14 I write these things to you, hoping to come to you soon. 15 But if I should be delayed, I have written so that you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth. 16 And most certainly, the mystery of godliness is great:
He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.
~1 Timothy 3.14-16
Title: On Our Conduct in the Local Church Text: 1 Timothy 3.14-16 Series: 1 Timothy: God’s Design for a Healthy Church Church: Redeemer Baptist Church, Jonesboro, AR Date: October 5, 2025
19 So, then, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with the saints, and members of God’s household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone. 21 In him the whole building, being put together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. 22 In him you are also being built together for God’s dwelling in the Spirit.
~Ephesians 2.19-22
Title: On the Security, Preservation, and Success of the Church Text: Ephesians 2.19-22 Series: The Letter to the Ephesians Church: South Caraway Baptist Church, Jonesboro, AR Date: June 25, 2023
Language really is a funny thing, because so often how words are used determines what they mean regardless of their actual definition. Or to put it another way, meaning is dictated by connotation more than by actual denotation. This is especially so when it comes to current discussions in the Southern Baptist Convention about who can and cannot serve as pastor. Over the past several decades, the titles and types of pastors on church staffs all across this country have proliferated exponentially. We now have Senior Pastors, Lead Pastors, Teaching Pastors, Executive Pastors, Assistant Pastors, Associate Pastors, Youth Pastors, Children’s Pastors, Worship Pastors, Discipleship Pastors, Missions Pastors, Small Group Pastors, Assimilation Pastors, and on and on the list could go ad infinitum. Just a quick perusal of any ministry job board shows that we have practically become enamored with pastoral titles.
Of course, there is a certain wisdom to this structure. No one pastor is omnicompetent in every area of ministry, and as survey after survey has proven, expecting a single or solo pastor to be such quickly leads to burnout among other things. So, dividing pastoral duties among a group of leaders allows the pastoral staff to share the load of ministry responsibilities. This is in keeping with the vision of the body that is painted in 1 Corinthians 12.12-31. In that passage, we read “For just as the body is one and has many parts, and all the parts of that body, though many, are one body—so also is Christ.” The point is that dividing ministry responsibilities according to age groups (youth, children, seniors) or according to ministry focus (missions, discipleship, pastoral care) is an efficient way for a pastoral staff to share the many and varied tasks of church ministry. This division of labor maximizes the personality strengths, training, and experience of each individual pastor by allowing them to prioritize and focus on the ministry tasks for which they are best equipped.
The difficulty, however, is that the Bible never mentions associate or assistant pastors of any kind. In fact, the word “pastor”, which is the most commonly used title for ministry leaders today, is not even the primary designation used to refer to church leadership roles in the New Testament. In those sacred pages, we read more often of bishops (overseers) and elders, but we must affirm that these three terms, i.e. pastor, bishop, and elder, are meant to be viewed as synonymous terms, all of which refer to the ministerial leaders of the local church. Of course, this claim is not without its critics. Those who claim that women can serve as pastors are quick to claim that the role and function of pastor/teacher is separate and distinct from the role of bishop/elder. And so, the logic goes, women can serve in the role of pastor/teacher (e.g. as children’s pastor, women’s pastor, missions pastor, etc.) under the supervisory authority of the senior or lead pastor and/or elders.
Unfortunately, a thorough examination of the scriptural evidence would go beyond the limits of this space, but a quick examination of one particular passage will serve to demonstrate the thesis that the role of pastor, bishop (overseer), and elder are in fact the same role. In 1 Peter, chapter 5, verses 2, the Apostle Peter gives the following exhortation to the elders (c.f. 5.1) of the churches that he is writing to, “shepherd(or pastor, same word) the flock of God among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion but voluntarily, according to the will of God”. Peter goes on to show that elders exercise these responsibilities under the authority of Jesus Christ, the Chief Shepherd (or “Senior Pastor”, c.f. 5.4), who is the “shepherd (or pastor) and guardian (or bishop) of your souls” (2.25). This is not the only text that relates these ideas, but it is reasonably clear from this text that the responsibility for oversight and pastoring belongs primarily to those who serve as elders. If this analysis is sound, then the qualifications and restrictions that pertain to one must equally pertain to the others.
This is why we must reevaluate our use of pastor as a title for ministry leadership, particularly as it relates to the role of women leaders in the church. The application of the title “pastor” to women leaders who serve, for example, in the area of children or missions is careless at best and a complete disregard of the prescriptions of Scripture at worst. Further, we must affirm that changing the title from “pastor” to “director” while leaving the ministry responsibilities the same is merely wordplay. The New Testament is never interested in titles solely for the sake of titles; the biblical titles for leadership always refer first and foremost to the functions of leadership. And it is the function of bishop, elder, and pastor that is restricted to qualified men according to the Scriptures. Here again, this does not mean that women cannot participate in the ministry of the church, but it does mean that women should not serve in the role or function of pastor.
At the very least, this means that we desperately need to reevaluate our (over)usage of the title pastor. As the 2000 Baptist Faith & Message states, “[The church’s] scriptural officers are pastors and deacons. While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.” There are two and only two offices of leadership in the church, i.e. pastors and deacons, and the office and function of pastors is limited to qualified men. This is the design of God given in His inspired, authoritative, and sufficient Word, and it cannot be dismissed simply because we find it to be distasteful or out of step with modern cultural concerns. We must obey the Scriptures; we cannot play fast and loose with words, change their meanings, or fit them to our own preferred usage. Words have power and meaning, and we must use them in ways that are scripturally faithful.
This article is also published at SBCvoices, here.
It seems like there has been a lot of discussion recently, especially within the Southern Baptist community, regarding pastoral ministry and the role of women. This is largely due to the actions taken by Rick Warren and Saddleback Church. In May 2021, the southern California megachurch made denominational headlines when it ordained three women as pastors. Since then, it has also recognized Stacie Wood, wife of current pastor Andy Wood who succeeded Warren in 2022, as a Teaching Pastor. Because of these actions, the Credentials Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention determined that Saddleback Church is no longer “in friendly cooperation” with and therefore is no longer a part of the SBC. Saddleback intends to appeal this decision at this year’s national convention.
In this post, I am not concerned with the question of Saddleback or its future relationship with the SBC. Rather, I am interested in some of the biblical arguments that have been proffered throughout this discussion in the attempt to justify the pastoral service of women in the church. One pastor in particular, Dwight McKissic of Cornerstone Baptist Church in Arlington, TX, regularly advances the argument that pastoral ministry is a spiritual gift that can be exercised apart from the function and office of pastor. In his defense, he affirms that the role of lead or senior pastor is reserved for men according to the Scriptures, but he suggests that, under the pastor’s authority, the gift of pastor may be exercised by anyone so gifted regardless of gender.
This argument is primarily based on Ephesians 4.11, which says, “And he himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers.” The verb “gave” points back to verse 8 (quoting Psalm 68.18), which reads, “When he ascended on high, he took the captives captive; he gave gifts to people.” The language of “gifts” and “giving” suggests to some that this passage should be read alongside the paradigmatic “spiritual gift” passages, e.g. 1 Corinthians 12, Romans 12, and it is this coalescence of passages that leads to the conclusion that pastoral ministry is a spiritual gift that can be exercised apart from the office and function of pastor. I believe there are several problems with this interpretation, and in the space that follows, I would like to highlight three of them.
First, this view rests on a grave misunderstanding of “spiritual gifts”. In English, the word “gift” can be used to refer to an ability or a talent; it is customary to speak of someone who is extremely skilled in a particular ability as someone who is “gifted.” This is the fundamental assumption of so-called “spiritual-gift inventories”, namely that a person’s “spiritual gifts” are in keeping with or even identical to their natural abilities and personality strengths. If this is the case, then anyone who has a strong personal charisma or is particularly skilled in public speaking could be viewed as having the “spiritual gift” of pastor/teacher. The problem is that none of the qualifications for pastoral ministry in the NT are based on a person’s ability or skill; almost all of them are grounded in the qualities of a person’s character. In his book What are the Spiritual Gifts?: Rethinking the Conventional View, Ken Berding suggests that this connotation of gifts as abilities has significantly skewed our understanding of what Paul actually means by “spiritual gifts”. Rather, he argues that spiritual gifts should be understood as ministry roles or areas of service. In this sense, pastors are a gift to the church; they are called by God to serve a particular role or function in the life of the body.
This brings me to the second concern I have with this view, namely that it misunderstands the role and function of pastors in the life of the body. In Ephesians 4.12, we read that these gifts, i.e. apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastor/teachers, are given “to equip the saints for the work of ministry, to build up the body of Christ.” In other words, the roles that are given in verse 11 are given for the edification of the body in verse 12, meaning that they are not exercised among the body at large. They are leadership roles given by Christ to care for and serve His body, “until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of God’s Son, growing into maturity with a stature measured by Christ’s fullness” (4.13). This understanding would seem to be confirmed by Ephesians 2.20, which says that the church is “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone.” This would mean that pastoral ministry is a leadership role in the church, and therefore it is not a gift to be exercised among the various members of the body regardless of gender.
A final concern that I would like to highlight in this regard has to do with the misunderstanding of the phrase “some pastors and teachers”. Is this phrase referring to one group, i.e. pastor/teachers, or is it actually two groups that are in view, i.e. some pastors and some teachers? Exegetically speaking, the two nouns are governed by one article, and this is the same article that identifies the other three groups. So, literally translated, the verse in question reads, “And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers” (Eph 4.11 ESV). The most natural reading would indicate that there are four groups of leaders in view here, and that the last group, i.e. “pastors and teachers,” should be understood as one group with a compound role of shepherding and teaching. Of course, this is not the only way to understand this line (e.g. see the footnote in the NET Bible for an alternative view), but the fact remains that all pastors are teachers, even if not all teachers are pastors. The close proximity of the terms here along with the use of the article would seem to imply that it is pastor/teachers who have been gifted by Christ to His church, and therefore, pastoring cannot be viewed as a gift that is exercised apart from the role and function of pastor.
If this is the case, then the question of who may fill such a function in the church must be answered in light of the qualifications that are given for pastoral service. In particular, this would mean that the famous (or perhaps infamous) prohibition found in 1 Timothy, chapter 2, verse 12 must be taken into consideration; in that verse, we read, “I do not allow a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; instead, she is to remain quiet.” This is not to say that women cannot teach in the church, but it is to say that Ephesians 4.11 cannot be used to define such a role. Pastoral ministry is a leadership role in the church that is limited to qualified men per the Scriptures, and we simply cannot set those limitations aside based on our modern understanding of giftedness or ability. Certainly, the service of women in the church is vital and necessary for the health and growth of the church (c.f. Titus 2), but we must submit ourselves to the prescriptions of Holy Scripture, which limit the role and function of pastor to qualified men.
21 Then Peter approached him and asked, “Lord, how many times must I forgive my brother or sister who sins against me? As many as seven times?” 22 “I tell you, not as many as seven,” Jesus replied, “but seventy times seven.
23 “For this reason, the kingdom of heaven can be compared to a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. 24 When he began to settle accounts, one who owed ten thousand talents was brought before him. 25 Since he did not have the money to pay it back, his master commanded that he, his wife, his children, and everything he had be sold to pay the debt. 26 “At this, the servant fell facedown before him and said, ‘Be patient with me, and I will pay you everything.’ 27 Then the master of that servant had compassion, released him, and forgave him the loan.
28 “That servant went out and found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii. He grabbed him, started choking him, and said, ‘Pay what you owe!’ 29 “At this, his fellow servant fell down and began begging him, ‘Be patient with me, and I will pay you back.’ 30 But he wasn’t willing. Instead, he went and threw him into prison until he could pay what was owed.
31 When the other servants saw what had taken place, they were deeply distressed and went and reported to their master everything that had happened. 32 Then, after he had summoned him, his master said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you begged me. 33 Shouldn’t you also have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you?’ 34 And because he was angry, his master handed him over to the jailers to be tortured until he could pay everything that was owed. 35 So also my heavenly Father will do to you unless every one of you forgives his brother or sister from your heart.”
Text: Matthew 18.21-35 Series: Supply Preaching Church: Fellowship Baptist Church, Marion, AR Date: September 11, 2022
It is no secret that the last few years have been extremely difficult for churches and even more so for pastors. Of course, pastoral ministry is commonly fraught with its own set of unique stresses, but those stresses have grown exponentially over the past few years due to the chaos and turmoil that has so regularly characterized our society. This has led to unprecedented numbers of pastors leaving the ministry, a trend some are now calling the “Great Resignation”. The Barna Group has recently reported that some 42% of pastors havegiven real, serious consideration to quitting being in full-time ministry within the last year, a number which is up 13 points from 29% just over a year ago. It is a trend that should concern all of us, both pastors and congregants alike. If pastors are called by God and love His church, why are they leaving ministerial service seemingly in droves?
Over at churchanswers.com, Thom Rainer recently shared some of his findings pertaining to this question in an article entitled “Ten Reasons Pastors Are Glad They Quit Vocational Ministry.” It would be redundant to reproduce the entire list here; however, suffice it to say that all of the reasons stated reflect the relief of having a massive burden lifted off of the shoulders. But what exactly is the massive burden that these former pastors were carrying? I believe that it was the unhealthy and unrealistic expectations of the church and its members. So many churches in this country expect their pastors to be superheroes, masters of every skill, having impeccable personality and charisma, able to carry every burden of ministry, always available, never to feel exhausted or drained or burned out. A quick perusal of online advertisements for pastoral openings reveals that for most churches, Jesus Christ himself wouldn’t be qualified; after all, he was a single thirty-something with no children, no experience, and no seminary training.
Whether because of the rise of celebrity pastor culture or due to the influence of values taken from the business/political world, expectations regarding pastoral responsibilities and qualifications in most churches are nearly unattainable. However, the problem is not necessarily that the expectations are wrong; they are usually reflections of a congregation’s felt needs or past hurts, though many of these still go unacknowledged or unspoken. Rather, the problem is that they are all heaped upon one person, i.e. the solo or senior pastor. This is why a plurality of elders leadership model is more healthy, because it shares the responsibilities of leadership among a group of biblically qualified and trained men. A single or solo pastor/elder is unable to be all things to all people at all times; he is not able to be everywhere and everything that the members of the congregation might need him to be. Or to put it another way, he is not omnipotent, omniscient, or omnipresent. He has limitations on his time, his energy, and his resources. A plurality model for elders eliminates these limitations by sharing the burdens of ministry among a group of pastors of equal authority and responsibility.
Of course, this does not mean that there are no qualifications or expectations for those called to serve as pastors. The Bible is clear that a man must be spiritually mature, that he must have proven Christ-like character as well as sound theological and biblical convictions. It is also clear that a pastor’s primary duty is to be devoted to prayer and to the ministry of the Word, to care for and feed the flock of God. In many ways, pastors should be held to a higher standard of faith and practice than the regular church member, but as church members, we must remember that our pastors are still human, that they are members of the same body, that they need the same care, encouragement, prayer, and support that we all need. This is why the Bible so often uses the body metaphor to symbolize the nature of the local church. As a body, the church has one head, and that head is Jesus Christ. Beyond that, the rest of the parts of the body are interdependent, and pastors are just one of the parts of that body. They need the life and nourishment of the body just as much as any other part. As the Apostle Paul puts it,
Now as we have many parts in one body, and all the parts do not have the same function, in the same way we who are many are one body in Christ and individually members of one another.
~Romans 12.4-5
Like any relationship, the relationship between pastors and church members must be grounded in trust, worked out through open and honest communication, and always characterized by grace toward one another, because only when both sides are able to admit their most vulnerable needs without fear of judgment will we be able to build the kind of foundation that can sustain long-term ministry faithfulness. It is the church’s Scriptural responsibility to raise up men from within their body to serve as pastors/elders. However, so many churches in the world today have adopted the mindset that they exist only to be served by their pastors, rather than to serve them. This attitude is the primary reason that good and godly men flee pastoral ministry in droves. They have been used up and beat down over and over; they have been chewed up and spit out too many times. We desperately need to rediscover what it means to build each other up rather than tear each other down, and this applies to pastors as much as it does everyone else. Who is caring for the pastors? Because they desperately need it.
Cooperation between local churches has long been a hallmark of Baptist identity. Going all the way back to the earliest English separatists, Baptists have always understood that, though local churches are autonomous, we are better able to accomplish the Great Commission to make disciples of all nations when we partner together. Our history is filled with example after example of local churches that have worked together to fund, train, and send missionaries around the world. In many ways, these precedents are the foundation for the denominational structures that exist today. Whether it is the national convention, the state conventions, or the local associations, all of these entities exist to facilitate the cooperation of like-minded churches for the advancement of the global cause of Christ.
Of course, it goes without saying that the strength and effectiveness of these entities is directly dependent on the participation of local churches. This is particularly true at the level of the local Baptist association; their ministry suffers drastically when local churches do not participate regularly. One factor that has contributed significantly to the weakness of associational ministry is the rise of the mega/multisite church. The overabundance of people and resources in these churches enables them to operate as independent self-sufficient organisms, essentially negating their need to cooperate with other churches in the area. In my own local association, there is a relatively large church, a mega church by all comparative measurements, and while their name appears on the association roster, their participation therein is practically nil save a token monthly financial contribution.
Whatever the reasons, when local churches do not participate in the ministry of the local association, all of the churches that partner with that association suffer. Local associations, especially those in more rural areas, have largely become weak, ineffective, and irrelevant due to the widespread apathy that characterizes attitudes in most local Baptist churches. It has come to the point that we might even begin to wonder why these entities still exist and whether they should continue at all. As the Apostle Paul would say, “May it never be!”. The point is that we desperately need to recover the value of local association ministry, and in the space that remains, I would like to highlight just a few of the ways that participation in the local association benefits the local church.
First, the local association provides pastors the opportunity to build relationships with other pastors. More often than not, pastors cannot find the kinds of relationships that sustain long term ministry success in their own congregations. This should not be the case, of course, but being a pastor can sometimes feel very lonely. Building relationships with other pastors through the local association can help to alleviate that isolation; it is a place where pastors can turn for encouragement, accountability, and mentoring. The latter of these is particularly important for younger first time pastors. The value of being mentored by seasoned, experienced, faithful pastors is a resource that will bear fruit long after those pastors retire. Older pastors have the opportunity to invest in and influence the next generation of pastors through meaningful self-giving relationships, and the best place for these to develop is through the local association. Or to put it more simply, pastors need each other.
A second way in which participation in the local association benefits the local church is by cooperative mission efforts. The simple fact of the matter is that the Great Commission to make disciples of all nations, while it is certainly not less than, it is so much more than the isolated ministry of one local church. Most local churches, the vast majority of which average less than 100 in weekly attendance, simply do not have the financial or people resources to develop an effective mission program. However, when those resources are pooled together with other churches through the local association, we are better able to reach not only our Jerusalem, but our Judea and Samaria, and even to the ends of the earth. This is essentially what the Cooperative Program is all about; in the Southern Baptist Convention, churches pool their resources through the cooperative program primarily for the purpose of national and international missions and theological education. If we truly care about the cause of Christ, then this kind of cooperation must begin at the local level.
Lastly, participation in the ministry of the local association helps churches cultivate a kingdom first mentality. This may be more of a result of the first two, but the point is that participating in the local association reminds us that Christianity is bigger than our little slice of the pie. The Kingdom of God is much more than our particular sphere of influence. However, it is all too easy for churches, particularly those that are experiencing seasons of meaningful ministry, to begin to believe that the work of the Kingdom revolves around the ministry efforts of their particular church. Pride begins to spring up in our hearts, and we develop a kind of competitive attitude where we measure our successes and achievements against other local churches. But, the fact of the matter is that local churches should not be in competition with each other. We are all on the same team, all striving for the same goal, and local association ministry helps keep this reality at the foreground of our ambitions.
I love the local church; I believe in the ministry of the local church. The local church is the primary avenue of God’s work in the world to bring people to faith in His Son and transform them into His image. But the Kingdom of God is bigger than individual churches; the Great Commission is bigger than individual churches. And denominational organizations from the local association all the way up to the national convention exist to facilitate and support the cooperation of likeminded churches for the cause of Christ. Denominations are not perfect, because they are made up of people that are not perfect. They can be frustrating, ineffective, and even disappointing at times, but when local association ministry is done well, it makes it all worth it.
Note: This post was originally posted at SBCvoices, here.
A couple of weeks ago, Christians around the world celebrated the death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is a holiday that transcends all denominational lines, theological differences, national borders, language barriers, and time zones. Holy Week. Palm Sunday, Good Friday, Resurrection Sunday, these annual “holy-days” tell the story, that “old, old story, how a Savior came from glory, how He gave His life on Calvary, to save a wretch like me.” It is a time in which we pause to remember, when we focus our reflection, our worship on the good news that makes the Christian gospel unique, timeless, powerful, namely that Christ is risen. He is risen indeed. Each and every day of that week, from Palm Sunday through Resurrection Sunday, is absolutely rich, robust with significance for Christian faith and practice. However, there is one day of that week that is often neglected in the hustle and bustle that usually accompanies preparations for Easter Sunday.
On Thursday evening of our Lord’s Passion, Jesus gathered with His disciples in the upper room. The evening began with a beautiful act of loving service as Jesus washed the disciples feet. This seemingly simple moment subsequently shaped the entire evening as Jesus went on to teach them, saying, “I give you a new command: Love one another. Just as I have loved you, you are also to love one another.” (John 13.34). He then explained that this love would be the primary characteristic that would identify them as His disciples (verse 35). Of course, He would go on that evening to define this love by His own sacrificial death which would occur the following day on Good Friday (John 15.13). This is most likely why he referred to it as a “new command”. It wasn’t new in the sense that it had never been taught; in fact, the OT taught clearly that God’s people should “love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev 19.18). However, the love that Jesus was calling the disciples to that night was something more, something different, something new. This is why we traditionally refer to this day as Maundy, which comes from the Latin mandatum meaning command, “a new command.”
The evening continued around the table as they shared the Passover meal, and it concluded with the passing of the bread and cup, which Jesus reinterpreted as symbols of His body that would be broken and His blood that would be shed for the forgiveness of sins to inaugurate the New Covenant (Matthew 26.26-30). This Lord’s Supper subsequently became central to the worship of the early church. As Christians gathered each week for worship and Word, they would do so around the table; they would share a meal together which would of course include the breaking of bread and passing of the cup (c.f. Acts 2.46). This meal would eventually become known as the Agape Feast or “love feast”, so called after the new commandment that Jesus gave the disciples that Thursday night. It was a time when the followers of Christ could come together to experience the grace of fellowship that is available through the Holy Spirit.
In the modern church, this kind of observance is sadly lacking. Though a few traditions have revived the practice (for one example, click here), for the most part it is widely neglected. We are so caught up in the busyness of our own lives, that we fail to take the time to enjoy the fellowship that binds us together. Even immediate families today barely have the time to share an evening meal together, and when they do, they can hardly be bothered to look up from their screens to interact with one another. But for Jesus and His earliest followers, spending the time to share a meal together around the table was a precious gift of God. Unrushed fellowship over the course of a meal where mutual love to can be shared with one another was foundational in the weekly rhythms of the early church; it was paramount for their life together as disciples of Jesus.
We desperately need to recover this timeless grace, the age old spiritual discipline of table. Of course, this should begin with the weekly observance of the Lord’s Supper as a part of the church’s worship. This ordinance should stand at the center, alongside the preaching of the Word, as we gather together for mutual edification and encouragement every Sunday. It should not be relegated to the end of the service as an obligatory addendum. (For more on this, see my post here.) But it need not end there; it should extend from the weekly worship gathering to homes as brothers and sisters in Christ show each other the grace of hospitality, opening up their homes, sharing meals, loving one another, and doing life together. This is Jesus’ vision for Christian community, that we would love another, even as He loves us, and this is nowhere more on display than we we gather around the table.
I recently read an article about an Oklahoma pastor who is retiring after serving in the same church for 60 years. And let me just begin by saying that this is the kind of pastor that deserves the platform though he would probably never ask for it. So often, we platform the personalities that are the most visible, those pastors who have the largest churches, who have published the most books, who speak regularly on the conference circuit. It would seem we have missed the mark. Our measures of ministry success reflect all of the values and metrics of the world and none of the values of God, who says in His Word that, “Humans do not see what the Lord sees, for humans see what is visible, but the Lord sees the heart.” (1 Samuel 16.7) This pastor exemplifies the kind of nameless faithfulness that is the backbone of Christ’s church; pastors serving tirelessly in insignificant and forgotten places, loving people who are regular and ordinary, proclaiming the Word of God week in and week out. He never published any books; he wasn’t asked to speak at anyone’s conference. He held no denominational influence or power beyond his local association. May his tribe increase!
However, this story is not simply about a pastor who served in the same place for six decades. According to the pastor in question, and I quote, “A lot of it has to do with a church that has kept a pastor for years.” This, it would seem, is the key to long term pastoral tenure; it is churches that keep pastors. A pastor’s theological fidelity and moral integrity notwithstanding, churches bear a God given responsibility to keep the pastors that God has called to care for their souls. (c.f. Hebrews 13.17) According to research, the average pastoral tenure has risen over the years, from 3.6 years in 1996 to 6 years in 2016, but it is clear that the constant churning of pastoral leadership in churches all across this county is at least one major contributor to the weakness of American Christianity. Every pastor I know, myself included, has been hurt by churches who prematurely requested their resignation at the first sign of disagreement, disappointment, or difficulty. Sadly, these stories are often filled with the tears of betrayal, of broken trust, and of shattered confidences.
The point is that we need a better paradigm for thinking about the relationship between pastors and congregations. An employer/employee model that is driven by consumeristic expectations fundamentally lacks the virtues of grace that should define the church’s life together. This is why I believe we must recover the biblical idea of covenant, because covenants move us beyond a “what’s in it for me, what have you done for me lately” mindset by forcing us to consider our own responsibility for maintaining the relationship. There are many examples of covenants in the Bible: Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and New to name just a few. But I would suggest that it is the marital covenant that stands as the closest parallel to the relationship between a pastor and a congregation. Consider the following similarities.
During the “dating” period, the pastoral candidate and the interviewing church put their best foot forward. Both parties accentuate their assets and their strengths and conceal their weaknesses. For the most part, this “get to know you” phase is full of excitement and anticipation of the possible match and its attendant benefits, and each subsequent interaction merely adds to the perception that this is a “match made in heaven.” Both parties wonder if the other might be “the one God intended”. The votes are totaled; the call is accepted. And the relationship moves into the “honeymoon phase”; it is a time that is filled with great idealism and blissful naiveté. Both the pastor and the congregation view each other through “rose colored glasses”; neither party can do any wrong in the eyes of the other. As the relationship grows, every new experience, every new situation is an opportunity to relish in the seeming perfections of the other.
Eventually, however, the difficulties come. The rose petals fall off; the idealism fades. What was once endearing is now annoying; what was once a source of great fulfillment now causes great frustration. Differences in opinion and perspective on all sorts of issues seem nearly insurmountable. The waves of conflict and division threaten to tear the relationship apart, and sadly, in many cases, it does. Marriages end in divorce, and pastors resign, sometimes of their own volition, other times at the behest of church leaders. It is a cycle that is all too familiar, but it need not be so. As in marriage, so also in the church, both parties have a decision to make as to how they will navigate this season. Instead of separation, they can choose to remain committed to each other. They can choose to work through their differences by listening, by showing grace, by compromise. They can persevere and come out on the other side together and stronger for it. Churches can choose to keep their pastors, and pastors can choose to love and serve the church that God has called them to.
This is what relationships should look like within the Body of Christ. We do not give up each other when relationships get hard; we do not throw in the proverbial towel because circumstances are difficult or challenging. We choose love, we choose grace, we choose hope. We covenant together for the sake of the Gospel, for the growth of each other in Christlikeness, for the glory of God. It has been said that most pastors, and I would include most churches, overestimate what can be accomplished in the span of three years, but underestimate what can be accomplished in the span of ten years. So, rather than aiming for some set of five year goals that are ultimately unrealistic, let us strive for that biblical standard of godly faithfulness over time. And when we do this, we can rest assured that we will one day hear those most blessed of commendations from our Lord Jesus, “Well done, good and faithful servant! Share your master’s joy!”
In my previous post, I began to outline the general contours of a biblical ethic for theological discourse. The ability to discuss questions of theology and biblical interpretation Christianly, especially where there is disagreement, is a primary indication of a person’s maturity in Christ. However, so often in this current cultural climate, godly virtues like humility, gentleness, kindness, love, and grace are glaringly absent from most (online) theological discourse. In addition to that, the proliferation of social media has created a practical cacophony of voices making it nearly impossible to know which ones are faithful and true. As Christians, we are called to contend passionately for the truth, which necessarily includes calling out those errors which are in direct contradiction to the clear teaching of the Bible. And so, the question remains, how can we contend for theological truth without being unnecessarily contentious?
The fact is that false teaching has always been a plague on the people of God. From Mosaic prescriptions that lay out the consequences for those making false prophecies to the writing prophets and their warnings about those who offer false promises of peace and security in the face of judgment to the warnings of the New Testament Gospels and epistles even to Revelation’s descriptions of an eschatological false prophet, the Bible is consistent in calling the people of God to be on guard, always watching our lives and our doctrine closely. However, we are also responsible for the lives and doctrine of each other within the community of faith. We bear a mutual responsibility for each other’s souls as we pursue biblical faithfulness, and when a brother or sister wanders off the path of truth, when they are swept up by the deceptions of false teaching, then we are called to the ministry of a loving rebuke that we may point them back to faithfulness.
The challenge, however, comes in identifying exactly what is and what is not false teaching. It has become common practice it seems to label our theological opponents with ideological and emotionally charged epithets that end up causing more confusion than clarity, which results in even more division. Labels like false teacher, heretic, liberal, etc. simply cannot be thrown around carelessly. Merely holding a different theological conclusion than someone else does not mean that they deserve to be identified as a false teacher. This is why we need a clear definition of what false teaching is. False teaching is any teaching that contradicts the primary and essential truths of the Bible. It is any doctrine that stands contrary to the fundamental essence of the Gospel. This has been the common understanding throughout the history of the church, but it would seem that in the current cultural climate many people have forgotten how to distinguish between friend and foe.
We desperately need to recover the discipline of theological triage. The ability to appreciate what is primary and what is secondary or tertiary is an ability that seems all but lost in most theological discourse. The threat of false teaching only applies at the level of the primary, those core truths that if compromised place one outside of the Christian faith. Historically, these primary doctrines have been defined by the classic creeds of the early church. These creeds (e.g. Apostle’s, Nicene/Constantinopolitan, Athanasian, etc.) were forged in the crucible of theological controversy, so they are helpful in identifying what does and does not constitute false teaching. Of course, they do not replace or supersede the authority and sufficiency of Scripture, but they can be helpful in clarifying the contours of Christian orthodoxy. Clearly, as it was then so also now, any teaching or doctrine that falls outside of these bounds is rightly called heresy or false teaching, and anyone who holds, affirms, or promotes this kind of doctrine must be rebuked for their error. With that being said, in what follows, I would like to outline a few biblical priorities that we must keep in mind as we engage each other in these matters.
The first priority is the priority of the local church. The local church is the primary locus of God’s redemptive and sanctifying work, and this includes the ministry of rebuke. It is in the local church that we are taught sound doctrine. It is in the local church where we submit to pastor-elders who keep watch over our souls. It is in the local church where we hold each other accountable and consider how we might provoke one another to love and good deeds. All of the commands that instruct us to correct and rebuke false teaching are addressed to the local church. This means that the local church is the right and proper context for hammering out our theological differences, for wrestling with the text of Scripture. It should be a safe place where people can ask questions, where they can express their understanding of particular issues and questions without fear of judgment or ridicule, and when necessary, where they can be pointed back to the way of biblical truth by correction or rebuke. In other words, it is not our job as pastors or as church members to police the theology of all Christians everywhere. Rather, it is our job to maintain biblical faithfulness within the context of the local church community where God has placed us.
The second priority is the priority of relationships. Relationships matter. What we must realize is that the Great Commandment to love God and to love people is not two but one. These are two sides of the same coin, to halves of one whole. Loving God necessarily includes loving others, and we can only do this in personal intimate friendships. When these relationships are grounded in mutual love for God and for each another, then and only then can we be assured of a person’s intent, that they are for our good and not for our harm, that they only wants what’s best for us. This unwavering trust is the currency that must be spent in speaking words of rebuke to one another. Outside of this basic assurance of a person’s good intentions, our rebukes will almost always come across as harsh, demeaning, belittling, and divisive. This is why the greater the relational distance that exists between us and our theological opponents, the greater amount of grace we must be willing to show them. This means giving the benefit of the doubt; it means taking our opponents at their word. And it means attributing questions or concerns first to misunderstanding, differing emphases, or lack of clarity before immediately impugning, slandering, and mischaracterizing someone’s biblical fidelity and devotion.
The third priority in the ministry of rebuke is the priority of repentance. Repentance, restoration, reconciliation. This must be the guiding principle, the primary purpose, in every church discipline situation. This is especially so when it comes to the ministry of rebuke. There may be occasions where a stern rebuke is necessary and warranted, but we are not simply trying to win arguments for the sake of being right. We are not engaged in a game where we need to win theological points to defeat our opponents. If false teaching is any doctrine or belief that would invalidate the Gospel, then we cannot pretend that these questions have no consequence. We are engaged in a spiritual battle for the soul, that we might turn them to Christ. This is why doctrine matters; this is why we must contend for the faith. It can never merely be a question of who is right and who is wrong. Every theological conversation must be guided by the primary desire of both parties to be more like Christ, to submit more to Christ, to trust more in Christ. This is why we must be ready and willing to repent and seek forgiveness, and it is why we must engage our theological differences in ways that invite others to do likewise.
And finally, the fourth priority for our theological discourse is the priority of Christlikeness. We are called to demonstrate the virtues of Christian character in every situation, in every interaction, in every conversation. Even when we must speak hard words, we are not permitted to speak them harshly. We cannot give into attitudes like hate, bitterness, or pride. We cannot treat our theological opponents, no matter the severity of their error, with derision or disregard or contempt. We must always seek to “speak the truth in love” even when that truth is confronting. Of course, there are plenty of examples in the Gospels where Jesus had to deliver hard words, and to our ears, his confrontations with the Pharisees may seem downright combative or argumentative. I will consider these examples and how they relate to theological discourse in my next post; however, suffice it say here that tone matters. Even when we must confront those who are descending into grave theological error, we must endeavor to deliver our rebukes with the virtues of Christ-like character, not the least of which are grace, humility, and love.
Faith seeking Understanding 