Posted on 04/13/2014 7:53:34 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
It’s not a secret the church has been in decline for a number of years and for a variety of reasons. You can read some statistics and views on why, here and here and here. Everyone has their opinions.
Abuse, apostasy, and irrelevance are just a few of the words that keep coming up in the search for reasons for the decline. There are a variety of compelling opinions and I even have a few of my own.
But I suggest there is another area of decline more significant and perhaps much less obvious—and one that certainly contributes to the church’s decline in numbers.
And I think its likely a careful analysis would implicate the church’s leadership for this more significant issue.
By saying so, I’m not suggesting this pastor has it all together. Nor am I trying to cultivate (or ratify) some dishonest skeptics’ hate for the church. Rather, I’m hoping to raise some concerns in a conversational kind of way.
Further, I’m not claiming to be the expert in all church issues. However, I have been in some form of pastoral ministry for the last 19 years and feel I have some measure of insight about the issue.
So in an effort to pursue this conversation in a healthy way, here are 10 pastors I’m concerned about.
I’m concerned about the pastor who is better at managing church programs than he is at making disciples of Jesus. Thom Rainer & Eric Geiger addressed this topic somewhat in the book Simple Church, but I’m not sure how many pastors paid attention to the message. The church is not better because it has more programs. It’s quite possible for programs to hinder its real mission.
I’m concerned about the pastor who attracts people with fancy self-help sermons instead of teaching people to be students of the Bible and theology. Sure topical sermons can be helpful teaching tools when used appropriately and in moderation. But to pique interest in the unchurched, church-growth pastors have promoted episodic sermons ad nauseam and to no avail at effectively grounding deeply committed disciples of Jesus, as the statistics provided previously demonstrate.
I’m concerned about the pastor who is a chief executive instead of a contemplative sage. The pastor is called to a contemplative life of prayer and study of the word (Acts 6:4 cf. Ephesians 4:11-16). From that life his ministry flows to the church. The pastor was never called to be a rock-star communicator or bench-mark business leader. He was called to model redemption and shepherd the flock of God (1 Peter 5:1-4 cf. Acts 20:28). Perhaps pastors should consider putting away their John Maxwell and Nelson Searcy books and picking up the Bible and the church fathers.
I’m concerned about the pastor who uses the pulpit to milk members instead of minister to the saints. It was the angry atheist, Richard Dawkins, who asked Ted Haggard (back in the day) why he needed a multi-million dollar sound system that paralleled that of MTV to teach people about God. I think that’s a question that deserves an answer. Why do pastors need to build bigger and better on the backs of God’s people? I think the answer may be rooted in the human heart. Francis Chan seemed to have caught that vision when he was still pastor in Simi Valley. And if we think we need to build bigger barns, perhaps we should pray about church planting as a viable alternative.
I’m concerned about the pastor who makes growing the church the goal instead of glorifying God the goal. There is no biblical mandate for growing the church. Sure there is one for propagating the gospel and making disciples. But the chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy him forever. There is nothing in Scripture, except pride, that drives pastors to drive the flocks they are supposed to be tending.
I’m concerned about the pastor who builds his ministry with people instead of building people by his ministry. It seems I’ve said this already, just differently. But here I’m speaking to a philosophy that often underlies many of the abuses in the church. For example, a well-known mega-church pastor once advised me to think of people in seven-year terms. He explained that people generally burn out after seven years. And if I wanted to build a big ministry for God, I would need to leverage those seven years. Funny, I don’t recall God asking pastors to leverage his people for the pastor’s dream of building a big church for God.
I’m concerned about the pastor who cultivates a culture of dependency on himself instead of cultivating a culture of community within the church. Of course, I’m not denying spiritual dependency on Christ is biblical. But the pastor is not the people’s savior. He’s a just man who will burn out and fail himself given enough time and responsibility. Christians should be taught to depend on Jesus as our Savior, the church as our sanctifying community, the Bible as our word from God, and the Spirit as our parakletos.
I’m concerned about the pastor who reads and teaches the Bible literally instead of literarily. This is not to suggest the Bible is not important or any less God’s word. It’s to say the Bible is literature, divine literature to be sure, but literature nonetheless. That means it needs to be read and understood as God’s word to us (or for us) in the context of its literary genre. Not all the Bible is prescriptive; and none of it was written to be used as a random list of verses cherry-picked capriciously to beat people up or defend our personal ideas and beliefs. The Bible is the holy canon which reveals God to us through the person and work of Jesus Christ. Pastors who mishandle God’s word are extremely dangerous.
I’m concerned about the pastor who contributes to the culture of consumerism instead of combating idolatry. Pastors who pander to the consumerism in the church are no different than parents who give their kids everything they want to keep them from throwing a fit or to get them to reciprocate love. Christianity isn’t a smorgasbord where people get to pick and choose what they like or don’t. It’s a community of believers on a journey and mission of faith who live in communitas with others for the glory of God, the blessing of his people, and the advancement of his kingdom.
I’m concerned about the pastor who sees the church as a stepping stone instead of seeing it as a custodian of Christ’s kingdom. Certainly, God moves people. And certainly pastors have a right to pursue other ventures as the Lord leads and gives liberty. But the church is the primary agent for the stewardship of the gospel and the redemption of the cosmos. It’s the integral institution for advancing Christ’s kingdom and for shaping culture and society. It’s not God’s second-hand agency. It’s not his “Plan B.” Jesus died for the church and it is significant.
These are a few of my concerns about pastors. What are your concerns?
“What if he is “hip” and always has been “hip”?”
“Hip” shifts. It’s almost impossible to stay hip without chasing fads.
If he was advocating the grammatical-historical method of interpretation, he should have been more clear about it. Usually “LITERALLY instead of LITERARILY” is the war cry of those who want to deny a literal Adam and Eve, a literal creation, and a literal flood, among other things.
(There is no grammatical-historical reason to believe Genesis is talking about something other than real people and events, but the so-called higher critics like to invent and claim literary reasons.)
“And so it was, when Jesus had ended these sayings, that the people were astonished at His teaching, for He taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.” (Matthew 7:28-29)
In other words, He taught them the plain meaning of the Scriptures as one who also believed the Scriptures’ plain sense ... and not as so many of the clergy of his day. He taught them the CONTENT of the Holy Scriptures unfiltered and untainted with personal opinion, personal “wisdom.” That was the power and authority they took note of.
I am sorry, but “repent, fast, and pray,” will never do much of anything if the plain meaning of the Bible is ignored or neglected. The American Christian church is in its preaching (so-called) and teaching awash with opinion, personal and denominational - and non-denominational!!! - agendas, personality cults, obsessive “me-ism,” and post-Christian therapeutic deism. The teaching of Jesus astonished the “man in the pew” because He taught not His own ideas, as did the scribes, but “thus says the LORD.” This will always astonish people.
So often today preachers do not trust God’s word (and thus the Holy Spirit) to be able to mold and shape people’s hearts. So they feel they must add to its power with gimmickry, psychological tactics, and emotional appeal. Thus they are building on the true and only foundation with straw and hay. Their work will not stand the test of time, but the foundation will remain firm and unmoved.
The Scriptures are all about Christ, and Him crucified for the sins of all. That is their power. It is none other.
(There is no grammatical-historical reason to believe Genesis is talking about something other than real people and events, but the so-called higher critics like to invent and claim literary reasons.)
Agreed.
You all can continue your “conversation” till the cows come home but until you dig through the Roman man made religion you all call Christianity, Pastors can play pastor in anyway, shape or form and it won’t make a difference. Come back to the truths of the Torah. Come to the GOSPEL Jesus preached and told his disciples to preach. It wasn’t his death, burial, and resurrection. Come back to the Gospel that was preached to Abraham. Do your research, dig, study and you won’t need any clergy to continue to lead you into deception. No arguments please...I’m too old and too tired.
Yahweh wants all His children to know His truths. You WILL NOT hear them from the pulpit if you worship in a Sunday church so go ahead and entertain yourself with your pastor’s dog and pony show. Sorry, time is late...you need to seek Yahweh, He wants to show you His Truths.
I agree. I also think that point #8 was actually a unique point. The others were basically the same point. He's concerned with pastors who are phonies rather than real. I really hesitate at using his word distinction "literarily" and treating the Bible as literature. Should a letter viewed as a letter? Sure. But the truth is that very little of the message within the letter is constrained in any way by virtue of that letter being a "letter".
Other so-called forms of literature are contrived...apocalyptic literature is the most glaring example. Basically, that's just a fancy term in which egg-heads try to group such unique books as Daniel, Zechariah, and Revelation. The certainly have some similarities, but I seriously doubt Daniel said to himself, "Self, let's sit down and write an addition to the apocalyptic genre of literature."
I'm fairly sure you can can't take the Psalms and Proverbs and legitimately group them in a folder you've named "poetics". All of those groupings are after-the-fact and contrivances of scholars.
As for the remainder of the author's concerns, to the extent that he really is concerned with phoniness and then adequately hits the mark in his description, I'll go ahead an listen.
Sometimes, though, I think people write things just to write things because they have a deadline, a requirement to put out so many words for a column, a blog, etc.
If Jesus referred to Noah (he did) Jonah (he did) and Adam and Eve (he did) as real people, then we best not try to treat those stories as anything other than the LITERAL truth.
I agree. I also think that point #8 was actually a unique point. The others were basically the same point. He's concerned with pastors who are phonies rather than real. I really hesitate at using his word distinction "literarily" and treating the Bible as literature. Should a letter be viewed as a letter? Sure. But the truth is that very little of the message within the letter is constrained in any way by virtue of that letter being a "letter".
Other so-called forms of literature are contrived...apocalyptic literature is the most glaring example. Basically, that's just a fancy term in which egg-heads try to group such unique books as Daniel, Zechariah, and Revelation. They certainly have some similarities, but I seriously doubt Daniel said to himself, "Self, let's sit down and write an addition to the apocalyptic genre of literature."
I'm fairly sure you can't take the Psalms and Proverbs and legitimately group them in a folder you've named "poetics". All of those groupings are after-the-fact and contrivances of scholars.
As for the remainder of the author's concerns, to the extent that he really is concerned with phoniness and then adequately hits the mark in his description, I'll go ahead and listen.
Sometimes, though, I think people write things just to write things because they have a deadline, a requirement to put out so many words for a column, a blog, etc.
What if his being "hip" includes heavily investing the Church Treasury in Bitcoins?
Rather, BELIEVE, repent, pray, and fast.
The full Torah is for the Jewish people only.
Christians have the 10 Comandments and the two great Comandments to love God and neighbor.
Marlowe - I’m always struck by how “with it” and pithy your comments are - you clearly get it. (xzins and gamecock too)
Actually, the Torah IS for Jewish people only, and non-Jews are only bidden to observe the Seven Laws of the Children of Noah.
http://www.chabad.org/therebbe/article_cdo/aid/62221/jewish/Universal-Morality.htm
Thank-you for that reminder!
For too many pastors it is a job, not a calling and for most people going it is a club house................
Rather, BELIEVE, repent, pray, and fast.
Or perhaps to have ten items on a checklist when you can only legitimately think of 9.
Item number 8 just really is (to put it "literarily"): One of those is not like the others.
Yes, Jesus does go into BIG detail. REPENTANCE starts with the houses of God.
LOL! The dreaded "3 point sermon" when the text allows for only 2....OH NOES!
Did “Smiley” make the list?
You're right. He should have been more clear about it. And when other readers asked for clarification in the comments, he provided it. Did you read them?
Usually “LITERALLY instead of LITERARILY” is the war cry of those who want to deny a literal Adam and Eve, a literal creation, and a literal flood, among other things.
I didn't see where the author denied a literal Adam and Eve in that post, nor a literal flood, nor other things.
People are reading far more into his point (and far more nefarious motives) than he actually stated. All he meant is that you read history as history, law as law, poetry as poetry, or proverb as proverb. Nowhere did he state that a passage that is not intended to be read literally is therefore not true, nor that the persons it speaks about did not exist in history. Had he implied so, he would have been guilty of a false dichotomy—as are the people here on FR who are reading point #8 in the least charitable light. Frankly, I see more knee-jerking on this thread than I do a sincere desire to understand his meaning.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.