Amen and amen,
Thank you for a thought post pointing out the great modern ailment of the contemporary church.

Thank you for being a voice countering the "soul-killing noise." I pastored a church for 2 1/2 years (my first and only pastorate) that only decreased and finally closed. I was deemed unsuccessful by my denomination--faithful, but not fruitful. The district leadership recommended I seek an associate role, which I secured after two years of searching. Throughout the duration of that pastorate, I saw lives change and people grow spiritually, even though the numbers and finances continued to dwindle. Your article reminds me again that we cannot measure our success as ministers as the world does, for God looks at the heart. Transitioning from that pastorate nearly killed my soul, but God is slowly walking me through the healing process.

Would it be to brash of me to say that LJ is part of the problem? It would never give pastors the opportunity to consider the scriptural support for the idea that the professionalized pastorate is a bogus system in great conflict with God's instructions for shepherding. Yes, the clergy-laity system is JUST like Moses striking the rock in disobediance to God's instructions and God blessing the efforts anyway.
No, hired leaders are not "the stewards". No you are not "the spokespeople". Every believer is equally a "member" of the body and equally a steward and a spokesperson. These responsiblities are not exclusive to one gifting. We are all "royal priests" "that we may proclaim the glories of Him...". I know you are sincere in your beliefs about "the ministry". So was Moses. He had struck the rock before. If LJ won't tell you, I will, regarding the power and freedom that comes from ministering "free of charge" 1Cor. 9. Yes, there is a right to be paid but Paul's apostolic example AND instruction is that it should be refused. Acts 20; 2 Thes. 3. Like Paul, I would "rather die than give up the boast that I mininstered free of charge." Getting a market place job is not secular. It's all worship! 1Cor 15:58,59; Col 3:23,24.

I don't doubt one second that all the internal trauma you descibed is taking place in hired pastors lives. I'm sure they do a very good job putting a glossy facade over the front of it before the people of God. Brother, I give you permission to be a Berean and examine what you were told about "the pastorate" to see if it's true.

Skye, my husband and I have been having this same conversation about the wonderful church we attend. Thank you for putting it so well.

Tim,

Thanks for your comments. You say:

LJ “would never give pastors the opportunity to consider the scriptural support for the idea that the professionalized pastorate is a bogus system in great conflict with God’s instructions for shepherding.”

Here are a few things to consider:

1. We’ve had blog posts on Out of Ur in the past that advocate for exactly what you are describing. I suggest reading some of David Fitch’s past posts about the shortcomings of a professional clergy and his advocacy of bi-vocational pastors.

2. In the next issue of Leadership, due out in October, we’ll be featuring an interview with Neil Cole who also supports a non-professional, unpaid pastor model. I conducted the interview with him just a few weeks ago, and I can report that he speaks very persuasively for the model.

3. We’ve just published your comment.

These three points should be some proof that LJ doesn’t only support the idea of a professionalized pastorate. We support the church. We support church leaders. And we support the mission of God. LJ recognizes and respects that this mission is accomplished through a variety of churches and models of ministry.

Would we support nonpaid amateur doctors? Would we support nonpaid amateur electricians even? Hardly. People won't even go to a counselor unless they have a degree. No job would hire someone who doesn't have the qualifications. Who wants someone to lead us in the Body of Christ that hasn't paid some price to be there and isn't willing to be tested to show themselves approved.

There is a part of every ministry that is part anointing and part skill. I have heard extremely anointed singers with very little skill. My advice to them is to keep seeking the anointing, but add some skill. I have also heard skilled singers with no anointing. That is just hard to listen to. The same applies to preachers, administrators and youth leaders.

So pastors, evangelists, teachers, prophets...let's not pay any of them. Let's let anyone with an opinion take the teaching today, anyone with a guitar lead a song, anyone with a voice speak out for God. Yeah, that system has ever worked in the history of mankind!

Skye, I'm really grateful you posted this AND Tim's comment AND for your reply. I do believe pressure to grow is one of many ways in which the pastor-ceo position (as part of the overall clergy/laity system) proves itself to be systemically... uh... well, what does "bogus" mean anyway? But there are a great many problems inherent with a tacitly acknowledged come-and-get arrangement where the serve-es have every natural right to expect their money's worth from the serve-rs. Getting the proper perspective back will definitely help, but I suspect it will only change the type of pressure put on professional christians... it will not change the amount of that pressure, or the inequity of it.

I'm always amazed at how many marquees, newspaper and yellow page ads say "Corner Street Church" and the very next line is "Pastor So-and-so". As if the only name you need to know because he's the only one that matters. That may not be absolutely true, but it's true enough to make my point. So I'm thrilled for your post, but I don't believe one misguided trend is the total source of the problem.

Finally, it's genuinely and nobly upright and proper to aim higher, as you do in your closing paragraph, but did you mean to imply that noble intentions and acknowledgment of those truths is really the only necessary step to a solution? And is it fair to infer that you think those other leadership guides didn't attempt to strke the same balance you just did? Forgive me if I've misunderstood your conclusion, but it sounds like the typical post-split idealism that says "We will do better. We will be more God centered than they were." Instead, why not just say, "We will fail. But we will turn back to Him again."? (The pastor's position in this light being a whole seperate issue.)

Most of all, Skye, thanks for your openness to these extremely difficult issues. Harsh is a good word for a lot of this, but I pray that it's better to have more of these discussions than to leave our most gifted and driven servants to quietly suffer all of this harshness alone... and to nearly die from it.

Again, thanks so very much for this post AND conversation. God bless us all with true spiritual poverty & blessings...

You are right on.

Discovering the essence of faith in Christ has been a huge part of my journey. It is easy to trust God when there is a promise of success, but how many of us are willing to followi God into failure?

Unfortunately, what is described in this article is a sad consequence of the thinking over the last several years that equates the church with a business and the philosophy of so-called "success" that's equated with numbers. The bigger you are must mean that God is blessing your ministry. What a crock! Any church can have big crowds, just provide entertainment and sermons that tickle people's ears. If you want to develop disciples however, that requires a different approach and it's a road of self-denial, something that is anathema to the "bigger is better" approach. Churches should grow, because we should be sharing the good news, however that growth may be inconsistent and intermittent, given that it's imperfect people trying to convey the message. Faithfulness in the hard times is not glamorous, but carries an eternal reward.

Thanks for the encouraging post. I had to smile when I looked at the banner of the site today: Top 100, Americas fastest growing churches...
Greetings from the a swiss reader

Skye, any chance of a reference to the article you quote from (esp for somebody overseas, who is prevented from subscribing to LJ?). I am writing a book for Continuum International on just this theme: "If you meet George Herbert on the road... kill him!"

I know of two books from two different pastors in two distinct ministries, living on two seperate continents, written several years apart, that address many of these exact concerns.

Grace Walk, by Steve McVey, and The Bonzai Conspiracy, written by Paul Anderson Walsh, are books by pastors who 'burned out'. What God revealed to them should be part of the foundation of our faith, rather than the truth that we eventually come to. And not just for pastors.

"Measurable outcomes" are not the enemy. We are all called to "bear fruit" in our ministry. Sometimes that will mean numerical growth in ministry areas. Sometimes it will mean some other "measurable outcome" that gives evidence to God at work among us. Small vs. Big shouldn't be the issue, but being involved in making more and better disciples of Jesus Christ wherever we are planted is a huge issue.

The pastors that I have known put in 50+ hours of work per week. If one advocates for a bi-vocational or non-paid pastorate, where are those hours going to come from? According to something I once read, those hours too often come from time spent with spouses and children.

How do bi-vocational and non-paid pastors set a godly example of marriage and parenting? I realize that even paid pastors sometimes abandon their families for hours laboring doing "God's work," but in bi-vocational/non-paid pastoring, is NOT abandoning family even an option?

Non-paid or bi-vocational staff can work...so long as you're fine with off loading a whole lot of expectations about what church should look like/function practically. That's not a bad thing...it's just going to be part of the equation.

As far as measurement goes...

well...there is the "fruit of the spirit"...but I don't know of any other fruit you can assert biblically.

Maybe the language about growth into the fullness of Christ in the inner being (Eph. 4)?

But you can't measure those things except for in relational contexts...and those contexts are not subject to scientific, quantifiable measurements.

They're only discerned, over time, in the beautifully inefficient messiness of community.

What a timely word! I wrestle with many of the thoughts and attitudes you mentioned, as the "Bigger is Better" train keeps moving along. One thing that often helps me is to remind myself that it is the Lord that builds the church...not me. As Jim Cymbala says, "What works? God works!" We must rely more on the Holy Spirit, and a lot less on current and popular trends. Thank you for your article!

This is one area that I believe the western church is being challenged on. I'm going to throw out a pastoral leadership wish list...I'm curious if others see this happening and how it's going.

1) A plurality of mutually accountable leaders that share the burden of church leadership is a protection for the leaders against sin and burnout.
2) I believe that too long has the body paid "pastors" to minister, instead of remembering Ephesians 4 that tell us that leaders in the body equip the entire body to be a people of priests and ministers. It's sad that we've passed the jobs to minister in our communities to paid professionals instead of realizing the precious gift we've been given. This takes the full burden to succeed off of the shoulders of the singular leaders.
3) I also wish to see a model of leadership the values the full set of spiritual gifts, and not just that of "pastor"...we've asked too much of those gifted as pastors, especially in areas that these singular pastors aren't necessarily gifted.
4) Leaders in the church should be selected because of the integrity-filled leadership and gifting from within the church rather than hiring someone because of a degree. That is, a leader is chosen because they are gifted to lead the mission rather than having a degree that says they can fill a position. This lends itself to an apprenticeship approach to training leaders rather than an academic one. Leaders are protected since they know their God-given limits and skills, which doesn't always happen through a degreed scholastic program and they aren't hired on as a Lone Ranger, expected to single-handedly save the day and grow the church.

This may be presumptuous and, Skye, I'm really not trying to co-opt the topic, but given how badly off many of our leaders are, I'm curious if anyone else have any ideas for changes that may help our leaders survive.

It seems to me that this discussion is confusing two distinct (but related) issues. One is the nature of the clergy, and the other is the expectations of the leaders performance. I see no Biblical or cultural problem with paid staff. If you want the person to work for you, you pay him or her. Now whether one staff should be THE focus of the congregation is another matter.
But however your leadership is structured, we still have the problem of expectations for certain numerical indicators, whether its number of new members, sites, programs, dollars in the budget, etc.
What's worse, many pastors reinforce this attitude precisely because these visible things can provide a sense of career success. How many sermons have you heard which are just elaborations on "Get out there and evangelize!", "Give more!", "A new building program!", etc. If this is what pastors are teaching, don't complain when you burn out trying to accomplish what you promoted. If you're a teacher, teach more Christ-like values. We are supposed to be building people, not ministries, congregations, careers, little empires, etc.

The church of God is not a human institution and to be a teacher or preacher of the Word is not the same as a doctor or an electrician. Actually, Mike, for thousands of years the church has been primarily supported by "amateurs" and has continued to grow the Kingdom, heal the sick, take care of the poor, and bring a message of hope and love to the broken down. I, for one, do not attend church because of the worship leader or the pastor. We attend a church because the family of God is alive and working and pursuing the Kingdom as a church-as a group-as dedicated families and individuals. Yes, I think the state of pastors today is both self-inflicted and system inflicted. I can't tell you how many times we met with one pastor and urged him to take family time, be with his children, let others in the church run some of the ministries but bottom line- his ego and identify were tied to him being this "growing church leader" etc. Now he has been asked to leave the church because his gifting can't take the church to "the next level". How ironic is that. Bottom line-pastors need to get off the pedestal themselves, lay people step up, and yes, pastors can have family life if they are willing to set aside their egos.

Wayne makes a good point: I see no Biblical or cultural problem with paid staff. If you want the person to work for you, you pay him or her. Now whether one staff should be THE focus of the congregation is another matter.

In theory, I perfectly agree that this is two seperate issues. And churches absolutely do have every scriptural right to hire professionals for certain duties.

But in current practice, I suspect many if not most congregations are going to say, "Well if he's not directing most-to-all of the activity, what are we paying him for?"

Multi-Pastor teams may not necessarily be much different; one-at-a-time is still one man taking all the attention. Come to think about it, do the "burn out" statistics show any difference between solo pastors and pastor teams?

They may have a multitude of problems:
1. They are listening to the wrong voices and not The Still Small voice. Too many siminares.They need a retreat experience.They need to be in His Word DAY and NIGHT! On their knees weeping.

2. They need to realize that it is Christ and His Spirit that grow the church. Not man.

3.Then there is the dreaded possibility that they are falling away.

4 BTW-- It was God useing Moses with a stick. Moses was God's intrument.

Dude....you're rocking the ministry world with stuff like this. Man!

I am not sure why ministry has to be "all or none" in terms of "it ought to be either all paid or all non-paid". Seems to me it ought to all be led by the Spirit, and the chips will fall where they will.

Just my thoughts.

I just read Frank Viola's new book "Reimagining Church", and it shows a lot of insight into how the church really can function in our time differently from the way it typically does. It also has a section on the common idea of spiritual authority, covering, the clergy, and how it's being practiced in the typical church today and shows a biblical alternative. This book is the sequel to George Barna's "Pagan Christianity" which I thought was a real eye opener, but the sequel is much better. I recommend reading it as part of the discussion of what can be done about the church today. I read a sample chapter and endosements at www.reimaginingchurch.org and then I was hooked.

My wife is pastor of a UM church in Baltimore. The Conference we are part of has embarked on a "Discipleship Adventure" and is really pushing the idea that churches should be "Acts 2" churches and that means they should be "bearing fruit" and part of that fruit is growth.

I am all for discipleship; to me, Christianity implies being a disciple. Discipleship is not really optional. However, the problem is how they implement it. We see a mentality of if you have an "Acts 2" church (i.e., if you show significant numerical growth) then you get a better appointment next time. The problem is that discipleship is organic and looks different in different places. What works for one church does not work for all churches. True discipleship defies a one-size-fits-all or corporate model.

It doesn't seem fair to blame pastors if their churches don't grow. There are many reasons churches do or do not grow and I would argue, particularly in the UM church where the laity have so much influence, that the majority of the reasons churches do or do not grow have little to do with the pastor.

Someone can be doing good ministry in a small church and not always have numerical growth. There is also something to the notion that we have to become "better" Churches (i.e., growth as disciples) before we can become "bigger" Churches -- heck, sometimes we might even have to get smaller before we can get bigger. If we make it all about "growth" we may be over-simplifying things and we do risk compromising the morale of pastors. If I am going to be deemed a "failure" because I didn't grow my church I don't think that is good.

Thanks for posting on this topic.

Trisha, the Church is an institution of man. Otherwise, its mistakes and errors are God's fault. The Church as a spiritual body is God's creation, but it has little to do with what we call church. We are organically tied to every other Christian in the world. But we are only called to live with and function with those around us. If we're going to have organizations, whether they be organic or structural, you are still going to have leaders and you are still going to have imperfect and flawed leadership examples. Viola makes it sound like the organic model works well. Many of us reading this have been in groups that functioned according to the "organic" model of being led by the Spirit and we left it because it left way too much room for crackpots and false teachers to take over. What we need is more accountability for leaders and way more leaders. Someone asked if plurality of leadership worked. Only if one or two people are the leader of the leaders. If you ignore human nature in the Church, you will have power struggles all the time. Why do you think that Christian communes of the '70s collapsed?

For thousands of years the church was run by amateurs?

huh?

Man, if being an amateur means being a leader like Cyril, Augustine, Gregory of Nyssa, etc. etc...then count me in.

Trisha, I'm sorry, but your understanding of church history is lacking.

>i>"Man, if being an amateur means being a leader like Cyril, Augustine, Gregory of Nyssa, etc. etc...then count me in.
Trisha, I'm sorry, but your understanding of church history is lacking."

Nathan,
I think, and I may be wrong here, that Trisha was addressing the term "professional" as we understand it, paid/salaried individual with specific training and education whose sole function in society is what they were trained for.
What you're addressing isn't, imo, professionalism, but rather the thinkers/authors of the early church, and I'd be surprised if any of them would appreciate being referred too as professionals...faithful, yes. professional...not so much.
Though I do agree amateur...hmm, doesn't seem to do them justice.

It is too easy for those in leadership to confuse work and effort and striving to be obedient to God with an actual work of God. Remember, Jesus said that there will be those who performed miracles in His name, cast out demons, and healed in His name and He will say depart for the works were unauthorized. So we can never be confused by the flurry of "successful" activity in the chruch; rather, we must look to the one indicator of the presence of God and that is the fruit of the Spirit. If we are not naturally producing God's love (as evidenced in our relationships), then we are just being religious and are not truly walking as people whose lives have been invaded by the Spirit such that we only do what He tells us to do, only say what He tells us to say, and only go where He tells us to go. I encourage you to read: We Have Been Lied To: the problem with Christian Wrong Belief and Unbelief (Amazon.com) as it address the solution to our epidimic sickness.

Sheer,

So the sole funtion of Nyssa...as a bishop...was...what?

Many of the Fathers/Doctors were trained for their positions and that was their "sole function".

What I see in much of these yearnings for the supposedly "pure" good ol' days is really a resentment of education, leadership and the simple fact that there ARE people who are in a better position to lead than the average pew sitter.

Not sayin' that's YOU, sheer...just say'n...

I think it's something people need to be careful about.

does that make sense?

Mike, you really need to read the book "Reimagining Church." Viola is not espousing the model that was tried and found wanting in the '70s. Not at all. In fact he discusses this very thing quite a bit and gives good reasons why it didn't work and then presents an alternative that has worked in his experience and many others over the last two decades. Many functional examples are given throughout the book too. It's a fabulous work. It's also highly endorsed by Leonard Sweet and Alan Hirsch.

As a consultant and counselor to Christians I command you all to do this: "Do not be conformed to the patterns of this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind." I am a therapist so I know these things.

The pressure to perform comes not from books on performance or seminary or pay but from within ourselves. After some forty years of helping burned out, performance oriented believers I conclude that clery are as driven as anyone else. That is the rub.

If I cannot find my Identity in Christ I will be driven to perform whether I "Paid to be a Christian or am good for nothing". I have another idea all on my own. "It is out of the overflow of the heart that the mouth speaks." My own heart and mind cause me to think and feel like a failure if my church is not growing. The problem is not you but me.

The current overemphasis on big, successful organizations is another manisfestation of kids trying to do the work of elders and bishops. Workaholic megachurch pastors, masters of PR, build a big hall and then sell their methods like hot cakes. After years of failing, they can write new books on the research showing their failures and sell new seminars on how to be successful. Now that is driven.

That's not not "strong when they are weak" but strong when they are strong. And, back home we who are Seasoned Elders pick up the pieces of weak, burned our disillusioned regular pastors.

By the way, maybe the Bible means "Fruit of the Spirit" not bigger budgets when it says, "You shall produce fruit" and "You shall know them by their fruit". The fruit of the Spirit are not angst, depression, anger, competition and pride" but "Love, joy, peace, gentleness, etc".

All this comes from abiding in Jesus not from building bigger barns.

Trisha / Nathan: about your understanding of church history.... Of course, if you mean Western and Eastern impressive cathedrals and political kingdoms, both ancient and modern ones, then I’d like to remind my American brothers and sisters someone’s famous saying ‘Look, what they’ve done without Holy Spirit!’ I, however, dare to state that His church, consisting of those who are filled with His Spirit and knowledge of God, those who walk before Him in humility, Is being built up over the centuries constantly and successfully not thanks to its humanly “leadership” but, rather, in spite of it. Please, consider this as a Ukrainian preacher and outsider’s testimony, not an opinion.

It is not skill that makes the difference it is calling and character that provide the foundation for competence and skill! thanks for the post we at www.navpress.com share your concern for spiritual leadership!

To the extent that there has been real conversation happening throughout this comment section, I have really appreciated it. This is a significant topic to discuss at our current place in church history.

I have been a part of several different church forms over the years. The most "successful," in terms of meeting what I think the New Testament picture of community is, were those with no official/paid pastor. That has just been my personal experience.

At the same time, I completely understand recognizing that someone might have a true gift at thinking and teaching, and a group of people, who value those contributions to help them sort through the bible and come to truth themselves, desiring to pay them so that they can devote themselves more fully to their studies for the mutual benefit of all.

What I do not understand is why many western churches have so completely adopted the same values of the surrounding culture. When the church measures success in the same way as the world, it seems to me that there is a problem.

What if we were entering the end of "the time of the gentiles"? What if the church enters a period where true believers dwindle as "sinful-man-writ-large" takes more than center stage? In such an era, would not church growth actually be a sign of terrible compromise? I do not mean to suggest that we are living in such a time, but rather desire to show the fallacy of arguing for an acts 2 picture of church growth, when the time in the history of the church was completely different than it is now. We are called to have faith ourselves and to make disciples. What does discipleship really look like? Can it be done on a massive scale?

The emphasis on measureablity is a very modern concept/obsession, and one that I do not think has any biblical root. Sure, we are called to examine fruit, but nowhere does the bible equate fruit and spiritual growth with necessary numerical growth.

If numerical growth happens, glory to God! If it does not, but there is a spiritually nourished group of people striving against their sin together amidst the world as a testament to the power of the spirit at work in their lives, Amen and glory to God as well!

If numerical growth becomes a goal, or if measurable (numerical) growth becomes a priority or pressure over and above adherence to proclaiming truth, and meeting the real needs of people in a genuine community together, then something has gone dreadfully wrong.

I am reminded of S. Kierkegaard's continual warning that it is only God who decides which people (and by correlation, churches, governments, groups, etc) become "world-historical". There were possibly other men like Augustine who may have even had more profound ministries and done more work for the benefit of souls in their time, but they were nothing on the blip of history. Augustine was chosen, not for anything he did, but because God decided to use his life and ministry to continue speaking into history. Other men than Abraham probably followed God, but God chose Abraham. The point is to follow God.

May we only ever strive to purify our hearts and encourage others in the same. Leave the growth to God!

Y'all know "amateur" means "one who loves", right? Nothing wrong with that.

Were folks like Gregory of Nyssa "professionals"? Probably.

Was Paul? Nope. He was a tentmaker. Jesus himself only did ministry "full-time" because he was bankrolled by wealthy women.

Does ministerial experience and teaching matter? Of course. But our obsession with credentialism is killing us.

I wonder how many less resignations we would have if churches redefined what was really intrinsic to a good church pastor. Something of your post points to this, so thanks.

So many men and women called to lead and then having to lay it down is such a tragedy. Many take a long time to recover from the trauma and some never do. The body of Christ has lost many gifted leaders this way. Thanks Skye for reminding us about what really is important as a focus for pastors and thier fruitfulness. Thanks too for the courage to post Tim's comment and be willing to tackle the ticklish subject of 'non proffessional' pastoring.We look forward to it.

"So the sole function of Nyssa...as a bishop...was...what? Many of the Fathers/Doctors were trained for their positions and that was their "sole function"."

Well, he was a Bishop, and like his brother, he shepherded the church. I would be curious though what his "degree" was in ... biblical studies? Athenian rhetoric? Socratian logic? Platonian theology?
But I think you get the idea...

"...there ARE people who are in a better position to lead than the average pew sitter."

Agreed, and Travis Greene, couple posts up, actually articulated my viewpoint much better than me, so I will quote him...
"Does ministerial experience and teaching matter? Of course. But our obsession with credentialism is killing us."

Not sayin' that's YOU, sheer...just say'n...

I'm a historian/scientist, Nathan, not a pastor ... thankless job that it seems to me in my viewpoint, but I do have my gifts and as a church we should use all of our gifts for the glory of G-d.

The reason a lot of pastors are burning out is because they're trying to be everything: Pastor, Preacher, Healer, Prayerer, Counselor, Prophet, Walk-on-water-walker, and they're burning out.
Duh!
And yeah, I would too.
So it begs the question, why is that?
Well the reason being is that a lot of the denizens of the pews like being part of the frozen chosen. They pay their dues...er, tithes, and they expect the pastor to be the be-all-end-all of all things christian.
And to be honest, the pastoral denizens standing behind the pew are kind of midwifing that mentality...so...it's a vicious cycle.
Pastor burns out?
Congregation gets a new pastor, and then burn him out.
And so goes the cycle, rinse, and repeat.

Skye
I appreciate your willingness to post contrarian views to "the system" in this blog. There is no comparison between a few short blog blurbs and thousands of articles written to beef up "the system". I am pleased to hear that Neil Cole will have an article. To what extent he is willing or is allowed to substantively challenge the majority modus operandi is yet to be seen. There are hundreds of shallow excuses to justify "the pastorate". "Would we support nonpaid amateur doctors? Would we support nonpaid amateur electricians even? Hardly" is one of many. I have a sermon ready to answer this one, but this isn't the place for that. The web of rationalization wrapped around "the pastorate" is very thick and tightly woven. The commands of God that are "nullified" by these rationalizations are tragic realities and have deep "side affects" on all the people of God, both now and in our eternal reward.

LJ is a fundamentally a business. There is money in supporting the majority system. Centuries of history tells us there is little or no money in calling for substantive reformation. A fundamental of "leadership" is that it follows the truth beyond comfortable and profitable traditions of men. I'll continue to watch and exhort in the ways allowed for me.

There have been only a few comments on the government of the church contributing to the division of church and laity. I believe that the congregational form of government is the biggest contributor to the pastor performance-congregation expectation model discussed. The pastor is voted into position, then has a term of X years before he/she is retained or rejected by some majority of votes from the congregation. If the congregation does not get behind the pastor's vision, they have the "power" to control his future ministry. The pastor may choose to either: 1. Settle and do ministry to please his congregation; 2. Take a "damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead" approach and hope for the best or 3. Become a "salesman" and sell his vision to those who oppose him. Giving power to the congregation that doesn't get conferred to their leader is one of the biggest causes of burnout for pastors.

Great article -- great conversation. Two observations:

1) Nowhere in Scripture are we commanded to be successful. Many places in Scripture we are commanded to be faithful. Do the math.

2) I have seen several pastoral Terms of Call (in the Presbyterian Church (USA)) that begin, "In order that you might be free from financial concerns to perform ministry among us..." This is not to suggest that paid pastors should be more shielded from economic realities than their flock. However, it does mean that there is no equation between "pay" and "performance," but rather between "support" and "need." I have tried mightily to educate the Session on this point in every church I have served -- even to the point of making waves because I wouldn't go along with the "raise" that my senior pastor wanted.

We left our church due to the "megachurch wannabe" attitude of the pastor. In his eagerness to grow the church and collect things that would make people want to join (big media screen, remodeling, etc), he has succeeded in a constant stream of people leaving. We have always said his church is failing because he has forgotten about doing God's work first. Remember in Acts? They kept busy. And GOD added to their numbers.

Paid or not-paid pastorate is not an issue. The culture and climate dictate what is the best for the congregation. The key is pastor that is called to shepherd his flock with integrity and character. Not for their own personal gains (finance, frame, and power). Too many pastors are getting paid by the congregation and yet are not called to shepherd the same congregation.

I feel this way too. Thanks.

Thank you! While I do not battle with this expectation as much as I used to, I am grateful that the Lord is helping me come to a better and clear place of faithfulness to Him and that He does not care about our 'success' but our faithfulness to Him and the church He has called us to...

Thanks Skye. It was a perfect timing to find this week in my journey and I just wanted to say thanks for writing what so many feel and needed to read and that included me. God Bless

Regards

To the extent that there has been real conversation happening throughout this comment section, I have really appreciated it. This is a significant topic to discuss at our current place in church history.