Part 2 of Viewpoint Brief Bible Study #009. |
||
|---|---|---|
 |
 |
JESUS calls US to be members of His church |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
The Christian religion is the worship and service of Jesus Christ. It’s not Mary we worship, but her Son. We worship neither saints, angels, a law code, nor even God’s Spirit. It’s JESUS who is to be honored. The Bible is our guide. |
||
Leading God's Sheep?
25 May 1998 ~ I received a letter addressed to me and others on the cac.list. Perhaps you as I did will find it interesting. I'll explain ~ Most Christians nowadays assume that every church SHOULD have a professional clergyman leading and directing the congregation, filling the "pulpit" and emceeing every activity. We seem satisfied with methods which separate a clergy from a laity, with the professionals performing and the others watching and applauding at intervals (and paying the bills).
Bible students find no mention in the Bible of any such plan for church practice. In Bible times after the church sprang into existence, the pastors were mature men selected from among the local members. Their common name was "elder." Congregations had many teachers rather than one "pulpit minister." Their practice was MUTUAL ministry.
They had evangelists (missionaries) whose work seems primarily to have been to take the gospel to those outside the church. Do WE pay our evangelists to be pastors? Could this account for our lack of real church growth compared to the early church? If our having "a pastor" (a professional clergy system) is not taught in the Bible, is it really the best or even an acceptable method of church government for Christians who seek to FOLLOW the Bible?
Please think about these questions as you look over the comments below. Thanks.
------- Forwarded Message Follows -------Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 ~ From: Fenggang Yang <fyang@uh.edu>
Subject: CAC_Mail: pastor's tenure and church growth
To: Chinese American Christians <cac@emwave.net>How often do Chinese churches change pastors? Or, what is the average tenure of pastors serving Chinese churches? What are the common or modal reasons that cause a pastor to resign from a church? What are the consequences of voting out a pastor by the congregation? How can a church recover from painful conflicts? Any one want to share your views, impressions, and opinions?
Below I forward a posting to another list. It may be interesting to some CAC'ers. ~ Fenggang
-----Original Message----- From: KIRK HADAWAY <hadawayk@ucc.org>
To: rrx list <rrx@ecunet.org>
Date: Saturday, May 23, 1998 ~ Subject: Re: [rrx] re: rrx556I don't know who asked about pastor tenure and growth, but I did a study of Southern Baptist pastors using the entire denomination and looked at growth/decline by tenure. The best years for growth were three through six (in terms of mean percent change from the previous year). Growth tends to drop off during year seven and thereafter. Churches with rapid turnover of pastors are very unlikely to experience growth.
In another study looking at characteristics of churches that begin to grow after years of stagnation I found that churches that break out of plateau situation tend to do so within the first or second year of a new pastor's tenure or after at least six years. There was a bi-modal distribution, with few "breakout" churches in years three through five. In the first group the church was ready to be led and a new pastor was a catalyst for growth.In the second situation the churches had all sorts of problems that had to be worked through before growth could occur. This study also used Southern Baptist churches and compared samples of churches that had been plateaued for six years and began to grow with churches that had been plateaued for the same number of years and continued plateaued.
All of this is written up in Church Growth Principles (now out of print) and in a couple of articles I did as case studies of how stagnant churches began to grow. ~ Kirk
This note sent by "KIRK HADAWAY"<hadawayk@ucc.org
REPLIES were received ~ Date sent: Mon, 25 May 1998
From: Kevin Stock <KStock@Auspex.Com
Organization: Auspex CSAT Business Systems
To: Ray Downen <outreach@sofnet.com
Subject: Re: pastor's tenure and church growthRay, ~ My thoughts on this.
Behind this question is the whole area of spiritual gifts: teaching, evangelism, administration, and so forth. Each of these gifts is given by the Holy Spirit to individuals so that they may equip the church. A person may have one or several gifts.
The term "pastor" denotes another spiritual gift. The word means "shepherd", and Jesus appointed Peter to be a shepherd to other Christians.
Each individual Christian should look for opportunities to exercise the gifts received, for the common good. Spiritual gifts rightly used build up the bonds between members of a local church, because each individual receives from and gives to the others. No-one is left out, unable to contribute, and no-one is self-sufficient.
As a result, it is normal to expect that there may be several people able to teach (evangelise, preside, ...) within a single church. This can be beneficial for the church[*1].
It may well be that a church may consider it worthwhile to have someone who is able to work full-time for the church, and so decide to support him financially. This in itself is not contrary to Biblical teaching, where we have several examples of people receiving gifts to enable them to devote themselves to teaching or evangelism.
What is contrary to Biblical teaching is for such a person to be considered as the only one who has to contribute to church life, or as being in some way superior to the rest of the church. It is also absurd to expect an evangelist to take on a full-time role as a teacher (or vice versa). These are different gifts, and while God may give both to the same person, this is often not the case.
To summarise, the Biblical concept of leadership within the church is indeed one of plurality, but having someone in a full-time role does not necessarily contradict this.[*2] ~ Kevin
[*1] I remember someone saying to me once, "You know Kevin, I learn a lot more from the Bible study when it's Alan who teaches rather than you". Fortunately, a week later, someone else said, "You know Kevin, I learn a lot more from the Bible study when it's you teaching rather than Alan". If only one of us taught, not everybody would have the same opportunity to learn.
[*2] I should perhaps describe arrangements in my own church. We have two elders, one of whom works full-time for the church, and two deacons. All of us are involved in teaching and in evangelism, but in differing degrees, according to our spiritual gifts. Others in the church are also involved in the different aspects of church life.
Kevin Stock < Tel: +33 1 42 04 91 50
kstock@auspex.com Fax: +33 1 42 04 91 51
Technical Information Specialist VMail: +1 408 566 2000 x3563
Auspex Systems Inc. Personal Email: kstock@unforgettable.comDate sent: Mon, 25 May 1998
From: "G. Parker Rossman" <grossman@mail.coin.missouri.edu
To: "Ray Downen (outreach@sofnet.com)" <outreach@sofnet.com
Subject: Re: pastors' tenure and church growthI have been talking to a brilliant student who is about to change from a medical engineering degree to study for the ministry. I have advised him to do both. Many sociologists think that the future of the church, In addidtion to some very large congregations) is going to be in small face-to-face congregations that will be too small to afford a full-time pastor, whether it is biblical or not.
And I notice that some excellent congregations in rural areas are led by very well-educated lay preachers. This is different from pioneer days when congregations were led by lay elders who were also farmers in that in a time when such a high percentage of the population goes to college (90% for one open country rural congregation) that pastors too must have as much education. ~ Parker Rossman
3 Lemmon Drive author, EMERGING WORLDWIDE ELECTRONIC
Columbia MO 65201 UNIVERSITY (Praeger, 1993)
Date sent: Mon, 25 May 1998 ~ To: outreach@sofnet.com
Subject: Re: pastors' tenure and church growthI enjoyed the thought-provoking questions regarding pastures and the need to have an actual trrained professional pastor.
My church (in Ohio) has experienced tremendous growth in the past 1-1/2 years since the arrival of a new preacher. This growth is not 100% related to the arrival of Preacher Bob, buth rather a new attitude he brings with him. His outgoing personality and willingness to delegate have attracted many church members to get off their duffs and start working for the Lord. This attitude has had an effect on the members who are now bringing their friends to church. Morevoer, the first time visitors feel genuinely welcomed by him, and want to come back. Moreover, members who were once not real active are now becoming actively involved.
I have no negative comments about our forner preacher. However, the attitude and participation has greatly changed since the arrival of Preacher Bob. Is this normal? Will it change? I sure hope not. ~
john arnsbyTO WHICH I REPLIED -- Thanks for sharing these comments. I've added them to Viewpoint Study #9, omitting reference to where you're from. You're testifying that in your congregation a change in full-time leadership has made remarkable and wonderful change for the better. I think it may do others good to hear that testimony!
From: GWashb6065 <GWashb6065@aol.com
Date: Mon, 25 May 1998 ~ To: outreach@sofnet.com
Subject: Re: pastor's tenure and church growthI don't know about a "professional clergyman", but every church that takes seriously the Great Commission WILL have a visionary LEADER! Not to "emcee every activity," but to go first and set the pace. Not to "perform", but to serve, teach, lead, train, and motivate the congregation to keep shooting at the target.
"Sprang into existence"? Churches never have and never will just "spring" into existence! They are planted by leaders with a vision and a sacrificial heart of love. And if they stand through time, carrying out their original mission, it will be with a LEADER who is empowered and trusted by the congregation to lead them in carrying out the the mission.
"Bible students find no mention in the Bible of any such plan (professional clergy)." Nor do they find any mention of church buildings, children's homes, organs, hymnbooks, Sunday Schools, etc. This is the same specious argument used to outlaw instrumental music over 100 years ago. It doesn't hold water. The NT, written in the first century, couldn't possibly "mention" or "authorize" everything which would come down the pike over the next 20 centuries. One can "prove" just about anything using this approach - and in so doing will stymie the church from doing anything productive toward carrying forth the mission.
They had evangelists (missionaries) whose work seems primarily to have been to take the gospel to those outside the church.
Fine - what then? What happens AFTER the church is planted? Who teaches? Who leads? Who sets the pace after the missionary/evangelist goes on to plant churches in other areas? What should happen today is what happened in the NT - other gifted leaders take over the new, and now different, leadership role needed in this infant church. That's why the NT mentions other classes of leaders - pastors, teachers, administrators, prophets, etc. It's not an either/or situation. All these capable leaders are needed in different situations and settings. Sometimes, several different kinds are needed in the same setting, because there are different needs to be addressed all at the same time. Some churches need a multiple staff to get the job done.
Do we pay our evangelists to be pastors?
a. If we are hiring someone to do a job he is not equipped to do, then we're just spininng our wheels and the church will not be well-served. Growth happens when visionary, gifted, leaders are hired AND empowered by the congregation to do a well-defined job - to carry out a mission. There is a huge difference between a congregation of lazy Christians who hire a minister to do what they don't want to, and a congregation who calls a leader to cast the vision and marshall the resources in the congregation to getting the mission accomplished.
b. The Bible still does say that the laborer is worthy of his hire!
Having "a pastor" (a professional clergy system) is not taught in the Bible......is it really the best or even an acceptable method of church government for Christians who seek to FOLLOW the Bible?
The NT in fact is FILLED with leaders who were compensated to do the work of the gospel There was a whole body of first-century professional ministry folk, including Paul, Barnabas, Silas, James, Timothy, Titus, et al, who traveled the Roman world both evangelizing and pastoring –sometimes short-term, sometimes long-term. They were financially supported –"paid" if you will –by the churches they served and by churches who had a vision for world- wide evangelism. Perhaps the term "professional ministry" more accurately portrays what the NT models for us.
a. What is your suggested alternative? Show me one –JUST ONE –successful church in the United States, led by a committee of laymen, who is effectively carrying out the Great Commission, both at home and abroad, and consistently making a significant impact on their community. I'm not arguing they don't exist, I'm saying they are extremely few and far between –the exception and not the rule. Rare indeed.
b. Part of our problem today is that we spend far too much time arguing about church government when our focus should be on the church's mission. THAT was the way it was done in the NT. That's also, in part, why the NT has so little to say about the specifics of "church government" (which term is not in the NT!) To the Pauls, Peters, et al of the NT professional ministry, church government was a means to the end of carrying out the Great Commission. To us today, church government IS the end. We have far too many preachers, elders, and deacons who routinely congratulate themselves for being "called" or elected to a position of government. And we wonder what's wrong?
Leadership is everything!!! Take Paul –now there was a LEADER! Take Peter –now there was a LEADER! And the churches of the first century empowered them to lead toward a clearly-defined goal. May we raise more congregations who empower their leaders to lead, and more leaders to walk through that challenging door!
All the above spoken in love, and with the desire to see all churches move toward the mindset of whatever it takes, within the parameters of the Scripture –to get the job done. "The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing." ~ Gary Washburn ~ Oxford, MI
I REPLIED AGAIN -- Gary, Thanks for speaking up. I must wonder why you are sure that "every church will have A (you emphasize the singular A) leader..."
When Paul encouraged the selection of church leaders, did he EVER, or did any inspired teacher EVER, speak in the singular concerning the leadership of any congregation of Christians?
The inspired Word is silent about any need for a church building. This might clue observant readers into an understanding that it is NOT necessary that we have a building. But the Word is NOT silent about leadership and those who were paid were in the minority!
For you or me or anyone to decide we know better than what the Word teaches about church leadership is not on a par with our choice to use or not use electricity, quarterlies, etc.
We are not told to select one leader and expect HIM to provide vision and goals for the group, while we all jump on his bandwagon and go wherever he wills. I hope that is NOT what you're defending and calling us to do. ~ Ray <Gary's response, received very soon, follows next --
From: GWashb6065 <GWashb6065@aol.com
Date sent: Tue, 26 May 1998 08:00:43 EDT
To: outreach@sofnet.com
Subject: Re: pastor's tenure and church growthIn a message dated 98-05-25 20:54:54 EDT, you write:
<< We are not told to select one leader and cause HIM to provide vision and goals for the group, while we all jump on his bandwagon and go wherever he wills. I hope that is NOT what you're defending and calling us to do.
That is not what I'm saying. I am saying that all groups need leadership. People are people and always respond to bold leadership. Paul was a leader whom people were willing to follow. Ditto with Peter and others. They were bold –they went first and set the pace. They established groups of elders to work with them in each congregation –men to whom they were accountable.
Those leaders must be supporters, sounding boards, mid-course corrrecters, cheerleaders, etc. –not rubber stamps. Every leader desperately needs people to keep him in line –privately and honestly. That accountability is critical. But the leader must be allowed to lead, not hamstrung and hogtied like he is in most restoration churches. Been there, done that.
Where does the Scripture teach leadership by committee? Does the Scripture preclude A LEADER? I'm still looking for a truly effective church, both locally and globally, that is led by committee rather than a bold singular leader, lifted up and held accountable by quality elders, who goes first and sets the pace. I'm not talking about power and control. I'm talking about leadership. There is a huge difference.
One more thought and I have to run to an appointment. Leaders aren't leaders because they are elected. They are leaders if people are following. We are terribly afflicted with so-called leaders who were elected to a position who haven't a clue about how to lead anybody. How do I know? NOBODY IS FOLLOWING! Just ask/observe the congregation! -- Gary Washburn
To: GWashb6065 <GWashb6065@aol.com
Subject: Re: pastor's tenure and church growth
Send reply to: outreach@sofnet.com (Ray Downen)
Date sent: Tue, 26 May 1998 08:07:20 -7Gary, ~ I surely agree with you that groups need leadership. THANKS for explaining even better your feeling that the Lord's work matters and should be handled with our very best efforts. I surely agree.
But scriptural leadership is not in the hands of clergymen, for they were not known in Bible times. There is something CAUSING lack of growth in most churches today. I'm suggesting that the cause may be our lack of following Bible patterns which included evangelists. I hope you're hearing me say that God's way is a better way than man's ways ever could be. The church grew when evangelists, often unpaid or poorly paid, were carrying the gospel everywhere. In that day, every saint felt led to share the gospel story with others.
In our day, it takes a clergyman, and if he's not the right one for the job, let's get another one in his place!
And from an Irishman ~ Date sent: Mon, 25 May 1998
From: Jim K McGuiggan
<106475.3377@compuserve.com
Subject: pastor's tenure and church growth
To: Ray Downen <outreach@sofnet.comWhy is it necessary to be dismissive about all that goes on in the assemblies of believers in order to make a critical point? Why is it necessary to characterize the assembly as 'watchers'? Why should we describe them as people who do nothing but applaud on occasion and pay the bills?
Do they sing praise to God, glorify and honour him? Do they pray, thanking, interceding, petitioning and praising? Do they contribute to the needs of the poor as well as the air-conditioning? Do they not bear visible witness to the reconciling God and his Story by their very 'coming together' at a building purposed for his glory? Or are all these things too trivial to be worth mentioning?
And why is it necessary to see 'preaching' as a one person event? Is this not an event when the gathered people of God place themselves under the judgment, consolation, challenge and nurture of God's word as it comes to the assembly through someone called by God to minister the word of God?
Might this not suggest that those who write about such things in such a dismissive way are missing more than they're seeing and talking about the wrong things? And might it not be a contributing factor to the church's lack of energy--assuming they believe these things about themselves -- which in turn might be a contributing factor to their outreach.
One might even consider it contributing to a lack of growth to tell people that early Christians had ('it had') evangelists whose business it was to preach to those who hadn't heard. Are these 'professional' gospelers (who received financial support) and did the church sit and 'watch' while professionals gospeled?
And why is it necessary to ignore the many teachers who minister to the assembly in some 'educational programme' and to speak as though the assembly (which is blessed by God with more) has only one 'talker'?
And why is it necessary to zero in on the money given to such a person and call him a 'professional' in that pejorative way while ignoring the fact that he is gifted by God (presuming he is so gifted) to do what he does?
And why would we give the impression that 'mutual' ministry means that everyone is to be a 'speaker'? Why wouldn't we allow mutual ministry to be what the words clearly mean –each contributes to the Body as the Spirit of God has gifted her/him?
And I presume serious surveys were made and churches agreed that they believed it's biblically acceptable to hire professionals to do their work for them.
COMMENT ~ This IS a list of questions! Few would dare to describe
most contemporary church services as mutual ministry.Date sent: Mon, 25 May 1998
From: SACM@XC.Org (Paul Moreland)
Organization: South American Christian Mission
To: "Ray L. Downen" <outreach@sofnet.com
Subject: PastorsHi Ray, ~ Your note on pastors etc. raises an interesting thought. As a missionary I strive to prepare the people to do the work and for everyone to work in the congregation. This practice is distinct from that of our supporting churches but no one seems to notice nor care.
Nor does anyone seem to see the need to change tactics in the U.S.. I contend that the Christian Churches/Churches of Christ have gotten stuck in an evangelical rut and haven't continued on in their efforts to restore the church of Jesus the Christ.
One exception in a small town in a midwestern state comes to mind. There the church was led by elders, and oh what beauties. We ate lunch with one elder's family. As soon as we sat down he said, "Jesus said, 'When you pray you should go into your closet and pray in secret' so we don't pray before eating. Please pass the potatoes." It caught me off guard and I wasn't able to tell him the obvious, that Jesus asked for God's blessing on the food before He fed the five thousand. A clear example on being grateful to God for our sustenance.
Have a great day. ~ Paul
COMMENT ~ Paul wishes YOU a great (Memorial) day also!
Date sent: Mon, 25 May 1998 (at midnight in western Canada -- received in Joplin the next morning)
From: Michael Nixon <mnixon@macn.bc.ca
To: "Ray Downen " <outreach@sofnet.com
Subject: Re: pastors' tenure and church growthDo WE pay our evangelists to be pastors? Could this account for our lack of real church growth compared to the early church? If our having "a pastor" (a professional clergy system) is not taught in the Bible, is it really the best or even an acceptable
method of church government for Christians who seek to FOLLOW the Bible?I find it quite fascinating that someone actually brought this up. I don't know if you've heard of a Gospel Hall, or know of an assembly around you who meets in one. I imagine that it is quite different from what one would typically imagine a church to be like. No one-man ministry, etc. I find this really allows everyone to participate as the Biblical ideal was.
There is room for plenty of growth, as any brother in the assembly can rise for a word of ministry on Sunday mornings, or to pray, or give out a hymn as the Lord would lead; likewise for Gospel meetings. This seems to me, quite more in line with Biblical teaching. I would love to see some of the other replies that you've received on this subject, that may well hit close to home with others. -- Michael
Click here to go on to Viewpoint Study 10. Or for additional comments on this topic.
For Ray's concluding remarks, click HERE.
