Dashing off. Heading for the subway. Service-hopping. Scurrying to the next venue.

2 thoughts ...

1. What is the message that is being sent to the flock?

When push comes to shove, the bottom line is always about relationship. We can run from here to there and embrace the technology that permits us to do so, but "if I have not love (which results from expending time in developing deep relationships), I gain nothing."

2. Sadly, with this frenetic, unbalanced lifestyle, the "shelf-life" for these gifted, passionate visionaries is short. Exhaustion of body, mind, and spirit - and the resulting burn-out - can't be far behind.

Hi Colin – Thank you for posting this article. It is very interesting to me because I live in a medium size city where the largest churches are using the video venue or multisite model, so it is a much discussed topic. My own church grew out of a video venue, where the congregants asked the planting church for “a real pastor”. I suspect that I basically agree with you, but I’m not sure I get what you are saying. First, I think we can be much more critical than you are of the multisite model. It is a franchising model that cuts at the heart of our most precious resource: discipleship and mentoring. We don’t need, it seems, to raise others to do the work of ministry. Technology reproduces our (“irreproducible”) ministry much more efficiently. There is great arrogance here. Also we need to be extremely careful with statements like “…pastors understand the number of new professions of faith as a sign of God’s blessing,” as if that justified focusing all the attention of the church on the pastor: we all know that numbers are not unambiguous; how many large church pastors preach evangelistic sermons? It is the church as a whole that contributes to the work of the ministry and the salvation of souls.

Second, what is your proposal? It seems to be that more staff be hired. But we need to talk more about this, and also talk about the biblical principles that will help us do it right. I think we need to recover discipleship as our root model for doing church. The current model for doing church is performance. It is extremely superficial and it’s sad to see that it is what many American Christians really want. An implication of what I’m saying is that the old model of pastoral visitation was not necessarily above criticism either, because it placed all the responsibility of discipleship in the hands of that lone individual. In that sense the current performance model is a outworking of the older one. I believe pastors need to invest their lives in the lives of others who will do the same ad infinitum. This will both be the work of ministry and prepare the church for that work. Blessings,

"What’s our standard for effectiveness?" In words, the Word of God and obedience to it all. In deeds, the institutionalized form has corrupted the standard, warps a few scriptures to justify it, and calls it all normal, holy, and anointed of God. Both Linda and Rob are correct. I want to ask Bob regarding "I believe pastors need to invest their lives in the lives of others who will do the same ad infinitum." 2 Tim. 2:2, Luke 6:40

1. Has he ever seen, heard, or even read a book about a pastor in the institutionalized forms do this?
I've read about it happening in Irian Jaya, India and China, but not in wealthy, western, institutionally addicted cultures.

2. Can you not see that the institutionalized system of the pastorate is set to use the words "equip the saints to do the work of the ministry" , but to never functionally "entrust" or "fully train... to be like him" anyone in any reproductive way? How many hundreds of thousands of churches, every brand name possible, over hundreds of years, playing out this pattern does it take to see the complete systemic failure at the point of leadership reproductivity?

I know there are a few exceptions to this reality in a few places, but very few. There are some who testify of mutuality in their ministry, but that is usually only when there are 30 people meeting in their home. Once the group grows, the pastor kisses good-by the mutuality and reproductivity and takes up one-way communication and perpetual dependency along with a full pay check. It's all normal...sad to say.

Just my two cents...

My grandfather was a pastor in China during the first part of last century. As the pastor, he not only had to do visitation all the time, but served as the church's unofficial go-fer.

Congregation member's relatives were coming to visit? He had to go pick them up at the train station. Someone's sick and can't tend to their garden? He had to go weed and water. If something needed to be done, it was his job to go do it, because he was the pastor and he was supposed to go serve his flock. It wore him down, and I am told that he lost a son to pneumonia because he was unable to get him to a doctor because he had to go help a parishioner out of town.

Now, he did it, because he loved his congregation and he would do anything for them. And there is a place for pastors (and their staff) to minister to the needs of their congregation as much as they are able. But there must be a happy medium between the pastor taking care of his flock's needs and being able to take care of his own needs too.

I can't tell you how disappointed and almost hopeless I feel when I hear people thinking that the idea of personal relationships between pastors and people is "quaint and outdated," and saying things like, "If you are there to hear a message and it’s a powerful one, it shouldn't matter how it's delivered."

Evangelicals simply have no ecclesiology. Period. No matter what they say, bottom-line is that for evangelicals, the church itself is ultimately optional.

yawn. more anti-institutional polemic coming from left and right.

on a diff note I can only say Green was just a bit off in stating: “Today, it’s all about a personal relationship with God" - surely it's just a bit more than that?

I think it's easy to make decisions based on how to improve the experience during the Sunday morning service. But that's not necessarily the best experience for a given person. Meaning, the best experience isn't just hearing moving messages but also being pastored by a person who cares for you. We may not agree with that today but we will when disaster occurs.

Wayne
I went to your site and read your testimony. You have yawned at many issues of truth in your past. In God's grace, over time, He brought you around to follow the truth. I'm thankful for you negative response. Many leaders don't have the courage to speak their objections, because they don't want to risk being shown (by a layman) that their objections were leaky.

Did you read the scripture I gave that tells leaders what they are to accomplish in full reproduction? Are you content with perpetual dependency? When you leave your current church for other things will there be anyone "fully trained" "to be like you"? Will they have to hire another pro to do everything you did because no one was fully trained?

no Tim, I'll let you do all the talking. (jk) :)

lighten up man. The chip on your shoulder is becoming a boulder.

and as a result you are walking with a one-sided limp.

preacher does not equal pastor. Visitation is nearly a bad word any more here in New England. Most of the "pastors" I know feel it shouldn't be expected of them. One seemed to really think he was the lead apostle, not senior pastor.

preacher's give a message, evangelists give a message, teachers give a continuous series of messages, BUT pastors need to care for the flock. I've heard several senior pastors say, "Its my job to equip the saints, NOT do ministry." I've told them the best way to teach ministry is to take someone with you while your are doing ministry. They respond with a blank stare for a time, then say I'm too busy for visiting everybody. (It's a small church.) Or God didn't equip me to relate to people one on one, I'm an introvert. Then get out of the seat marked pastor if you don't care enough to love those trusted to you care!

No wonder New England is in such a poor state spiritually. We have preachers, but no pastors.

@kontributor - emphatically agreed. It's sad that visitation is so frowned on, considering the (re)proliferation of Baxter's Reformed Pastor, which Hansen has here excellently exposited.

Wayne
The "chip-on-your-shoulder-now-a-boulder" card has been played. No substantive thoughts yet. No answers to specific questions asked. God made us for better than this. God's Word was specifically inspired for "rebuke and correction", not just doctrine. I'm hoping you don't exempt yourself when someone without a pulpit or title directs inspired purposes towards you. Show me how I'm wrong. I don't wilt with mocking.

As a leader, you should seriously ask this question. Are people getting the pastoral care they need? As congregations grow, it is impossible for one man to meet all of the need.

Enter, the cell church, and the Jethro model. Really the cell church was birthed out of men and women seeking to seriously address this (and other) issues. (Ex 18:13-27).

Eph 4:11 It was He who gave some to be apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers.

None of these words were ever meant to be singular. In a large group of believers, there will be many pastors that God has sent into that place. These men and women are diamonds in the rough - but they have the one thing you can't train in seminary. The call of God.

Wayne,

Just from a third party who think's that Tim sometimes goes a wee bit far...but considers many of his critiques...well, pretty damning when impartially considered..anyway, this understandable and acceptable comment of yours...

"no Tim, I'll let you do all the talking. (jk) :)"

Is totally undone by this...

"lighten up man. The chip on your shoulder is becoming a boulder."

/facepalm

"jokingly" telling someone they're taking it too far...normal.

Knowing where and when to stop a train of thought before you look like a tool yourself...priceless.

My greatest sadness in forty years of Christianity is watching the failure of the American church in so many ways. This is just one of them. We have let the church become a voice of secular politics and economics. We have allowed our churches to be used by those who reject our base values because they agree with one of them. We have failed to heed Christ's instruction to His apostle, Peter, "Love my sheep."

A shepherd/pastor knows each of his sheep. He wanders among them so they know his smell and the sound of his voice and will not become fearful when he draws near. They will remain calm and not scatter if he has to hurry through the flock to get to one sheep in need. By seeing him up close they learn to follow where he leads and to avoid what he avoids. When the wolves come they run to the shepherd, because he will help them. When they are injured they wait for the shepherd because he will aide them. Where are the shepherds of this American generation? They are few.

We are adopting business models of our secular society for our church culture. We are adopting our society's values instead of teaching society our values. If the church is too big for the pastor or pastors to keep in touch with the flock, then maybe we need to go back to meeting on the hillsides or at least in smaller venues, training disciples and sending them out to gather others in small venues so that the pastoral work and true discipleship is done.

If we are not discipling/mentoring/growing and maturing others in Christ, then in what way are we truly ministering the Gospel? Perhaps we are, as Ortberg points out, making idols of the church and even ourselves instead.

Perhaps I'm missing something here. It sounds like the discussion is wheeling around which model of pastor is more effective or more authentic. But that seems to me to beg the question.

If pastor / preacher / teacher / leader etc. are really gifts among many other gifts, then doesn't it follow that, as necessary as such gifts are, they many not be central? It seems to me that we put part more emphasis on whether the pastor/teacher is feeding me or relating to me than on whether I am both intentional and responsible for my own discipleship, within the relational context of a community of disciples.

My own experience of growth as a Christian has never, ever, EVER been tied to my experience or relationship to a pastor. The pastor has been just one of many factors in my life, along with whatever spiritual disciplines, books, travels, or experiences I was having at that time. No pastor has ever been central to my faith or Christian life. Which is by no means an indictment. I'm not saying they were inadequate -- I'm just saying they were only one piece among so many other pieces that their relative influence on me, compared to the vast number of influences, just wasn't all that important.

But perhaps my experience is skewed. I'm very interested in this question.

Yes, Rick, I agree. Our total walk with Christ and our spiritual growth should not be dependent on one person, pastor/teacher/prophet/whatever. However, as we grow from immaturity to maturity, many are dependent on their pastor or some other individual for education, discipleship and example as they grow initially. Sadly, as Paul points out in Corinthians, many never try to grow beyond that point.

In any case, a teacher need not be a pastor, but a pastor must necessarily be a teacher. A teacher may teach many sheep but pastor none. That is, he provides education but not care, counseling or personal contact. The pastor provides general teaching and guidance regarding one's walk with Christ to his flock, but may also provide teaching to others outside his flock.

The key here is the role of the pastor in these new churches, megachurches, muti-site churches and internet churches. Who provides the role that Christ asked of Peter? Who is going to "love my sheep"? If one wants to claim the role of pastor, they should live that role as well.

That may mean having a large number of associate pastors to work with various sections or groups in the congregation in order to see to it that the sheep have shepherds to help guide them and care for them. I have been a member of such a church and it can work if done well. However, if there is no pastoring, there is no pastor and many will fall by the way because of that lack. Better small numbers of true believers than a large number of church members who have no idea what it means to be "a follower of the way" as Christians were first known. Jesus, Himself warned about the weight of such a millstone.

I am very interested in this line of discussion primarily because I am a pastor in a small church. When I say "small" I mean the average size of most conservative churches. We stand at less than 100 people. So, to imagine that our church will be one day dealing with any of these potentials is future tense, but hopeful.

However, I have a different objective and one that I feel trumps this discussion. When or does a church ever get "too big" to be any effect upon people? Why is it that mega is better? Why are we not more concerned about making sure we have churches that are better suited to keep the church as it is supposed to be, a body.

I think we have obesity in the body of Christ and we are glad to overindulge ourselves because we can push clout and stress programs. We are no longer stressing Christ as central but a program that includes Him in the discussion. When are we just fat and unwilling to exercise discernment and start a local church in an area where several family groups are coming from and help them set up a ministry where there are similar characteristics that they found to be appealing and what drew them to the first church?

Novel, I know, but really, why are we so concerned about making sure we have a guy jumping through hoops to push an image, a figurehead, when surely there is a fellow out there that can preach and relate to the masses.

I think it has become more about the pastoral appeal and not the finding of where I belong in this church and being "joined together" and finding where I fit into the body as a whole. (Ephesians 4:1-16) Even pastors, myself here, have a role, but we are not the focal point. The small groups have a role, but they are not the focal point. Christ is the focal point and we are to be joined together because we need to grow into His stature and into His image. When the famous pastor leaves, what then? The church has to still have a purpose beyond the person who filled a role. When you die or leave, what then? The church has to still find purpose beyond just us. But as long as you and I are in that body, we fulfill that role that God has equipped us to fulfill and we are to seek to increase this body into the living organism that best emulates Christ.

Ummmm.... Where's the survey? The sub-headline says "A new survey of multi-site churches shows a growing disconnect between pastors and their large congregations." But there's no survey here that I can find. Just a few negative comments ripped from a semi-fluff piece at USA Today (an article I'd describe as neutral to positive toward megachurches).
Or maybe I should ask a different question. I know the goal of the blog was to bash multisites, but "Where's the journalistic integrity?"

@sheerahkahn / Tim
apologies for my "toolness"
perhaps I too have a chip on my shoulder!

In short, I find that there is a delicate balance between institution and organic; I have tremendously benefited from both; but it is my belief, and I am of the persuasion that the over-emphasis of one side over the other (often polemically - of which I admit I may be complicit in my snyde comments) leads to extremism and misses larger ecumenical and thus, deserving issues.

Hope that answers your question / challenge Tim :)

Wayne
Appology accepted.

Here are my unanswered questions again:
Did you read the scripture I gave that tells leaders what they are to accomplish in full reproduction?
Are you content with perpetual dependency? When you leave your current church for other things will there be anyone "fully trained" "to be like you"?
Will they have to hire another pro to do everything you did because no one was fully trained?

These questions are driven completely by scripture but institution COMPLETELY ignores them.

"I find that there is a delicate balance between institution and organic.."

If you fully understood organic and freed yourself from experience driven thinking that contradicts revelation, you would think differently. You have not examined institutionalism enough to see how it contradicts very clear revelation. Twelve years ago I was in that boat with you. I now know, as I poured thousands of $ into the offering plate to largely buy ministry for me, I was sucker for tradition at the expense of truth. I fully enjoyed my self-centered "giving" days, but not any longer.

As a wife of a pastor I was appalled with this article. My husband and I have seen the result of pastors feeling that they have to be all things to all people. Have you ever talked to the children of pastors who lived by this philosophy that promotes an absent father? Have you cried with a wife of a pastor who felt abandoned by her ‘pastor husband’?

I praise God for a husband who is committed to ‘being’ my husband. We want our marriage to be an example to others. That will not happen if I am number 1,000 on his list of importance!