In Ephesians 4:11 Paul listed and described some roles within the church. He wrote,” And He personally gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers..” (HCSB). I was reading over this passage this morning and happened to check the comments at the bottom of the page. This is what it said:
“Pastors do all for the church that a literal shepherd does for the sheep: feeds, nurtures, cares for, and protects from enemies. A shepherd’s task is not to acquire sheep. However, if a shepherd does what he is supposed to do, he will have healthy sheep and his flock will grow.”
Really? A pastor’s job is not to acquire additional sheep, but instead is to nuture his congregation so they grow to be healthy? And that by being healthy they will, automatically, grow?
Radical.
This is a good point. Healthy sheep reproduce and the flock grows. Sick sheep die and make the other sheep sick and the flock shrinks. In your mind what role does the pastor play in cultivating potential sheep?
That’s a good question, and I think it is hard to answer precisely because we have created additional duties for our pastors. In other words, we see the problem, yet we can’t see the solution because the problem filters our perception.
I think training members is a part of the pastor’s role. Teaching the Word, and showing the Biblical models and examples. I think, also, modeling the evangelistic behaviors that the gifted evangelists show. The pastor may not be gifted, but he can model.
Encouraging the members to go and cultivate new members. Pushing them. Helping them find their own gifts, even the pastoral ones, so that they, too, can edify the body.
It’s a start.
I think I understand what about that note you find troubling. Probably counts as poorly written and lazily edited. I believe it is all about context, though.
What is in view (in the note) is the distinction being made between the “offices” or “functions” given in the verse. The pastoral role (shepherding) is commented on. The FOCUS of the shepherd is caring for the flock before him, not on the acquisition of new sheep. (I recognize, as I am sure you do, that the probable motivation of the note-writer was to strike a blow against “sheep-stealing” behavior.)
In the context of the verse, the Evangelist is in acquisitions, while the Pastor is in maintenance and development.
As to the second point, about healthy sheep and growing flocks: I think the point was that healthy sheep breed and reproduce. Healthy disciples (biblically healthy) will also be reproducing.
Dave, excellent analysis.
There is another probable motivation behind the note: obsession with numbers. A pastor should, it seems, be focused on leading who he has instead of working so hard to bring in new people that he ignores the Body.
I was just talking to (venting to?) a guy about stuff this morning: There are so many things that need worked on in our church and as a pastor I’m getting my hands into too many things, and it’s starting to wear on me/frustrate me.
And I’ve read so much recently about how it’s the Word that changes things and helps us grow…so we must trust the sufficiency of the Word and teach it with patience.
My problem is I can verbalize a trust in the sufficiency of the word to grow the sheep, but I have a hard time living that out practically: we have to do this, we have to do that, this isn’t getting done…yadda yadda…
Then I think about the apostles in Acts 6, functioning as those first pastors in Jerusalem. A problem arises, they tell the congregation: choose 7 trustworthy and Spirit-filled men and we’ll appoint them to be over this task, but as for us we must not neglect the ministry of the word and prayer. In other words, they over saw the other need by appointing the congregationally selected men to it; but they focused on proclaiming the gospel and praying.
My college pastor said several times: healthy sheep do two things–produce wool and more sheep. He saw his main task as prayer and preaching to feed/protect the sheep and help them become healthy.
Why does something so simple and so biblical have to radical for us? And why is it so hard for us to let go of the extras and just do what the Bible prescribes and describes?
Mike,
Because we have added so many traditions of man to a pastors list of job duties that, “just doing what the Bible prescribes and describes”… is now viewed as Radical.
Just try ending the “tradition” in most SBC Churches of holding a Sunday morning worship service (an’t no where in the Bible) and see if that is not considered a radical idea.
Grace for the Journey,
End Sunday morning?
We’re living in crazy times here and just experimenting with ending Sunday nights…..that’s about all the change that we can handle this generation 🙂
Heretic.
And by the way… In the N.T. age, Sunday was a work day! And they meet for worship in the evening (Acts Chapter 20), so Doug you have it all backwards. 🙂
“I smell smoke… did someone say — Heretic?”
Greg—you’re certainly right on the Scriptural point, but we’re talking a Baptist church here. We don’t let anything get in the way of tradition.
Yep. That’s a tradition of ours.
Why does something so simple and so biblical have to radical for us? And why is it so hard for us to let go of the extras and just do what the Bible prescribes and describes?
The simple answer is that it is part of modern American church culture (the business model) and it is what you/I/most were taught. The “church” (i.e. the organization) must function a certain way in order to be effective, thrive, exist in modern society as a tax-exempt religious entity: bills, committees to effect any action or change, structure, format, methods, procedures, and processes.
All of this pervades the thought process of modern SBs from pew sitters to pastors. The frustration is that the Biblical model (devotion to the Word and prayer) is much simpler.
we must take Yoda’s advice to “unlearn what we have learned.”
Greg, great line from “Yoda.” The process of growth, in both plants and preachers, requires pruning as well as feeding and watering.
Life requires both exhaling (unlearning) and inhaling.
Thanks for the Star Wars pointer.
Greg B. and Frank,
“Words of Wisdom, you have spoken…”
“It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up.”
Radical is right.
Perhaps the analogy of ‘fishers of men’ might be more helpful,
but ONLY if you remember these important details:
that Christ ordered them to take their boats ‘out into the deep’, and once there, it was at His Command
that they let down their nets.
The point being:
only at the command of God, will nets be filled . . . the work of the Holy Spirit will bring people to Christ
it is not the ‘work’ of men by itself, by it is Christ who calls us to Him by our arts, as He called to wise men by their art of the stars and to the ‘fishermen’ by their art of fishing .
We have no power but His.
“However, if a shepherd does what he is supposed to do, he will have healthy sheep and his flock will grow.”
No. That isn’t right. This isn’t a formula and it is not all dependent on the shepherds. This perspective is only half right. We are supposed to do what we are called to do, but there is no equation that says that we will then have healthy sheep and the flock will grow.
It might be that you do all that you are supposed to do and people don’t listen and they aren’t healthy. Maybe people do listen and they are healthy, but the church still doesn’t grow for various reasons.
We have a lot of church growth/health “experts” teaching on how to pastor/lead a church so that pastors will do a better job and pay them for their expertise. Fair enough. Some of what they say is good. But, is shepherding souls really a formula? Does strategizing for growth contaminate everything? Is there really stuff that we can do that causes people to be healthy and grow and that will cause the flock to grow where if we did it everytime we would get a desired result? I’m not saying that there aren’t things that we should be doing (obviously, the sheperd does certain things to be faithful), but I think that the formula approach is just wrong. The sheep might get a parasite and get sick and die, despite what the shepherd does. A pack of wolves might overpower the shepherd. Sheep are dumb and even though they wander off, they can be brought back. Humans are smart and self-willed and we construct all kinds of teachings and philosophies that keep us from listening to a shepherd, no matter how faithful he is. Now, we are in a situation where sheep choose which flock they want to be a part of based on what they think will benefit them the most. If they decide that they like the performance of the shepherd in giving them what they want, then they will hang out with that flock – until they decide not to and find another flock. The analogy of sheep and shepherd breaks down here and saying that if they shepherd just does the right thing then the sheep will be healthy and the flock will grow is just not accurate anymore.
Although, again, there are things that the sheperd is to do no matter what. This goes along with Dave’s latest post – we are shepherds and we do what we are supposed to do not because there will be a result of growth, but because God demands us and invites us into laboring with Him in His pasture. He is our reward, not healthy sheep or a larger flock. A lot of this is sometimes out of our control.
You are absolutely right: we can’t control things. People will make their own decisions, and go their own ways. People disagree with caring pastors, and turn their back on one local body in favor of another.
It is not formulaic; good call. However, the verse (and commentary) seems focused on the duties of the gifted pastor, not the response of the people. Being a godly shepherd is more art than science, if you’ll allow the analogy.
I agree with your second paragraph. I was just referring to what seemed to be an equation that implied that if we are faithful, then people will respond, grow, and the flock will grow. I do not at all deny that there are duties that pastors are to engage in. We just have to be willing to do it even if the results aren’t all that we want them to be.
In all my years… I have yet to see a “Shepherd” give birth to a “Sheep”.
Grace for the Journey,
Greg, I get what you are saying but there is a nuance that may cause the metaphor to fail.
The shepherd is also a sheep.
This post caught my attention, because it coincides with some things I’ve been writing lately. Since I’m not a pastor, I look at it from the church member perspective. When our expectations aren’t Biblical (or are simply too high), we weaken our pastors. In other words, this has to be addressed from both directions.
Alan, your comments immediately made me think of Jeremiah 7:27 “So you shall speak all these words to them, but they will not listen to you. You shall call to them, but they will not answer you.” Jeremiah was the ultimate example of one just doing it anyway.
That thinking is the result of the popular market-driven church. I’ve had pastors (of large churches) tell me that their job is getting sheep and encouraging members to get sheep (i.e. going into the highways and biways and compelling them to come in). This is typically done in the name of evangelism (which has resulted in slick, easy-believism evangelism – but that is another topic). They typically say that “large” churches are those who are doing evangelism well, and “small” churches are those who are not. I’ve also heard church members (and pastors) say that the size of a church is an indication of God’s blessing the faithfulness of that church. It’s a church where God is “really working” and “moving.” I’ve also had a pastor tell me that he knew he was going into the ministry so he chose a college major that would help him – marketing. After all, “I’m just marketing Jesus.”
All that being said, I think that “if a shepherd does what he is supposed to do, he will have healthy sheep and his flock will grow” is a generally true statement, but I wouldn’t say it’s necessarily numerical growth. There are certain things that a pastor should be doing in his care of the flock, that if done, will often lead to a healthy flock that is experiencing spiritual growth and, sometimes, as a result, numerical growth. But, numerical growth is often an indication that one is doing everything wrong. (2 Tim. 4:3-4). Pastors should measure their success, not by the world’s standards (size, money, facilities, etc.) but by godly standards. Sometimes, pastors will be faithful in every respect and have a church that, by the world’s standards, does not look “successful.” (In fact, by the church growth movement’s definition of a successful pastor/leader, Jesus was a pretty big failure.) We should remember that the church is the Lord’s, and He will build it.
“”. . . . Jesus was a pretty big standard.””
I’ve heard this argument used to put “church growth” (as measured by more people making a decision to follow Christ) in a poor light. By what statistic would Jesus be considered a “failure.”
Many times the Word references the large crowds following Jesus. Not once or twice, but several. Also, the teaching and reaching ministry of Jesus resulted in hundreds of thousands of new believers in the lifetime of His disciples.
Certainly, it seems to me, if one person getting saved is great–and I believe it is–then 100 people getting saved is even greater. This argument that reaching many people for Christ is indicative of doing everything wrong, seems diametrically opposed to the words of the Lord in Mat. 28.
Sure, increasing numbers are not the “only” measure of success in ministry (or sheep herding) but it is certainly one measure. A healthy flock that does not grow numerically (see statement above) is not truly a healthy flock in my understanding of animal husbandry or ministry.
If one caricatures the “church growth movement” then certainly it can be made to look like the Devil’s Pawn. I am not a great fan of the movement in many ways, but I don’t think we serve ourselves well by painting with a mop.
I meant to say “pretty big failure.”