I know what you are thinking. Like many others, you have bought into the idea, “This could never happen to me.” But the reality is that it most likely will. Your pastor will leave you for another church. Perhaps it will be the young one across town. Or it may be the established & financially secure church that just finished a building project. What about the one upstate that he just spent a week with “preaching a revival”? Studies show that average national tenure of a pastor is 3.6 years. Listen to these testimonies:
“We thought things were going so well, I mean we just finished paying the building off.”
“I was shocked, not only that he left but I couldn’t believe the church he left us for…it wasn’t even Baptist.”
“I just pulled up to the parsonage like I do every Saturday morning to make sure he’s awake, and the whole house was empty.”
Those are just a few examples of church members who were flabbergasted when they discovered their pastor had fallen into the arms of another church. It’s important you prepare yourself for this moment. I will offer a few warning signs that your pastor may be leaving you for another church.
1. The Pastor has a really good idea that he & just under 50% of the church is passionate about. Your pastor is about to become a church planter….in your town.
2. He is shaving and getting his haircut regularly again. You may even notice a hint of cologne.
3. He no longer carries the personalized bible the church bought him. You know the one that said “Pastor of so and so church”.
4. He has started studying & is preaching fresh sermons.
5. You notice bulletins from other churches sticking out of his Bible.
6. He brings up another church on a regular basis in your conversations with him. He seems smitten with what God is doing somewhere else.
7. He uses up all of his revival leave time. What you think is a revival may just be a trial sermon for a new church.
8. He hasn’t bought a new suit in years; he’s bought two in one week. The longer a pastor is at a church the more casual he dresses. Two suits in one week? He’ll probably be gone in less than a month.
9. He tells the one guy he is afraid of at church just what he thinks about him. Preachers have a kind of “bucket list”. It’s stuff they dream about doing but can’t for job security.
10. Someone stands up at the November business meeting and says “When is Pastor Appreciation Month anyway?”
11. A well dressed group of people all happen to visit your church on the same day. This is called a search committee. Your pastor is going to preach like you have never heard him preach before. Somewhere in town he’ll be having lunch with all of those visitors.
Those are just a few of the signs. Prepare yourself. Preachers come and go…but mainly they go. Rest assured that another one will come your way. He’ll be neatly groomed, smell nice, have a pressed suit and preach fresh sermons. Life will return to normal. Good things will once again happen. You will experience the joy of having a pastor….for 3.6 years anyway.
“Preachers come and go…but mainly they go. ”
There is just no other way to say this. What a stupid post.
There’s this thing called humor, Mark. By definition it is always a little silly. But the purpose of (good) humor is to make you look at serious topics in a lighthearted way.
I think he did a pretty good job of that.
Of course, he gets no respect, no respect!
Dave,
Amen.
David
If the content of this article wasn’t so sadly true…it would be even more funny.
But it is pretty funny. 😉
You encapsulated how I felt when I came to Sioux City from Cedar Rapids, after nearly 15 years. Secret phone calls. A trip to Sioux City without explanation.
It felt like I was stepping out on my congregation, leaving one for another.
Love this lighthearted but real post.
I’m certainly not saying this is the way to do it for everyone, but it was for me… When I (prayerfully) decided it was time to move on from my last church, I did do the “normal” thing of sending out resumes and starting the process while still there as pastor, but along the way I felt that I couldn’t/shouldn’t stay there pretending to be committed as their pastor when I knew that I’d be leaving within X-number of weeks/months.
So… I felt it better to resign and continue in the process without pastoring the church. It gave me opportunity to go listen to some of my friends preach as well as do some pulpit supply.
It wasn’t necessarily the easiest thing either: I had nothing certain on the radar for what was coming next and at that point had received more rejection letters than “hey, we’re potentially interested” phone calls.
I just decided it was what I needed to do and as long as I didn’t sit around and be lazy (I was working two other part time jobs at the time as well), God would provide, and he did.
I hope it’s not a process I have to consider anytime again in the near future (if ever), but if I do, then right now I’d lean more towards again first resigning and then searching.
I always thought it was funny when a search committee told me “we will split up and your people will not even know we are there”
That is like a cop saying “I am going under cover, I think I will wear my uniform and badge”
“I just pulled up to the parsonage like I do every Saturday morning to make sure he’s awake, and the whole house was empty.” I have served some dysfunctional churches, but if I had someone doing that on my off day, you’d better believe I’d feel led to go elsewhere! And yeah, that guy would be on my bucket list . . . one way or another.
John
I’ve never had that… I have had: “Every time I drive by, I never see your car around.”
Oh, so you’re stalking me? Okay…
I was preaching in view of a call one time, and one of the church members complained how he called the former pastor at the parsonage, the preacher didn’t answer, so he got in his car and drove by and saw that the preacher was indeed home. Really? Maybe he was just in the middle of something and couldn’t answer the phone.
Yes, this is humorous. But at the root of it is a fact that I believe brings to light something very wrong in our churches in general: the 3.6 year statistic.
Something is wrong. That cannot be the way the NT church was meant to operate. I think we need to do some serious soul searching about where we went wrong on this, and why we are where we are today with regard to this.
The “marriage” usually starts with the pastor saying: “God has called me here.” And the church saying, “God has called you here.”
So, either: a) We’re wrong about that and we were operating on our own will and desire from the start…
or b) We started out right, but then somewhere along the way we let our pride and egos (from either or both directions) get in the way…
Now, there could be c) God truly does move some people around that quickly–e.g. Paul; but he was more of a missionary and church planter than pastor…
Also… it’s been my experience in most of the churches of which I have been a part, that if you pull out a pictorial directory from ten years ago, except for a handful of people it is almost a completely different church body. Our culture is vastly more mobile, ever moving, and ever changing. We should not discount that that might have something to do with this as well…
Though there are undoubtedly other secondary causes, I think the main cause behind this is an assumed system of seminaries, placement offices, and search committees bringing in professionals from outside rather than looking within the congregation and recognizing those God has already qualified and placed as elders of that congregation. Might God sometimes call someone to leave one place and go to another and exercise a ministry there? Yes, perhaps. But that should not be our default mode.
This.
In most search committees, whenever the issue of “why don’t we look within first?” comes up, the answer is always:
“No seminary. We’re looking for a pastor, not a director.”
The purpose of a church is to prepare the saints for the work of ministry – shouldn’t local churches be preparing men from their own number to pastor their own flock? Men who have taught their children, men who’s families were baptized with them, men who have wept with them, rejoiced with them, sacrificed for them?
There are always exceptions, but I’d think the exception would be “we need to hire from without” rather than “let’s look inside first.”
I have nothing against seminaries, but it seems to me that seminary should be step 2 in the search process – find a guy with a heart for pastoring from within, make sure that calling is true, make him a pastor and send him to seminary to augment and address any deficiencies that seminaries are awesome at addressing.
Great discussion and I could agree more.
I’ve been blessed with a pastoral staff that has been largely called from within to serve our home church. Our senior pastor came from another area years ago to serve in another capacity. When the senior pastor at the time was “called to another church” (and he still has a good relationship with our church), our current senior pastor stepped up as interim while the search committee went looking. Some wise deacon recognized that he was already doing the job and asked why we should be looking elsewhere. A couple of decades later and he’s still our senior pastor.
We have a couple more pastors on staff from other churches in our region who are here for the long haul now and a few others are on staff who either grew up in the church or were called from the congregation. It’s a blessing to have the stability of a pastoral staff who have such a passionate commitment to the church where they are that they will work together internally as a pastoral team and externally with the deacons and congregation at large in such a way as to make our church function as biblically as possible.
David
That is a sad stat. If I am not mistaken back in the early 80’s it was more like 2.5 years.
Re. “what went wrong”, a LifeWay survey not long ago indicated that a leading cause of forced terminations was conflict between pastor and people. Hence there are those who were terminated and those who beat the hammer by resigning that makes up a good portion of those leaving the church field. What went wrong? Simply unhealthy churches.
While I appreciate church planting efforts we must as a convention place church health as a much higher priority. The things we have been talking about here either jokingly or seriously will not change until we become a convention of healthy churches.
While I am on this horse I might as well go ahead and say that planting a new church is no guarantee that it will be a healthy church.
D.L., I think you are wrong. My memory is that is was more like 18 to 24 months.
Seriously, that statistic may be slightly skewed by the churches within an hour to an hour and a half’s driving distance to one of the seminaries. Many of them (and I served one myself) brag that they are full time churches when in reality they are not. The one I served in seminary told me earnestly they wanted to call a student who would then become their full time pastor after he graduated. Well I graduated, and they said, “That’s fine. Now we expect you to work all those hours you used to go to school. More pay? Don’t be ridiculous! You know, preacher, money is the root of all evil. You ought to know that.” Like an idiot, I stayed there another two years, my family suffering in the meantime. I felt led to give them some stability–since 1960, the average tenure of their pastors had been less than 18 months.
John
Unhealthy churches, yes. That can be terribly destructive.
…and part of the shepherding role is joining with God in nurturing wellness. The health of the church is certainly not solely the responsibility of the pastor. At the same time, we do have responsibility to recognize poor health and address it appropriately.
This isn’t just theoretical for me, so here’s a personal example:
I entered a church that had some unhealthy patterns, especially related to conflict and to trust. Two board members were easily offended and tended to shut down and withdraw at what seemed like random and silly times. I tried different responses — ignoring the passive-aggressive behaviors, offering studies on dealing with conflict, pursuing persistently when I saw them starting to put up walls, etc. And none of it helped.
I still struggle with such behaviors. I can engage fight-ers and we usually are able to reach resolution. The flight-ers are more challenging.
But I’m learning. When I remember to step back and gain perspective, and follow up with pastoral (encouraging, challenging, convicting, loving, and usually one-on-one) conversation to discover and address whatever is the underlying issue — usually involving a past experience that finds expression and causes random-seeming behavior — then sometimes they become a little healthier, and respond a little better in the future.
Sometimes they still do unhealthy things. Sometimes they still sin. And sometimes I do, too. But when I start by acknowledging my own patterns and asking God to help me, the people I lead miraculously get healthier, too…
I had a professor in college that told us one of his church members would drive by his house every day at 5 AM to see if the light in his study was on. He said he just got in the habit of getting up and turning it on and then going back to bed.
In the churches I have served in I have always felt genuinely called to serve within that church and community. But there are almost always members who decide it is time for you to go and they make it their mission to get rid of you. If the church is not willing to stand up to these few members then many pastors see no option but to move on.
I guess I’m a little mean but if I had a guy who would come by every morning at 5 AM, I would wait until I had one of those late night hospital calls, you know the ones like at about 1:00 AM, and I would swing by his house and ask him to go with me. 😉
Amen, brother.
John
I would have to put that light on a timer.
I would simply need to call out his name in a sermon and let the church know what he was doing. If he is fine telling the pastor he is driving by then its ok to let everyone know. Now you can sleep with the lights off. Lets quit playing games and put the cards on the table.
Very good article. You need to be a pastor, deacon, or very involved in your church to fully appreciate this.
To the deacons and laymen out there.
To keep your pastor or keep this process from happening to you, a few things that might help.
1. A cost of living adjustment for your pastor each year. Not really a raise in salary, just keeping up his salary with inflation. Over several years, a set salary seriously declines. And like you, the pastor has to support his family and pay his bills. Give him some pride and ability to do so.
2. Consider a real, live raise in his salary. After all he’s doing a good job, is experienced, and you want to keep him.
3. Take him aside and tell him what a good job he’s doing. Better yet, tell it in front of the church.
4. Get the church to add to his monthly retirement contributions to GuideStone. If you don’t know about Guidestone Financial Services of the SBC, check with a fellow pastor or your Baptist Association’s Director of Missions.
5. Check with the pastor and his wife about things needing improved in the parsonage. Provide the money, but if they prefer, let them take care of it. After all, as long as they are there, it’s their house. Give them some privacy. You wouldn’t want someone else running things in in your house.
6. Make sure the pastor and his family are free to take a couple of days off each week. Make sure the church knows and supports this.
7. Seriously pray for your pastor. He has burdens and stress you will never know.
8. Bring others with you to church.
9. Be present, with a good attitude, at every church service; Sunday morning, Sunday night, Wednesday night, or whatever schedule your church has. A good crowd is encouraging and helps him preach better.
10. Allow the pastor the funds to buy at least one new book each month.
11. Support his plans to reach more people for Christ.
12. Faithfully give your tithes and offerings to your church.
Make things so good for your pastor he’d be crazy to go anywhere else.
But know that sometimes under the best of circumstances, God will lead your pastor elsewhere. If so, use the above to encourage your next pastor.
David R. Brumbelow
Like Button…. Click…
David this sounds like a good blog to be on sbcvoices
Considering the Sr. Pastor at my former SBC church has been there probably 45 – 50 years, and there are some other long-tenured pastors…there must be some 1 year or less tenures in there to bring the mean down to 3.6 yrs.
I used to hear that a Baptist preacher stayed at a church until he’d exhausted the sermons he’d written in seminary, about 2 years.
Disclosure: I’m no longer a Baptist.
One of several things I do not miss in semi-retirement is the unwieldy, inefficient process by which we Southern Baptist clergy change churches.
The 3.6 years is not a very useful statistic but I’m pleased that for once no on trotted out the ecclesiastical urban legend that the average is about 18 months. I’d like to see the median figure for churches that have a full time pastor and would expect it to be higher.
Perhaps Dave would consider doing, or finding, an article that explores the idea of secrecy in the clergy change process. Chances are, if you are making yourself available to all those churches seeking a pastor, your congregation has a pretty good idea already. Are we so insecure and insular that we have no church leader with whom we have discussed the fact that a church or churches has contacted us about exploring a change?
I know that when I moved it was a surprise to pretty much everyone in thechurch in Cedar Rapids.
In fact, I think a few folks were mad I never fave them a little more warning than my resignation. It either has to be top secret or its public.
And right now I’m so far behind that if i worked 20 hours a day for two weeks I’d still be weeks behind. I barely write any more much less engage in research. However, you research it and I will hit publish
William,
The church I currently pastor, had an average tenure of about 4-5 years when I came. I’ve now been here almost 14 1/2 years so that average has increased a bit.
More signs:
–the preacher fires up a blog or newsletter that’s been dormant for months or years
–preacher works hard to make sure audio crew is recording and storing sermons consistently
–preacher’s wife observed video-recording sermons
I have been DOM in my pioneer area for over 20 years. Out of our 30 churches 14 have been at their present church for 10 years or more. Of these two are 20 year men and two more in excess of 40 years. Only four of the remainder less than five years.
As I said this is a pioneer area. I am not sure what to make of this.
My unscientific observation as a pastor in a new work state for 23 years us that pastors either leave quickly (perhaps after the first Iowa winter) or they settle in and enjoy long tenure.
Here’s a fairly new one from Rev. NoRespect…and, very funny…..
“I don’t mind the interim pastor visiting I just wish the church would quit referring to him as “the one who got away.”
David 🙂
Here’s what I do at FBC Farmersville. This probably wouldn’t work for every pastor and in every situation:
1. I’m very open with everyone about the fact that, on rare occasions, a church will contact me with at least some initial interest in me. Congregations are not ignorant of this process: after all, they know how they brought me here.
2. Everyone in the church also knows that I am not interested in going anywhere else and will be very difficult to move.
3. I’ve made it clear that my personal commitment to the Lord is to be willing to converse prayerfully with people before just telling them “No.” My staff knows that I do this. My church knows that I do this. I make sure the search committee knows that I do this: “I don’t want to leave. I’m probably going to bow out of this process. And yet, because I don’t want to be disobedient to the Lord, I will pray about this and speak with you a little about it.”
4. As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, I will not permit a search committee to tell me anything about their salary or benefits. If they send a “packet,” I will not open it until they promise not to send me any information about salaries and I know that no such information is included in the packet.
5. I tell search committees that they may speak to anyone in my church with whom they wish to speak and may be open and honest about who they are. Of course, my church members know (see #1 above) that they need not be alarmed just because a search committee contacts them. It has happened before and I’m still here.
The benefit of this? It does not include the make-believe type of denial in which we both (the congregation and I) pretend that we don’t know how this process works. They get to know that I’m being honest with them. As a result, when I tell them that I’m not interested in leaving, they believe me. I think it also makes life easier on search committees.
Of course, this works because my relationship with my church is good (at least, so far). In a more adversarial situation, this might be disastrous.
I think the real problem is in having professional/vocational pastors, rather than teachingpreaching elders who have come up in the homegrown ranks of the local body. Of course there is nothing wrong with preaching as a primary vocation, and I understand in today’s day and age why they do it, but the local body ought to be left in the hands of elders who are of the local body, and thus have a reason to stay there. When you’re a three years out from your pastor stepping aside, you should already have a preyy good idea of who is being prepared (and is preparing) to step into that role when the time comes.
Joel
This is a difficult concept for me to grasp based on my belief in a God called ministry. Certainly God can call one from the local body. However this practice brought to its logical conclusion greatly hinders the sovereignty of God. In addition if carried to its logical conclusion I would have to conclude that I was out of God’s will in my pastorates since I never pastored the church in which I grew up.
I am knowledgeable and conversant in the current new work concept of finding pastoral leaders in the work itself. I do however, reject that concept.
Not sure I should start since I won’t have time to get into a conversation, but, d.l….:
1) How does it hinder the sovereignty of God, does it not instead highlight it in that we trust that if we follow his mandate to strive to mature his followers that he will raise up among them men to lead them?
2) Does it not seem that the biblical pattern of the early churches when they were young was to appoint elders from within, and the sending out was more for the sake of church planting? Thus it’s more of an old practice as opposed to a new work?
3) Does not the idea of calling seem, as in 1 Timothy 3, to be primarily about desire by a man and confirmation by the body within a particular church and does not imply a “vocational” moving elsewhere?
I’d argue the practice of hiring without as opposed to raising up within is more a cultural capitulation and less a resemblance to the New Testament model.
That’s not to say that God won’t work through a broken system, but that our practices won’t lead to the best overall church health.
Mike
I can certainly relate to your opening statement. It is late, at least for me, I am not a night person. I think much better at 4:00 AM and should probably wait until then to respond, but here goes.
You make some compelling arguments that are indeed logical and noteworthy.
I would hold a different view. I shall respond by number.
1. Indeed we are to bring God’s people to maturity. However to make such a leap to trust God to raise up from within can only be conjecture at best. God’s sovereignty is limited by definition when we put such a condition to the selecting of pastoral leadership. God does not ask us to make this leap to “trust” him to do what we think might be good. God’s sovereignty transcends the opinions and logic of man.
2. The words “biblical pattern” and “early churches” are the operative words in this statement. A biblical pattern does not equal a biblical mandate. To follow this to the logical conclusion we would ride donkeys and wear sandals and robes. They were early churches hence selecting from within was about the only option. Add to that the concept that the early church probably believed that Christ would return in their lifetime (an assumption I realize, but well founded) there was not time to even think about “vocational ministry”.
3. The key word here is “imply” By definition, again, this is conjecture. To go on what is “implied” has led to much errant theology through the centuries. In addition I would again appeal to my comments in number 2. The main thrust of the Timothy passage is qualifications. Our focus should be directed there.
I have absolutely no problem with raising leadership up from within…none whatsoever. However the current climate today that says this is more biblical than what we have traditionally done in the SBC bothers me a great deal.
Hence here I stand (to quote Luther) let God choose as He wills. Finally, this should always be a point of discussion not strife. I appreciate very much you kind spirit in this discussion. Blessings!
I tend to agree with Mike if only because the church in the West is typically bad about raising up our own pastors from within. Indeed, it’s deeply traditional. Hierarchical church organizations typically employ an interchangeable pastorate. The RCC and the Methodists especially demonstrate this. But Calvin and Luther also promoted it to a degree. It’s the congregationalists who have tended toward home-grown minisers. I’m thinking of the Anabaptists here, in particular.
But I also think that it should be a both/and rather than an either/or.
Timothy was apparently sent by Paul to pastor a church that was already planted. But Paul used mature churches in the planting and development of new and young churches. The ideal pattern for a mature church in the NT seems to be a plurality of elders raised up from within.
Practically speaking, a strong system of vocational pastors tend to generate a divide between ministry and laity where laity are not raised up to minister alongside their pastors. On the other hand, pastors who are only raised up from within the church they pastor tend to become insular. Both result in churches who only focus their ministry inward. Some cross-pollination of minsiters between churches as well as a strong sense of the priesthood of believers helps homogenize the teaching and generate an abundance of ministry that will meet all the needs of the members as well as generate a healthy flow of ministry outward in the fulfillment of the Great Commission.
Jim, With regard to Timothy, I think we need to be careful not to conflate the positions of pastor/elder/bishop and that of apostolic helper.
See here for more on this: http://sbcimpact.org/2008/11/24/home-grown-church-leadership/
I tend to agree. However, many people do conflate them and will heartily argue that they are basically the same. The more important battle for the health of the church in my estimation is over the priesthood of believers. Getting stuck on debating the difference between the particulars of the offices of church leadership tends to imply that people who don’t fill those offices are mere followers without responsibility. Nothing could be farther from the truth. So I think it’s wiser to shift the debate in that direction.
Well If historic church tradition can be believed Timothy was the Bishop of the church at Ephesus.
John, I discuss church tradition on this on the linked article. I believe there is good reason to believe church tradition is unreliable on this one.
D. L. Payton,
I agree. You make some very good points, and I don‘t believe our system is broken.
There is no problem with someone who grew up in the church becoming its pastor, but as well there is nothing wrong with calling a pastor from outside that local church.
David R. Brumbelow
David
I completely agree.
I can’t help but believe that if we seek to be true to scripture and honest in our motives (namely no agenda), God will bless what we do as we seek leadership
Gentlemen
A lot of salient points are being made here. Nearly everything here that has been said is relevant and honest to scripture, a concept which should lead to a more clear understanding of true biblical leadership.
Jim, I most definitely agree that it should be “both/and not either/ or”. The main thrust of my position is that the contemporary discussion surrounding pastor/elder seems to have taken on the idea that a plurality of elders or elder governed is the “best” way to do things. I hear this all the time in seminars in my pioneer area. I reject this out of hand. I am not sure it is the best way but I am sure that there are a lot of factors to be considered when it concerns church leadership. I have already spoken to the “ideal pattern” hence there is no need to repeat.
Concerning the “divide between clergy and laity” Jim, you are absolutely correct. However, I am not ready to say that our method of selecting a “vocational” pastor is the cause for that. This is a discipleship issue which in general we are not very good in developing. This divide can occur regardless of how we select leadership, The key here is a proper understanding of “laity” and leaderships’ responsibility to develop same. “Shifting the debate” Jim will go a long way in helping that divide.
Bottom line: (1) The “biblical pattern” was developed because the early church exegeted their culture and developed a method, we must do the same. (2) Thinking that changing the way we select eldership will solve many of the problems we have generated with the single vocational model is erroneous. I realize Jim neither you nor Mike have advocated that, but again I hear it a lot in meetings where I minister
Thanks gentlemen for listening an “stretching” me.
Here is the most salient point in all this for me: As I understand the NT role of elder/pastor/bishop, it is more that of a spiritual elder brother than that of a spiritual stepfather. Our default system makes it the latter.
David
I certainly understand your thinking and have a lot of respect for your mind, but I am not sure I agree. My point of disagreement would center on the words “spiritual stepfather” and “default system”.
Since I have nothing new to add I will leave it at that.
Blessings my brother
Does anybody know if there has been any studies regarding the number of current pastors who grew up in the church they are pastoring.
I would also be interested in knowing how many on this blog are pastoring churches in which they grew up.
Anybody??
D. L.,
My dad was a pastor.
I and both my brothers are pastors.
None of us have ever pastored a church in which we grew up.
I know it happens. But it is out of the ordinary.
David R. Brumbelow
David B.
I have never not pastored the church in which I grew up. My son pastors the church which he planted 10 years ago.
The only man I know that is pastoring his home church is a guy who went to seminary, pastored a few years then returned to his home church to pastor. Obviously that is not what the discussion centers around, but is the closest I can get.
Thanks for responding.
David B
Scratch a “never” or a “not”…take your pick 🙂
D.L.,
I would be surprised if there are many who fit this description. I imagine there are more, however, in certain churches, who are currently serving on a team of elders in a church where they did not come to that church specifically in order to be an elder/pastor (i.e. they were there in the church actively serving the Lord already when they were invited or appointed or voted in to serve as an elder alongside other elders).
David R.
What you have described in pretty much what I have observed. I have found here in my pioneer association, that there are two churches who are less that 15 years old in which a man was saved in that church, (hence his “home” church) and became part of the elder team. To be honest any others, in reality, serve in the capacity of a traditional deacon merely given the name “elder”. One such church took an existing deacon body and changed the name to elder. I guess this would be a “second cousin” to what we are discussing.
Thanks for responding.
Here is a wrinkle no one has mentioned (or if they did, I missed it): I am a pastor, yet I did not grow up in any church! For my first 26 years, I was a sterotypical Southern cultural “Christian” who “believed” in God–whatever that means, since it had little or no influence on my actions–never went to church except for weddings and funerals, and frankly saw little or no value in it. Surely I am not the only pastor whose background was not churched. While I have no problem with a pastor being raised up from within, to say that is some sort of Biblical mandate suggests that those of us not raised in the church are aberrant and outside God’s will. I do have a problem with that.
John
John–I think what you’re describing is not what is meant by “raised up from within”… It’s not about pastoring your childhood church, etc.
It is about having a culture of discipleship that means “when a man has a desire” (1 Tim 3:1), the church, having examined his character and ability (1 Tim 3:1-7) says, “We have a place for you.” This challenges not just the resume system, but also how we view the leadership structure and the overarching idea of pastoral vocation…
Most traditional Southern Baptist churches have this structure already in the deacons (arguments about what we call deacons are actually that aside)…
The biblical presentation of pastoral selection and number if pastors per church is not really much different than its presentation of deacon selection and numbers other than function of the office…but it’s radically different in our culture…
In fact the process in our culture is radically different than anything we see in scripture, which really makes me question the wisdom of it…
John
Your “wrinkle” is a valid observation, you are correct, that has not been introduced.
I agree completely regarding you “Biblical Mandate” statement. For me the fact that there is a difference a Biblical method and a Biblical mandate is axiomatic.
Mike
You did not address your comments to me, but with your permission I would like to pose a question. I can hear you saying “OK” all the way up here in Montana 🙂
If your thinking is followed completely would that not eliminate vocational ministry? The vast majority of churches cannot afford multiple pastors/elders. If that is true is that what you are advocating?
D.L.–a church could have several options… My college church had 7 pastors / elders when I was in school in Oklahoma. Three were staff, 4 were “tent makers”… All taught, though one did most of the preaching, all counseled and mentored, and when making leadership decisions all had equal voice. Granted the non-paid ones weren’t expected to keep office hours or be as available, but the church still considered them equal pastors.
I take the 1 Tim 5 command to support the elders to be an “as able” command… Maybe it’s ways other than financially, maybe it is having some full time some bivo, or all bivo, etc.
The way we do it tends to result in a man desiring to be a pastor and the church saying, “Great, we’ll recommend you for a school and pray for you as you search for a place to serve!” Sure, there are times where we may need to intentionally send out, but I don’t think the American model where we ship guys off instead of having them serve within is what 1 Tim 3, Titus 1, Acts 14, etc. speak about.
Mike
Very good thoughts and analysis. Obviously there are several workable models that can be defended Biblically.
I have already said all that i know on this issue. Perhaps I have said more than I know. Hence more dialogue from me would be repeating that which I have already said.
Basically I see two main concepts. (1) We must always distinguish between a Biblical model and a Biblical mandate. A Biblical mandate must always settle the question. The Biblical model is open for discussion within the parameters of honest Biblical exegesis and interpretation. (2) I take issue with the propagation of models that are taught to be “more Biblical” than others. I hear a lot of this in training meetings and writings etc. (These two concepts must be taken together i.e. number two must be seen in light of number 1).
Bottom line stay biblical and exegete the culture in light of scripture and select leaders that best fit a particular situation.
Blessings my brother
D.L.,
I really appreciate your comments here. The fact is that both the home grown and leadership from without models are spoken of in the Bible. With all due respect to David, I think while this is a good discussion I don’t think that there is anything patently unbiblical or even extra biblical in our “default mode” of church leadership.
I have four “preacher boys” in my church: one is an interim at a church in another town (btw he is also my son in law), another is regularly gone doing pulpit supply, one is a part time associate for me, and one helps in the ministry of the church by filling in from time to time (he taught my Sunday school class this past Sunday). Having said that I’m not sure that the church would want to call any of them to take my place if I were to leave. This has nothing to do with major character flaws just the reality of being a home town boy, even Jesus faced difficulty in His home town of Nazareth at the beginning of His ministry.
John Wylie
Very valid points. Your last statement is extremely germane to our discussion. It was a learning moment for me.
If the “home grown” variety is taken to conclusion it would negate the sovereignty of God in selecting a pastor/elder for the church. God must be allowed to place those whom he wills to lead a church. I realize no one here is advocating anything that would negate the will or sovereignty of God. I also realize that God could will one from within to be a pastor. Yet when we say this is “better” we are getting close it seems to me.
For me the best position is to say “be much in prayer and let God select His man”.
D.L.,
The only problem with your line of thinking is that every time the NT deals with the matter of choosing elders, it assumes these will be men from within the congregation, not imports from outside. If we follow your line of thinking here, why not bring in deacons from outside the congregation too?
David R
You are absolutely correct. There was that assumption. Again I must say, however, a New Testament model does not equal a New Testament mandante. In addition it would be nearly (granted not totally) impossible for pastor/elders to move from city to city in that culture. Again I say, exegete the culture to find truth and process. There is no theological or interpretative reason to indicate that “home grown” is the only or better biblical model.
In addition we have established that the vast majority of pastoral leadership today comes from without. Are we to say that all of these men are out of God’s will. If they are (that would be me and I assume you), then we do have problems. If we are, however, in God’s will would not the logical conclusion be that our method is being bless of God and therefore defendable and useable.
Nowhere have I said that “home grown” is not good nor Biblical. I am only saying that to try to define that position as preferable, better, or more Biblical is a rational and theological fallacy.
To say that the resume system is broken or in default is to say that the home grown or other system fixes that. While we do have an abundance of problems I am not willing to conclude that the method of selecting leadership is the reason for the problems. I realize that you have not advocated that at all, but I have heard that said.
I appreciate very much this dialogue with you and others. It is always good to be stretched in ones thinking.
David R
I realize I did not address the deacon issue, that was an over site.
The deacon is a different office and are selected for a different purpose. While the two offices have nearly the same qualifications the one difference is very important. The pastor/elder must be “apt to teach”, such is not require of the deacon. That single factor makes a huge difference in the two offices of the early church.
Hence importing deacons is not the logical conclusion to be reached. It would be the same thing as saying that pastors then wore robes, sandals, and rode donkeys. Therefore we should also. OK DL, now you are getting absurd! I thought I would say that before someone else did…and because it is true, that was absurd. 🙂
It’s just not that simple David. Peter referred to himself as being an elder in 1 Peter 5:1. Are we to assume he simply served as an elder in the Jerusalem church?
And then if you read the passage in Acts 13 we see a list of prophets and teachers serving in church in Antioch and we know that several in that list were not home grown.
I’m not all against home grown elders, but I also do not believe that is the only biblical mode. The from without mode is at least as biblical as the homegrown mode.
John Wylie,
Yes, I do believe, from the evidence in the NT, that Peter was an elder in the Jerusalem church alongside other men who were also elders. I’m not sure if that’s what you mean by “simply served as an elder,” though. Obviously, as one of the twelve, he had some other important functions in the global church of his time, and even for us today as members of the Universal Church. But in 1 Peter 5, he does identify himself as a “fellow elder,” not as an elder of elders.
With regard to the term “home-grown,” I am seeing it is leading to some unintended implications that should probably be cleared up. I do not mean to infer that the normal model of church leadership in the NT church was someone who was on the “cradle roll” in that church, but rather that when it came time to look for elders, the first place they looked was among the spiritually mature men already serving within the congregation, not to bring in someone from outside the congregation. I believe this was the case in Antioch as well.
We do have the example of Barnabas being sent from Jerusalem to Antioch, and then seeking out Saul in Tarsus to come along and help with the teaching. But I think there is good reason to see this as more exceptional, as these men were carrying out an apostolic (or missionary/church planting) role in the church, similar to that of Timothy in Ephesus and Titus in Crete.
We also read of Apollos’s teaching ministry in Ephesus and Corinth. But it appears he was not regarded as an elder/pastor/bishop, but rather as an itinerant Bible teacher.
In this sense, the term “home-grown” is admittedly misleading. I will need to find a better term to describe what I am talking about. Any ideas out there?
D.L.,
Yes, the role of elder/pastor/bishop is different than that of deacon, and yes, one of the main differences is being “apt to teach.”
However, I think this is possibly one important way where our traditional church government model has gotten off track. We generally regard those who have been off to seminary somewhere as those who are “apt to teach.” As I read the examples in the NT, the ability to teach was usually something that was acquired within the context of the local congregation. Obviously, other factors played into the mix, such as Paul’s education under Gamaliel, etc. But the assumption was not that if someone had not been off to seminary, they were likely not “apt to teach.”
I don’t know if, by chance, C.B. Scott is following this thread; but if he is, I will give him fodder for his cannon here. He is always accusing me of being a closet Plymouth Brethren. The fact of the matter is, during my missionary ministry in Spain, I was exposed to the ministry and ecclesiology of the Plymouth Brethren. When all is done and told, and all the implications laid on the table, I still side more with the overall Baptist position than I do the Plymouth Brethren one. But that doesn’t mean I didn’t learn a thing or two from my interaction with the Plymouth Brethren.
One of these is their system of plural eldership composed of spiritually mature men from within the congregation. Something else that positively impressed me about the Plymouth Brethren with which I was acquainted was that there was a general expectation that the men in the congregation be “apt to teach.” On a given Sunday, there was usually an opportunity for various men in the congregation to take turns sharing devotional or exegetical thoughts from Scripture. There was also a concerted effort within the context of the congregation to train the men to study and teach the Bible. Because of this expectation, I have been in meetings in various Brethren congregations of 50 to 100 members in which a dozen or more of the men were quite “apt to teach.”
Yet, in many of our traditional Baptist churches, if the pastor is out of town, or has to miss for some reason, we have to look outside the congregation for someone to “fill the pulpit.”
The difference between the two models is not the relative presence or lack of presence of spiritually mature men who may potentially be “apt to teach,” but rather the expectations that the corresponding systems assign to these men.
No, Scripture doesn’t give specific guidelines about this. But with regard to this particular aspect (not necessarily speaking here to other aspects), it seems to me there is something more healthy about the Plymouth Brethren model than the traditional Baptist model.
David R.,
Sorry, I should have used the word exclusively rather than simply in regard to Peter’s eldership.
David R
Regarding the PB, the ones that I have known have been extremely good godly people. I have a lot of respect for them. Regarding seminary attendance I totally agree. I am thankful I had the opportunity to attend, but the greatest Pastor/Bible teacher I have known may not have finished high school. His name was Roy Jett he pastored in Missouri a small rural church for over 50 years.
Regarding home grown I hear the word “indigenous” a lot…I like that, except it is taken most often to mean culture or geography not local church.
Gentlemen, I have immensely enjoyed this discussion. Thank you for your time.
John Wylie,
You are right.
I appreciate the way you have spent time with the preachers in your church. Many pastors neglect doing so.
We should be training and encouraging the young preachers in our churches and giving them the opportunity to preach and minister. That also includes recommending them to preach in other churches. That does not necessarily mean they end up pastoring at their home church.
I know of an old time preacher, Harvey Graham, who used to have “Preacher Boys Revivals.” He got so many preachers in this church, and he wanted to give them opportunities to preach. So he invited them and even preachers outside his church to all preach in these revivals. Depending on how many preachers were there, he would give them 10 or 15 minutes each to preach. So several would preach in one service. It was a real encouragement and networking time for the preachers.
David R. Brumbelow
David,
Thank you brother for your kind words. God has given me a heart for mentoring young preachers, I guess because that mentorship was so hard to find when I was a younger preacher.
Regardless of age I am always delighted when I hear of a preacher taking a pulpit. We have a man in Oklahoma who is in his 70’s who had been in itinerant and interim work, he asked me if I thought he should go back into pastoring. I told him absolutely, we need all the good preachers we can get.
John
Amen to the mentoring! Mentors had not been invented when I was a young pastor. I certainly needed one.
David R (and anybody else)
A thought occurred to me. In 27 years of pastoring in the south I was not open at all to the type of leadership formation you have advocated. After 20 years in Montana I am much more open to the point that you and I are not all that far apart.
You mentioned 16 years in Spain. Could that experience have influenced your position on the issue? If so could it be that we both have been influenced because Spain and Montana are closer to the NT milieu in that both are new works, in new areas, with new and few churches as it was in Jerusalem?
Just wondering. I don’t want to hi-jact this thread but I would like to know how you and others view this idea.
D.L.,
Yes, I am sure that both spending time away from the Bible Belt, and having experience in church planting, influences the way we think about ecclesiology, and a lot of other things, too.
I think what I wrote in this post a few years ago somewhat addresses the questions you are bringing up here:
http://sbcimpact.org/2008/02/22/the-missionary-a-breed-apart/
I definitely think being in the Diaspora (in my case eastern Oregon) affects the way we think and approach things. To be honest, sometimes in the discussion threads I feel like I would have to have a separate post just to explain where I am coming from, so I don’t bother.
I know there are similarities in many ways, I don’t mean to diminish that, but there are differences as well. Frankly I like it here outside the Holy Lands.
David R
Thanks for the post
Keith
I like it also
David R
Sorry, I intended to say link