why do you need the large service is you are getting your fellowship and nourishment at the small groups.”
Because God commanded us to worship Him. Yes, that can be accomplished in a small home group, but it’s also accomplished by our greater assembly. Perhaps a better question is, “If we are getting our fellowship and nourishment at a small group, why shouldn’t we attend a larger service?”
>>Downing: “As far as a guy like Piper – Is he doing a great work? Sure. Without question. Still, I wonder what it would be like if he had the opportunity to really pour his life into a smaller group of people.”
That one’s easy. If that happened, Piper would impact a far greater number of people. Do you all really think you have to know someone for them to impact your life for God’s glory? The fact that you bring up Piper proves that you don’t! Do I personally know Paul the Apostle?
>>Downing: “I still don’t understand why you would be opposed to planting more congregations for the purpose of ministering to the people more effectively.”
I’m not. I still don’t understand why you only consider something a separate congregation if it has a separate preacher.
>>Duncan: “no-one here has ever argued that the senior pastor has to do all the mercy ministries of the church, though it’s a common straw man created by you and a few others.”
A straw-man? Please read Downing’s comments above. He is clearly stating that a church should not outgrow a pastor’s ability to personally minister to each congregant.
>>Duncan: “It’s also consistent with the Biblical model of pastors as shepherds, not commercial ranchers.”
I’d love to read a post here at Pajama Pages outlining the scriptural basis for one pastor-shepherd leading the local church. My understanding of the early Church is that the local bodies of believers were led by groups of elders and deacons. Almost all modern churches (including NewSpring) have decided that they need a senior pastor to lead them. I do not think this is the Biblical model. But that’s another whole can of worms, isn’t it?
>>Tommy: “Downing is simply stating that bigger is not always better.”
Actually, he is stating that smaller is better. I’d agree if all he said was what you said he said.
>>Tommy: “If PNoble proposed spinning off groups of his church to plant new churches, what would be the reply?”
I’d think that that was great. I’m not opposed to planting churches at all.
>>Tommy: “And I don’t think it’s self-centered to assume that the role of pastor-shepherd is to meet, greet, and care for his sheep.”
Bottom line- They are not his sheep. They are His sheep. Yes, a minister should love and care for those who listen to his teaching. And most certainly Noble does minister on a personal level to a certain group of people. He has numerous staff, volunteers, young pastors, and even a group of teens that he personally ministers and mentors.
>>Tommy: “shepherds (no doubt you’ll think this is an archaic term – you’re wrong).”
There you go assuming again.
JT- Does the Pastor have any responsibilty to any certain member? You have acurately shown how the member can be taught, ministered to, fellowshipped with etc…all more effectively in the confines of a smaller group. We completely agree on that concept. I guess I just don’t see the purpose then of hiring a celebrity speaker every Sunday morning.
JT,
You wrote: “Yes, a minister should love and care for those who listen to his teaching.” On this we agree. Except that all your comments seem to undermine this very point. You seem to disagree with yourself.
You didn’t reply to my question, though, did you? I’ll ask again: do you think shepherd has outlived its usefulness to describe a pastoral role?
Of course, they are “His” sheep. But here you are splitting hairs. The pastor-teacher is a shepherd (see Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:2; Jude 1:12), designated to feed the sheep.
Ultimately, there is a difference of opinion on the role of a pastor. So, I’ll conclude with one final question that shows where our disagreement stems from: Why do you insist on diminishing the role of the pastor to something Perry promotes (for his own betterment) rather than Paul?
Matt Chandler did a fine treatment on the matter, in a pastors conference talk on the matter of “A Shepherd and His Unregenerate Sheep.” Powerful, powerful discussion and exposition of 1 Timothy 4. You may have seen a couple clips from it on youtube, you can look up “Jesus wants the rose” and “Irrelevant, silly myths”. Fresh, living water there. Good stuff – and the itty bitty church he took over insisting on doing it Biblically? Now covers three campuses, they do home groups and have a plurality of elders, and are building a large auditorium so that they won’t have to turn people away due to being over-capacity. “Preaching the Gospel to the De-Churched” came through the recent Advance09 conference and it was solid, too. Both are available on the desiringgod.org site.
One thing he notes in “Shepherd/Unregenerate Sheep” talk is that “no one unpacked for me that my being a pastor was going to be a lifelong process of my own sanctification.” and “I had a professor tell me once that five years in, what’s wrong with your congregation is what’s wrong with you. My sarcastic wit had so seeped into the Village that while we were on our way to a dark place in the mission field, the other van was crying out to God and the people of the Village were telling knock-knock jokes.” He spent the night on his face in repentance toward God for that, and concludes that portion with an honest statement, “I’m still trying to learn how to be me, but a sanctified version of me.”
You don’t have to agree with everything the guy says, but he’s got the basics right and the Lord has graciously grown his church as he runs it on a soundly biblical basis. And a lot of those testimonies on his church site are so filled with the grace of God through Christ, absolutely touching and encouraging.
>>Tommy: “You didn’t reply to my question, though, did you? I’ll ask again: do you think shepherd has outlived its usefulness to describe a pastoral role?”
I didn’t answer for the simple reason that you never asked. Here is your original quote, “He called them to feed his sheep, which implies they function as shepherds (no doubt you’ll think this is an archaic term – you’re wrong).”
I don’t see a question there, just an assumption.
Now you’ve asked a different question altogether. At first you made reference to shepherd as an “archaic term.” It most certainly is archaic. By definition, any metaphor from the 1st century is going to be archaic. But now you are asking if I think “shepherd has outlived its usefulness to describe a pastoral role?” To which I can only say, of course not!
>>Tommy: “Of course, they are “His” sheep. But here you are splitting hairs.”
Aren’t you the ones who keep reminding us that words are important?
JT,
You said in response to Duncan,
“I’d love to read a post here at Pajama Pages outlining the scriptural basis for one pastor-shepherd leading the local church. My understanding of the early Church is that the local bodies of believers were led by groups of elders and deacons. Almost all modern churches (including NewSpring) have decided that they need a senior pastor to lead them. I do not think this is the Biblical model. But that’s another whole can of worms, isn’t it?”
Thanks for making my point. However, I now believe I know why this model in not used in many places (NS included): shared power with a visionary pastor is a dangerous thing, from the pastors point of view at least.