TO THE CHURCH
- Pastoral Newsletter - May 2024
Pastors are in a tough spot. This is more or less true depending on which denomination that pastor serves within. However, as a pastor in a Southern Baptist church, I can say this without any degree of hesitation: many Southern Baptist pastors are in a tough spot. Why? Because, Southern Baptist churches are autonomous, congregational churches. Let me say at the outset: I think this is right and biblical. But it doesn’t mean that there aren’t challenges that can arise.
To be autonomous means that each individual church is in charge of its own affairs, including deciding who will pastor the church. The pastor is only there as long as the people want him to be there. (For those saying, “No, the pastor will be there as long as God wants him there.” Yes, that is correct, but experience shows us that, many times, when the people don’t want him there anymore, God apparently doesn’t, either, because he’s usually gone after that.) The pastor knows this. The pastor is charged with protecting, feeding, and leading the flock. The pastor must constantly consider the flock’s needs. And more times than not, if change is needed, it starts with the pastor.
So, what does all of this have to do with our theme for the year: “Not About Me?” Well, in Thom Rainer’s book, Autopsy of a Deceased Church, he takes a full chapter to discuss pastoral tenure at churches, and one interesting observation he made was that pastoral tenure decreased or remained short over time in churches that were dying. He recounts stories of pastors who came into a position, sought change, and was either asked to leave or left out of frustration and exhaustion when the church remained resistant. This pattern existed in 10 of 14 churches that he examined. But, what about the other 4?
Well, in the other 4 churches, the pastors stayed for a long time. This might seem to break the pattern, but he notes something important. The apparent problem with the first 10 churches was a resistance to change, leading to conflict with the pastor and eventual separation. It turns out, it was still the exact same problem with the remaining 4 churches! The only difference was the attitude that the pastor adopted in response to the situation! Here’s what Thom notes:
"The pastor made the decision to adopt the attitude of the recalcitrant members. There was no attempt to lead toward change… These pastors took the paths of lease resistance… for these pastors, decline and death of the church was preferable to conflict. They became caretakers of members only. They sided with the members at any hint of change. Three of the four pastors reached retirement age when the churches closed the doors. The other pastor was able to get a staff position at another church. But in all cases, the churches died.” (p. 60).
So, this is the same problem we’ve been looking at for months, now. Personal preference and selfish desire are poisons that slowly kill churches. Pastors are especially responsible to recognize the danger, alert the flock, extract the poison, and lead the flock to safety. But, at the same time, their ability to do so depends largely on the flock!
Here’s what we don’t want (or, what we shouldn’t want, anyways…): we don’t want our pastors to live for the praise of men and not for the glory of God. Consider the following verses:
“Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel; prophesy, and say to them, even to the shepherds, Thus says the Lord God: Ah, shepherds of Israel who have been feeding yourselves! Should not the shepherds feed the sheep?" | Ezek. 34:2
“Woe to my worthless shepherd, who deserts the flock! May the sword strike his arm and his right eye! Let his arm be wholly withered, his right eye utterly blinded!" | Zech. 11:17
“The dogs have a mighty appetite; they never have enough. But they are shepherds who have no understanding; they have all turned to their own way, each to his own gain, one and all." | Isa. 56:11
“Woe to the shepherds who destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture!” Declares the Lord, Therefore thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, concerning the shepherds who care for my people: ‘You have scattered my flock and have driven them away, and you have not attended to them. Behold, I will attend to you for your evil deeds, declares the Lord." | Jer. 23:1-2
And finally, this statement from Jesus about the difference between a "hired hand" and a "shepherd":
“He who is a hired hand and not a shepherd, who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. He flees because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep. I am the good shepherd…" | John 10:12-14a
It’s striking how often the condemnation of Israel makes reference to a condemnation of her leaders. I could’ve included more references, here, but for the sake of time, I kept it brief. Israel’s leaders did not do the job they were supposed to do as under-shepherds. They preserved themselves… fed themselves… paid attention to themselves… all to the detriment of the sheep.
Now, imagine a system where the sheep actually really just want to be left alone. They want to be led where they want to go and in the way they want to get there. So, they find a shepherd for themselves who will tend to them in this way! But then, they’ll admit: “We want a man after God’s own heart to lead us!” We don’t want pastors who are people pleasers who just go with the flow and make it their job to keep people happy, and yet, we’ve set up the system to reward those pastors who do so!
A system is perfectly designed to give you the results that you’re getting. If you want to change the results, you have to change the system. Israel had little control over her shepherds. She was largely helpless against their abuses. The church, on the other hand, often has too much control over her shepherds. If she is not happy, the shepherd will know about it and will change, or else he will find another flock. These opposing examples are two ends of the spectrum that really expose our sinful tendencies. Both shepherds and sheep are sinful people with desires that can lead us astray! If we give our desires an inch, they’ll take a whole yard!
Therefore, we must prepare to do war against our desires! Pastors must be prepared to do war against their own selfish desires that would benefit self at the expense of the flock. Likewise, the flock must be prepared to do war against their own selfish desires that would benefit self at the expense of the pastor!
The Bible is not blind to these dangers, either:
“For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ." | Gal. 1:10
“For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions…" | 2 Tim. 4:3
So, what to do… One option is to “shop around” until you find just the right match. Many churches do this (which, I think, explains why Rainer observed the decreased pastoral tenure in dying churches). There are several problems with this approach, but I’ll just give one good summary issue: there is no perfect church, and there is no perfect pastor! Let’s say that you found a match that actually seemed good. Even then, there’s a chance that the match would largely be based on the personal desires of both the pastor and the church! All you did was align the personal desires! Granted, there will be times that a willing church finds a sacrificial pastor, but this just doesn’t seem like the best way forward.
Another option is to just recognize the danger and try to avoid it. We might remind ourselves of this danger and simply determine not to function that way. However, there’s a big difference between deciding to do or not do something and actually doing it. For instance, I can decide that I want to lose weight and regularly remind myself that I need to be healthy, but making a decision won’t remove a single ounce from my body. There needs to be some sort of plan of action that follows that decision and is designed to cater to it!
Applying this to a church: it’s not enough for a congregation to say, “We won’t allow our selfish desires to rule us,” and for a pastor to say, “I won’t allow my selfish desires to rule me.” As honorable as those decisions are, they are simply decisions. They are intentions. And good intentions are merely that: good intentions! There must be some type of intention-al action that follows that decision/intent which caters to it! You might think of it this way: instead of asking and answering, “Will we protect ourselves from selfish desire,” we need to ask and answer, “How will we protect ourselves from selfish desire?”
There are two general ways that many churches have established intentional practices in this area. One is a church covenant. It is a formal agreement regarding “how” the church is going to fulfill its intended desires. However, a church covenant is only as strong as its enforcement mechanism. Imagine a child who agrees to take out the trash. The child fails to do so. The parents, however, had made a decision that they will never discipline their children, whether verbally or physically. I don’t think I have to convince you that the trash will likely never get taken out by the child, again. Without any kind of enforcement mechanism, the agreement is pointless. It’s simply a facade.
What a church covenant does is clarify what is important to the church. It gives general guidelines for how a church will act and treat one another. And, if anyone begins to live in blatant, willful opposition to that covenant, the rest of the church approaches that individual in love to call that individual back. If that individual does not come back, then he or she is removed from the official membership of the church. That person has chosen not to be a member of the church any longer.
The second intentional practice goes by many names. The name I will use is an “elder board.” This idea is foreign to many, so I’ll explain it simply and look forward to having discussions in the future conning this idea. “Elder” is simply another word for “pastor.” The Bible uses it frequently to refer to the same office. So, what we’re looking at, very simply, is a dividing up of power! A church that moves from a sole pastor to a board of lay-pastors is essentially taking all of the authority from the sole pastor and dividing it up among several godly men (which still includes the pastor)!
This division of power actually serves both the flock and the shepherd! It protects the pastor from the flock by providing other men who can help absorb attacks against the church leadership. I protects the pastor from himself by giving men who can help protect him from error or selfishness in his leading. It provides weight behind decisions that the leadership makes for the church. Instead of a sole opinion driving important decisions, it’s a group of opinions.
At the same time, it protects the flock from the pastor for all the same reasons! It establishes a safeguard against potential abuse of authority! There is no longer just a single man making important decisions and trying to watch over his own flesh. Rather, it is a group of men who are looking out for one another as they look out for the entire church! If a decision comes from the elders (pastors, or whatever other term one uses), it is a decision agreed upon by a group and not just a lone individual seeking to satisfy his own selfish desires.
Now, both of these intentional practices are far more nuanced than I just portrayed them, but the purpose here isn’t to fully explain and defend those practices. The point is to suggest that good intentions aren’t enough. If we want pastors who will selflessly lead us, and if we want to be selflessly led, we need to do more than simply decide that. We need practices that are intentionally structured to support those desires and give life to them.
Application as a Church
How will our church protect itself from the selfish desires of its church members and/or the selfish desires of the pastor of the church?
As I suggested above, any application in this area will probably be structural. Both of the suggestions above are significant decisions that require deep, careful thought. However, in my estimation, they both accurately reflect the teaching of Scripture and serve to protect both the pastor and the flock from the selfish desires of others. For these reasons, they are worthy of our reflection and meditation. If you have questions or aren’t convinced of either of these practices, I’d love to discuss them with you sometime.
(I recognize and own that my previous treatment of the topic of elders did not come across the way that I intended. My intention was to open and invite dialogue, but as I’ve just explained, intentions are just that: intentions! I hope that the past few years have communicated that I am willing to be patient. Additionally, I hope that my willingness to re-approach this topic communicates how important I believe it to be for the health of our church. What I am doing right now is inviting you to explore this topic with me. If you end up disagreeing, please don’t let it be because you didn’t give me a fair chance to convince you otherwise.)
Personal Application
How will we personally protect one another from our own selfish desires?
These questions can be asked of both the pastor of the church and the flock, itself. Do you see your own selfish desires as being destructive to either the church as a whole or the pastor of the church? How are you protecting the rest of the church from your own selfish desires? How are you protecting your pastor from your own selfish desires?
The fact of the matter is that the church is an institution unlike any other on Earth. It does not belong to people, and it is not subject to the will of people. It belongs to God, and it is subject to God’s will. Rather than asking, “What do I want,” we really want to know, “What does God want?” Unfortunately, “what I want” and “what God wants” are often opposed to each other. Why? Because, sin warps our desires. Therefore, we constantly face the temptation to make something that is ultimately all about God to be all about us. But, it’s not about us! It’s all about Jesus! He has purchased us! He is saving us from our own selfish desires so that we might have new desires! And we exist, as a church, to display this re-creation that happens through the gospel! The church is literally a living picture of the gospel, made visible for the world to see! Everything we do needs to be geared around that wonderful reality!
So, may we love these words of Jesus: “Not as I will, but as you will;” may we live those words both individually and corporately by putting to death our old desires; and finally, may we give the watching world a clear, visible picture of the gospel in the way we relate to one another in our church. In these ways, we will: Love the Gospel, Live the Gospel, and Give the Gospel.