• Home
  • About This Blog
  • Contact Me
  • Subscribe
  • Comment Policy

Attempts at Honesty

Reflections on the interplay of the Bible and Culture

  • Westminster Shorter Catechism Series
  • Sermon on the Mount Series
Home Archives for pastor

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)

ShepherdWhat 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.

Filed Under: Bible Reflection, Church Leadership Tagged With: Church, ministry, pastor, sheep, shepherd

Irresponsible Shepherds Bring Desolation

Posted on May 14, 2011 Written by Mark McIntyre 4 Comments

Sheep with ShepherdEd Stetzer recently wrote an article regarding the decline of the United Methodists. This decline is not unique to that denomination, other “main-line” denominations share this experience.

These denominations have been in the news for abandonment of standards that held sway in Christendom for 2000 years. For example, The Presbyterian Church USA recently enacted rules that will open up ordination to homosexuals. As bad as this is, I would argue that this failure is a symptom of a larger problem.

The larger problem is the abandonment of Scripture as the authority upon which the Church should build its belief and practice. With the rejection of the inspiration of the original manuscripts, the church has lost her moral foundation. With the claim that Scripture is man-made comes the notion that Scriptural commands and principles can be set aside at will. This is done to the detriment of the church.

The pastors and leaders in these denominations, and those who have trained them, must bear a majority of the responsibility for the decline. By rejecting Scripture, they have also rejected Jesus Christ, no matter that they still use his name. Those who reject Scripture are irresponsible shepherds who are not providing proper spiritual care to their flocks.

Yes, I am aware of the attempts to explain that the Bible doesn’t condemn homosexuality. In their attempts, these shepherds perform exegetical gymnastics to stretch words into meanings that the writers and original readers never would have understood. This ploy has been in play since the beginning and is a variation on the theme of “did God really say?” (Genesis 3:1-7)

I recently read these words in Jeremiah 12:10:

Many shepherds have destroyed my vineyard;
they have trampled down my portion;
they have made my pleasant portion
a desolate wilderness. (ESV)

God, through Jeremiah, condemned the shepherds of Israel that led that nation into rebellion against God. As the verse above states, that rebellion turned the Nation of Israel into a desolate wilderness. Rebellion against God and his commands and principles always carries negative consequences. Just as when one is on the top of a sky-scraper, one ignores gravity to his peril.

Later on in Jeremiah 23:2, he writes;

2 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.

As in ancient Israel, the shepherds today will be held accountable for what they feed their sheep. James 3:1 tells us that teachers will be held to a higher standard. God has given the gifts that enable the shepherds to lead and he expects that those gifts be used wisely and for good purpose.

The point of this is not to bash the main-line denominations, but to encourage those who are committed to the study, teaching and application of Scripture to stay the course. To care for the flocks that God has brought into your congregations requires that the flocks be fed good spiritual nutrition which can only be found in Scripture. Anything else is junk food at best and poison at worst.

If there is any temptation to stray from accurately teaching Scripture, I’d like to remind you of the words of Peter when asked if he was going to leave Jesus. When Jesus asked Peter if he would leave him, Peter responded, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life” (John 6:68)

The Apostle Paul instructs us to “hold fast to the word of life” in Philippians 2:16.To do so will reverse the decline.

Remember that the drowning man needs a life preserver, not more water.

Filed Under: Bible Reflection, Christianity and Culture Tagged With: Church, pastor, shepherd

Church Membership – A Response to Matt Chandler

Posted on May 7, 2011 Written by Mark McIntyre 23 Comments

Full disclosure update: As of 2012, I no longer attend a Calvary Chapel.  While I still feel that church membership is not mandated by Scripture, I am now convinced that membership is beneficial because the member makes a clear commitment to be accountable for the church and be in support of the church.


imageA friend of mine, @kksine, asked me to read and comment on an article by Matt Chandler entitled Is Church Membership Biblical? which was published on the 9marks.org web site.

The question is a valid one: should there be a formalized process for determining who is and who is not a member of the local fellowship?

I agree with almost all of what Matt Chandler writes, my response is intended to provide clarification rather than rebuttal. We share the same goals but choose slightly different paths to get there. This is a preference issue and we have freedom to have or not have a formalized membership process in the local body.

Clarification #1 – Formalized Membership Process

Scripture does not mandate, nor does it preclude a formalized membership process. The verses cited in the article identify what should be done, but do not specifically indicate that a formalized membership process is necessary for compliance.

In 1 Corinthians 12:12-31 and Romans 12:4-8, where Paul uses the analogy of the Church as the Body of Christ, it is not necessary to infer a formalized process to determine who is a member of the body. In a sense, any believer who attends a local fellowship is a member of it, in that he is a part (the most basic sense of the word member) of the body of Christ.

I attend a Calvary Chapel which does not have a membership process. In Calvary Chapel, we have elders who make decisions with regard to church polity, we have church discipline, we have submission to the ruling elders [Update: The largest reason we left Calvary Chapel was because it is not elder ruled. There is an elder board but they are there to support the pastor in his decisions. Calvary Chapel has an episcopal form of government with the pastor holding the power.] and we know who is associated with our body. We seek to be obedient to Jesus Christ as a body and we seek to follow the Apostle’s direction as to how the local congregation should function. All are done without a formalized membership process.

Those who attend our fellowship on a regular basis have a sense of belonging and understand that to continue belonging to our fellowship, a submission to Jesus Christ, Scripture and the elders is required.

Clarification #2 – The Goal of Membership

The goal of membership is not stated in the article. Is the goal to determine who can vote and who cannot?

I can find no direct support in Scripture for a congregational form of church government. What I do see in Scripture is that the elders are to rule and lead the church. Scripture gives no indication that church members should be allowed to vote on church policy, the calling of a pastor, electing elders, etc.

Congregational government requires formalized membership as a means of controlling who can vote. If you want congregational government, you have freedom to do so, but you cannot make a case that Scripture demands this form of government.

Clarification #3 – Accountability and Church Discipline

In the article Matt seems to assume that without membership, church discipline would be impossible. I’d like to assure him that this is not the case.

I would turn this around and ask what he would do with someone attending his church without being a member who gives evidence of living in sin. Would he confront the sin? Or, is it only those who go through the formal process who are confronted? Do you allow the “sinner” to continue attending and only confront the issue when he comes forward for membership?

We have found that church discipline works without membership. When an issue comes to our attention, it is confronted. Typically what we find is that the one confronted either repents and works toward change, or he stops attending or goes to another church.

Clarification #4 – Maturity and Membership

Matt assumes that membership is necessary for a believer to progress toward maturity.

I agree that associating and belonging to a local fellowship is an expectation that Scripture places upon us. I also agree that belonging to a local fellowship is necessary for optimum spiritual growth. I do not agree that a formalized process and the signing of a document are necessary to have this sense of belonging.

In our fellowship, we see people who sit under the teaching of Scripture, interact with other believers in small groups, serve in the body and progress toward maturity, all without a formalized membership process.

Conclusion

There is nothing wrong with having a formalized membership process. Scripture does not have anything negative to say about this that I can find. If your fellowship functions in this way, I am happy for you.

My point is that it is not mandatory to have this formalized process. Many local church bodies function according to Biblical priorities without this process.

This is a preference issue and if you prefer membership, I’m totally OK with that.

Filed Under: Church Leadership Tagged With: Church, government, pastor

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

Follow Attempts at Honesty

Honesty in your Inbox

Post Series

  • Westminster Shorter Catechism Series
  • Sermon on the Mount Series
August 2025
SMTWTFS
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31 
« Jul    

Categories

Archives

Blogger Grid
Follow me on Blogarama

Copyright © 2025 · Focus Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in