On the difference between a hireling and a shepherd

Posted on November 16, 2011 Written by Mark McIntyre 9 Comments

In John 10:12–13 Jesus is quoted as saying the following about the difference between a hired hand and a shepherd:

“The hired hand is not the shepherd who owns the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it. The man runs away because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep.” (NIV)

What is the primary difference between a hireling and a shepherd according to Jesus? The primary difference is their motivation for tending the sheep. The hireling does it for his own benefit and the shepherd does it for the benefit of the sheep.

When tending the sheep no longer benefits the hireling, he is nowhere to be found and leaves the sheep scattered and unprotected.

In contrast, the shepherd stands in when things get tough and does what his can to protect and care for the sheep.

I have known of “pastors” who have worked the church job market the way that some seek to climb the “corporate ladder.” A true shepherd doesn’t start with a small congregation and then seek to find an opportunity at a larger church so that he can be more comfortable or improve his lifestyle.

Sure, God can call men to change and grow in their responsibilities, but it must be God directed and God focused for this to be a true calling. If God is behind the change, it will be good for both the former church and the new church. If the change is prompted by the desires of a hireling, the former church will feel as though it has been left in the lurch.

Speaking as a sheep, I want a pastor who has a sense of calling, who ministers because he cannot do anything else without violating who he is, and who is in ministry for the long haul, no matter how difficult it gets.

How can you identify the hirelings? It is not always easy since the hirelings are often very good at appearing spiritual and self effacing.

I think that Ephesians 4:11-12 provides some insight to help distinguish between hirelings and shepherds. These verses tell us that the goal of church leadership should be the “equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.”

If a pastor is seeking to control the congregation, if he is the center of all the activity, if he maintains his place in the spot light, you might find that he is a hireling and not a shepherd.

On the other hand, a shepherd will be seeking to develop the gifts in his congregation, he will be feeding them from Scripture, he will focus on equipping the congregation to fulfill the mission of the church. He will then turn them loose to do the work of ministry. His focus is on the sheep and their development, not on his own position as leader.

In the end, it comes down to motivation. If you are a sheep, ask yourself is your pastor is working for the benefit of the congregation. If the answer is no, then move on and find a true shepherd. Staying under the leadership of a hireling will not be to your benefit.

If you are a pastor, ask yourself the same question. If you are pastoring primarily because you need a job, save all of us a lot of grief and go get a job outside the church. You’ll probably make more money and the collateral spiritual damage will be greatly reduced.

What the Church can learn from Penn State

Posted on November 12, 2011 Written by Mark McIntyre Leave a Comment

Something went horribly wrong at Penn State, that much is clear from all the dialog on the news and sports radio in the last week. The evidence points to the fact that evil was being perpetrated and nothing was done to stop it. If people were ignorant that something bad was happening, it seems as though that ignorance was intentional. Like the little monkeys with hands over eyes, ears and mouth, it appears that the leadership pretended not to see or hear and certainly did not speak out about the evil.

When an organization looses sight of its mission and perpetuation of the organization becomes its central focus, then compromise is likely to occur.

Years ago, Oral Roberts shocked Christendom with his claims that if he did not raise enough money to send out missionaries from his medical school, that God would kill him. Mr. Roberts effectively held himself hostage demanding a ransom from his followers painting God as the knee breaker.

The point is that when the success of the medical school took priority over accurately portraying God to the world, then Oral Roberts chose badly. When the football program became more important than the well being of young lives entrusted to their care, the leadership at Penn State chose badly.

The lesson for church leaders is that your ministry, no matter how important to you, is a very small part of what God is doing in the world. When you begin to think that God’s mission will collapse if your ministry does not move forward, you are heading toward irrelevance at best and scandal at worst.

If God is doing great things through you now, are you willing to step aside and play a lesser role so that God gets the glory? If your ministry is taken away, will you think less of God? Can you pray with Job, “The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away; may the name of the LORD be praised” (Job 1:21 NIV)?

If the answer is no, then I recommend that some soul searching is in order. The Church is God’s to lead and to develop. He chooses men to be the ones through whom God leads his church. Yet, the ultimate purpose if for God’s glory and he will not share that glory with the leaders he chooses (Isaiah 42:8 and Isaiah 48:11).

The organization exists to facilitate accomplishment of the mission, it is not the mission itself.

If you are seeking glory for yourself through your ministry, if you your goal is to propagate the ministry rather than the gospel, if you are feeling yourself to be an indispensible part of God’s program, remember Penn State.

When Church Becomes a Battle Ground – James 4:1-3

Posted on November 8, 2011 Written by Mark McIntyre Leave a Comment

Put two humans together and there is bound to be conflict. As a result of the Fall, conflict is in our DNA. If you put a whole bunch of humans together in a local church the potential for conflict greatly increases. If the conflict escalates, the church can experience an internal battle that should not take place.

In a rock tumbler, the impact of stone upon stone in the presence of grit wears off the rough edges of the stone and brings out the beauty of the granular structure of the stone.

In the same way, by being in relationship in the local church body, we are bound to bump up against those with whom we don’t agree, or whose personality is out of phase with ours. God calls people into relationship with himself including some we struggle to get along with. The beauty of this is that by interacting with the other person, my shortcomings and sin get exposed, and I grow as a result.

If rocks had feelings I suppose that they would not like to be forced to bump up against each other and endure the polishing process. I don’t always like it either, but the Church is how God has chosen to operate in the world and prepare us for eternity. The polishing process can be painful, but it is necessary.

Conflict is inevitable, but when the response is appropriate it can lead to growth and reconciliation. Love is best demonstrated when the object of love is not lovely.

But there is another type of conflict that is not healthy and is very destructive to the church and body life.

In the forth chapter of his letter, James indicates that little conflicts can escalate to “wars and fights” (NKJV). Wars and fights are not healthy or helpful for any church. War is destructive and there should be no place in the church where these conflicts are tolerated.

A few verses later, James identifies the source of the wars and fights. They come as a result of selfishness and self focus. When the focus is on me and my pleasures, nothing good can come of it (James 4:3).

Paul gives us the antidote to this selfishness that results in wars. It can be found in Philippians 2:5-8, where Paul points to Jesus as our example of love being demonstrated through humility. If we respond to others in the church (even those who are not loving or lovable) by following Jesus’ example, the problem of wars and fights goes away. It takes two to fight. If one bows out or gives in, the fight ends.

The point is not that we should waffle on doctrinal issues. It is not necessarily wrong to be grieved or angry at the actions of others in the church. The point is that any response to the wrong doctrine or behavior must be rooted in love and guided by Scripture. Remember Paul’s injunction to “be angry and do not sin” (Ephesians 4:26).

The only correct response I can have to any such conflict is to repent of my part in escalating it, seek forgiveness of God and the one I’m in conflict with and forgive the other person in return. If all those in the body responded in this way when problems arise, the burden upon the church leadership would be less.

If this response was practiced, you might also find that your church is a place where people want to be because they feel nurtured and loved. That would indeed be a Biblical church growth program.

The blessing of being poor (in spirit) – Matthew 5:3

Posted on November 6, 2011 Written by Mark McIntyre 4 Comments

Matthew 5:3 reads:

“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” (NASB)

One must assume that Jesus knew what he was doing when he put this Beatitude first in the list. Blessed are the poor in Spirit. Luke’s record shortens this saying to simply, “blessed are you who are poor” dropping the qualifier “in spirit.”

Most of us spend a majority of our time and energy in an effort to avoid being poor, so this blessing seems to be at odds with our understanding of what life is about. Is Jesus talking about material poverty? Or does the qualifier in Matthew force us to limit our application of this blessing to the spiritual realm only?

The third possibility is that material poverty and spiritual poverty are connected in some way.

The word that is translated “poor” conveys the root meaning of “crouch” or “cringe” and carries the sense of absolute destitution. This is the word used to describe Lazarus in Luke 16:20. To be poor in this sense is to be without resources.

In Matthew 19:23 and Luke 18:24 Jesus indicated that it is particularly difficult for those who are rich to enter the Kingdom of God. Why is this? Certainly it is not because the rich are necessarily more evil than the poor. It is not because God’s grace is insufficient to save a rich man. And it is certainly not because God loves the rich any less than he loves the poor.

It is easier for those with material prosperity to maintain the illusion of control in their lives. They can think that they have achieved their wealth by their own effort and skill, and as a result they may be more likely to think that no-one else’s help is required. They are susceptible to thinking that they are self sufficient.

The good news of the Gospel is that we can inherit the Kingdom of Heaven, the precise blessing associated with being poor in spirit. Why do those without resources have an advantage in gaining the kingdom?

To appropriate the good news first requires that bad news is understood and accepted. The bad news is that without the work of Jesus on the cross, I am not able to attain entrance into Heaven. I must first admit my inability to make myself worthy of Heaven before I can accept the offer of salvation from Jesus. To achieve spiritual health, I must first acknowledge my disease and accept the cure.

This is precisely where the poor have an advantage. They do not have any pretense about whether they are in control. They are dependent upon others for their day to day existence. It is much easier for them to acknowledge their need of a a physical and a spiritual savior. Their eyes are not clouded by their material possessions.

I suppose the take-away for those of us in Western Society, who are rich enough to afford computers or access the internet, is that we cannot let our resources inhibit our relationship with God. It is so easy to be distracted in obtaining and maintaining stuff, that we can forget the God who made the stuff possible.

It is my belief that one can have wealth and still be poor in spirit, but it is difficult. Being poor in spirit is to come to terms with our helplessness in the spiritual realm and seeking the one who promised to never leave us (Matthew 28:20).

Throughout the rest of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus shows us how helpless we really are. If we are honest when reading this sermon, our eyes will be opened to what true righteousness is and we will be forced to admit how far short of the standard we fall.

As we move forward in the study of the amazing sermon, may it cause us to realize our poverty and turn to the one who promises spiritual riches (Ephesians 1:18).

On the difference between a hireling and a shepherd

What the Church can learn from Penn State

When Church Becomes a Battle Ground – James 4:1-3

The blessing of being poor (in spirit) – Matthew 5:3

Categories

Archives