Attempts at Honesty

Reflections on the interplay of the Bible and Culture

Home Archives for Church Leadership

On the nature of the church

Posted on Written by 1 Comment

Human institutions must put their continuance as a very high if not the highest, priority. They must promote the organization’s welfare over the benefit of one of the members. Members who don’t contribute to the institution’s success are forced out for the good of the entire group.

Those of us who don’t get paid for ministry understand this. I continue to get paychecks because I contribute to the success of my employer. When I no longer contribute to that success, then my employment is likely to end quickly. Corporate America has little or no tolerance for freeloaders.

Unfortunately, I have seen churches that seek to emulate corporate America in their structure and organization. I was in one church that hired an Executive Pastor who was anything but pastoral in his approach to people and the ministry. He was all about policy, procedure, branding, and control and had little interest in caring for the people he was hired to nurture.

He tried to run the church as if it was a corporation. The measurements he sought to use to determine success were attendance and giving. The people were treated as a means to an end rather than the whole purpose of the church.

Thinking of the church this way is to make a category error. The church is not a strictly human institution. The church is God’s idea and according to Jesus, it is His responsibility to build it (see Matthew 16:18).

I have written about this before, but when the church is more about implementing programs and methods than it is about seeking the guidance of God, then there is a problem. When people are treated as a means to increased influence and power rather than the ones Jesus came to save, then there is a problem. When the leadership feels pressure to avoid saying anything from the pulpit that might offend someone, then there is a problem.

I’m not saying that we should be intentionally offensive or take divisive stands on things that are not central to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

What I am saying is that like the diagnosis delivered by the doctor that will potentially lead to the healing of the patient, the Gospel must first deliver the news of why the hearer needs to be saved. Salvation doesn’t come to those who don’t acknowledge their need.

All this is to say that so many methods of the church growth movement seem misguided and pretentious to me. They seem to want to replace a relationship with Jesus with a membership in a social club.

Maybe this is an oversimplification, but when the focus is taken off of Jesus and put on the organization, I doubt that lasting benefit will result. Instead, I want a pastor and elders who consistently point me to Jesus so that I can follow Him.

“Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.”

Hebrews 12:1–2, NASB 95

I don’t need a bad imitation of a corporation, I need the body of Christ and fellow believers who will encourage me to stay in the race and not lose heart.

Coining a new term – Sociopastor

Posted on Written by Leave a Comment

A vast majority of pastors genuinely care for the people they serve. They give sacrificially of their time and resources to provide that care. I applaud them and am grateful for their continued obedience to the master shepherd as they seek to fulfill their calling.

But not all pastors have such integrity.

I get angry when I see what a few “pastors” have done to abuse their sheep. A pastor is supposed to be a shepherd, the one who is to care for the sheep, not eat them. I put the word pastor in quotes because while these few have the title, they do not assume the responsibility of caring for those to whom they are to minister.

As I reflected on one particular situation that has caused me so much heartache, the term “sociopath” came to mind. I did a brief search on the internet to better understand the term and found a website that lists these characteristics of a sociopath:

  • A lack of empathy for others
  • Little to no genuine remorse
  • The manipulation of other people
  • Lying and deceit
  • A sense of superiority over others
  • Little to no regard for right or wrong
  • The belief that rules do not apply to them
  • Getting into legal trouble or a little regard for the law
  • A lack of responsibility or engaging in irresponsible behaviors
  • Aggression or hostility
  • The exploitation of other people
  • Substance use

Sure, there are times when any one of us could be accused of possessing some of these traits. We all struggle with our sinful nature as Paul reminds us in Romans 7. But when multiple characteristics from this list are repeatedly found in a single person, then the label may begin to apply.

Why do we think a good outcome will be obtained when we put someone with any of these traits in charge? Do we really need someone who will drive his agenda for the organization so hard that there is no concern for the individual members?

We expect this behavior from corporate CEOs. CEOs take charge and make what they feel are necessary changes with no sympathy for the people whose jobs are eliminated or the families that are disrupted by the “productivity gains” that they implement. They slash payrolls and budgets with no apparent concern for the lives they put in disarray. Many CEOs are focused solely on the bottom line; people do not matter to them.

But, have we gone so far down the path of emulating corporate America in the church that we think that we should look for a pastor who uses the methods of such a CEO to lead the church?

In the situation that has caused me heartache, a “pastor” was hired who was unwilling to be examined by the denominational officials that are ordained to provide oversight to the congregation. That should have been the first clue that something was very wrong. But, alas, the elders turned a blind eye to his aversion to accountability and hired him anyway because they thought he possessed organizational ability and experience.

Subsequent decisions made by this “pastor” showed little or no remorse as to the consequences of his decisions suffered by the congregation. I have spoken with many people that have left this church. Not only are they leaving, they are leaving with damage having been done to their souls. Some have expressed reluctance to ever join an organized church again after the way they were treated by this “pastor” and those who enabled him.

During this reflection, I coined a new term to identify this type of church leader. That term is “sociopastor.” This is a term for a pastor that is so focused on his agenda for the church organization that he does damage to the people he is charged to care for.

A sociopastor will use any means necessary to get his agenda implemented. He will slander those who disagree with him to reduce their credibility and influence. He will drive away anyone on staff who is perceived to be a threat. He will pursue back-room politics rather than openly discuss the issues with the elder board. He will seek to stack the elder board with those who agree with his agenda. He will function as if denominational standards do not apply to him because he is above such accountability. He will attempt to ruin the reputation of anyone who opposes him. He will simper and smile at the camera but show his fangs to anyone who does not support him.

Why would anyone in church leadership think that this is OK?

Have we forgotten that Paul addressed the qualifications for church leadership in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9? Have we forgotten that Paul calls elders to build up the people, not destroy them (Ephesians 4:11-14)? Have we forgotten that Paul warned the Ephesian elders against wolves that come to harass the flock and remind the elders of their duty to protect the flock (Acts 20:28-35)?

Yup, at times church leaders do seem to forget.

The danger of Method-Du-Jour thinking

Posted on Written by Leave a Comment

I am constantly surprised by the tendency of churches to embrace what I call a method-du-jour mentality. The internet is full of apparently successful church leaders who are willing to provide instructions on how you can produce results similar to theirs.

Some church does something. It appears to be successful based on attendance numbers. Others then seek to find the method or program that was used to generate the good result. We shorten the sermon, use video feeds, turn up the music, redesign the décor, or hire consultants to try to produce similar results.

There is nothing inherently wrong with wanting to attract large numbers. Jesus attracted crowds wherever he went.

There is also nothing inherently wrong with trying new things. Jesus, in the parable of the wine skins, reminds us that God’s work is new in every generation. Jesus did all sorts of new things like touching lepers, treating immoral people with respect and healing people on the Sabbath.

But the danger is that we can be so focused on methods and numbers that we lose sight of our mission. Our mission is to make disciples.

Perhaps at issue is how we define disciple. At its root, the word translated disciple means learner, or student. The disciple is one who learns from his master. A disciple is not one who makes a claim to be a follower Jesus. A disciple is one who actually follows Jesus and learns from him.

I am haunted by Jesus’ declaration in Matthew 7 that not everyone who claims to be a follower of Jesus is indeed a true follower. Jesus says:

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'”

Matthew 7:21-23 (ESV)

Perhaps an analogy would be helpful here.

If a car manufacturer focuses on speed of production and number of cars produced and loses sight of the quality of those cars, that company will likely go out of business. It will go out of business because the buyers will get frustrated with the product and stop buying their cars. The board of directors for that company will be held responsible for the decline in quality and corresponding decline in sales.

In the same way, based on the Matthew 7 passage quoted above, I believe that Jesus will hold church leaders responsible for the quality of the disciples we claimed to produce in our ministries. When we stand before our Lord, we will have to answer for how many of those disciples are turned away because they were not true disciples.

There is nothing wrong with trying new methods if we remain firm in maintaining our goal of producing real disciples. To be a disciple is to be a learner. The learner must be taught.

Disciple making takes time. Disciple making takes commitment. Disciple making takes life-on-life contact.

The word rapid doesn’t apply here. So then, why are we enamored with churches that experience rapid growth?

Perhaps we have forgotten that the growth of the church is ultimately not our responsibility (see 1 Corinthians 3:6).

In what does Christ’s exaltation consist?

Posted on Written by Leave a Comment

Question 28 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism asks, “In what does Christ’s exaltation consist?“

The answer given is, “Christ’s exaltation consists in his rising again from the dead on the third day; in ascending into heaven; in sitting at the right hand of God the Father; and in coming to judge the world at the last day.“

The previous question asked about Christ’s humiliation and in this question, we move in the opposite direction. The basic meaning of exaltation is to be raised up from a lower position to a higher one. Philippians 2:8-9 tells us that Jesus’ exaltation was a result of his obedience in going to the cross.

I recently watched the movie “Risen” again and was struck by one of the disciples’ reaction to the resurrection. While being interrogated by the tribune, the disciple made the statement, “this changes everything.” And so it does.

If Jesus did not ascend, thus proving that he was who he claimed to be (See Romans 1:4), then we have no firm basis for hope. We have nothing of substance to offer.

The catechism also reminds us that Jesus sits at the right hand of the father, meaning that He has taken up a position of Power. It further tells us that Jesus will return one day to finally set things right.

Our hope lies not only in the possibility of being with Jesus when we die, but that at some point, He will return to fix the mess we’ve made of this world.

Categories

Archives

Blogger Grid
Follow me on Blogarama