This afternoon I had a great conversation with a top judicatory leader of one of the largest denominations in the US. We were talking about what kind of leader the church needs in a culture like ours.
The problem with the whole discussion, we concluded, is that language completely fails us in the church. Every leadership term we tried to use came with lamentable baggage.
Pastor
There’s a good solid biblical word, so long as we understand that it appears exactly once between the books of Genesis and Revelation. The word pastor suggests shepherding, which really is a pretty good metaphor if you understand that shepherds don’t feed the flock. They don’t multiply the flock. Shepherds lead the flock and the flock follows. Shepherds don’t need to reason or argue with their flocks. They don’t consult the flock about where the best grass might be or what color the grass should be painted. The shepherd leads, the flock follows.
But the word pastor today doesn’t mean leader in today’s church. A pastor is someone who does less leading and more flock maintenance. The pastor is expected to feed the flock and to pretty much do whatever the flock dictates … after all, the flock employs them and pays them.
By and large, North American seminaries have been churning out good “pastors” for at least six or seven decades, if not more. And, frankly, the last thing the North American church needs (our conversation concluded) is more classically trained pastors.
We went through other possible names. We thought the word “apostle” expressed the best definition of what the church really needs in a culture like ours, but we agreed there were at least two problems with it. First, the rank and file church member, let alone those in our culture, have no earthly idea what an apostle is or does. That would probably not be such a bad thing, except for the second problem. Over the years, there have been some denominations and individuals who have co-opted the title and used it to designate a position of near-excessive power or prestige … and the church doesn’t that kind of leader either.
We bandied about other names, but after several minutes of silent brain-racking, our conversation meandered over to other issues. But that conversation continues to haunt me. How can we communicate what we need if we can’t communicate what we need? A name by any other name is just a name, but that’s a circuitous argument that doesn’t help. What do we call the church leader that the church desperately needs?
Well, whatever we call them, we need more of them … those apostolic leaders who aren’t too timid to lead; who are undaunted by wolves in sheep’s clothing; who know the difference between leading and feeding; and who have no problem leaving the bleating ninety-nine in order to find the sheep that aren’t of this fold … yet.
Good post. I concur. BUT when I read the ending I had a question. If the 99 left behind in the fold are simply “bleating,” then what is attractive about leading those who aren’t in it yet back to that, either to the one doing the leading or the outsider being led? THAT is a real problem, I think. You know and I do, too, that most post-modern outsiders look at church life is akin to some sort of “Stepford” organization where people lose their minds and rationality once they join. Anyway, that’s just what leaped to my mind when I read the post.
Good insight … I think we can push any metaphor too far, but the point is well taken. However, I’d suggest if the flock was being the flock called and led, then there would be a lot less bleating (whining) and a lot more personal discipleship, faith sharing, multiplying, caring for one another, and to press the leadership metaphor, they’d have followed the shepherd in launching their own rescue sorties for other missing lambs.
I am curious about your understanding of feeding. When Jesus restored Peter He specifically asked him to “feed my sheep.” Give that, and the several feeding of the X000 stories in the Bible, I am thinking…well, I’m not sure what to think actually. I’d say feeding is the job of a pastor but I have a feeling you are intending to mean a certain kind of “feeding.” Any clarification would be helpful.
Thanks
The Greek word for “feed” is poimaino, which has a broader definition than bottle-feeding or spoon-feeding those who cannot eat on their own volition. According to Strongs, the word carries the larger sense of tending, keeping, ruling, governing, and furnishing a pasture for food. The worship team and the pastor’s job is to set the table. Those who refuse to eat have chosen to leave empty and hungry.
Rarely are churches honest about what the breadth of what goes on during a “worship” service, the point of which is ostensibly to “worship,” not to be discipled. (No one becomes a faithful disciple by attending a weekly 1.5 hour worship service.) Someone who comes to worship and chooses not to “worship” has one of three issues going on: (1) They’re still on “milk” and don’t know how to worship; (2) They have not prepared themselves to come and engage in worship; or (3) The worship does not resonate with their spirit.
The solution to #1 is to engage in discipleship development. The solution to #2 is to recognize the church’s job isn’t to “feed” you, but to provide the setting and the opportunity to engage in worship and it’s the individual’s job to ready themselves to commune and engage in worship with the community and with the Lord. The solution to #3 is to be honest with yourself that you cannot engage and to “disengage” from the church and find one where you can re-engage in worship.
Corporate worship is a misnomer. There is only corporate worship when individuals engage personally in worship in a common setting.
Discipleship is also a personal responsibility that must be engaged individually. If an individual won’t do their part, they’ll remain infants who need their diapers changed, throw temper fits, and need to grow up. That means taking responsibility for reading scripture on their own volition, praying (including the listening half) without being “led,” encouraging others in their faith walk, doing good deeds in the name of Jesus so that God can be glorified, and sharing their personal faith story with those who are outside the church walls. The pastor (and the church) is not responsible for bottle feeding, burping, or changing the dirty spiritual diapers of those who have been in the church longer a year or so. By that time they should be sufficiently self-aware of their own responsibilities. If they’re not then there are other issues afoot.
Posted from the FWIW department
Got it! I understand feeding as you do. And discipleship training – setting the table – is what I’m used to. So what does it look like when church leaders “spoon feed” members? Are you suggesting that trying to disciple during worship is an example of “spoon feeding”?
Thanks