Category Archives: Ministry

09/14/2026

On Making the Lord’s Supper Normal Again

By Phillip Powers

It is a typical Sunday at your local Baptist church. The service starts with some upbeat songs and maybe a Scripture reading. It continues with a time of prayer and giving, perhaps one or two more songs, a thirty- to forty-minute sermon on a particular text, and then a closing song and prayer. Everything seems normal. But then the pastor invites everyone to sit down, and the deacons begin passing plates containing small wafers and thimbles full of juice. It is communion Sunday, and suddenly everything feels different. Whether your church observes the Lord’s Supper monthly, quarterly, or only on designated occasions, communion can feel like something special added to the church’s worship rather than something that belongs to its normal rhythms. Of course, there is nothing inherently wrong with observing the Lord’s Supper less than weekly; Scripture never gives us an explicit command concerning its frequency. But when communion is something we rarely do, Christians can begin to think of it as something exceptional rather than ordinary. Yet when we look at the practice of the early church, what has become unusual for many churches seems remarkably ordinary in the life of the earliest Christians. The Lord’s Supper should therefore be recovered as a normal practice of the gathered church because the New Testament presents the Table not as an occasional ceremony added to Christian worship, but as an ordinary expression of the church’s life together in the gospel.

Perhaps the question is not simply how often we should observe the Lord’s Supper, but whether our practices have caused something ordinary in the life of the earliest church to become extraordinary in ours. We read in Acts 2.42 that, “They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching, to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread, and to prayer.” Or again, when Paul is in Troas, we read, “On the first day of the week, we assembled to break bread” (Acts 20.7). In other words, Luke does not portray the breaking of bread as a special ceremony added to the church’s life but as part of its regular shared life. Of course, the language of “breaking bread” could encompass a larger communal meal, but the Lord’s Supper would nevertheless have belonged within this larger practice of Christian table fellowship. Table fellowship was a regular part of the gathering of the early church, and Acts 20.7 is particularly striking because Luke describes breaking bread as the very purpose for which the believers had assembled. For the earliest Christians, then, breaking bread does not appear as an interruption of the church’s ordinary life together; it appears to belong to that life. So perhaps, instead of asking, “Where or when can we fit communion into the service?” we should be asking, “Why has communion become peripheral to what we think Christians ordinarily do when they gather?”

In his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul gives explicit instructions concerning the observance of the Lord’s Supper, and he continually refers to it as something that takes place “when you come together” (1 Cor. 11.17, 18, 20, 33). The irony, of course, is that the Corinthian Christians were intending to celebrate the Lord’s Supper, but their behavior so contradicted its meaning that Paul tells them, “when you come together, it is not really to eat the Lord’s Supper” (1 Cor. 11.20). Wealthy members of the congregation were eating ahead of the poorer members, and the poorer members were being humiliated. Social divisions were being reproduced at Christ’s Table. However, the important point is that Paul’s response to these errant practices demonstrates that the Supper is inherently ecclesial and communal. The Table not only proclaims, “Christ died for me,” but also, “Christ has made us one people through his death.” As Paul says in 1 Corinthians 10.17, “Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, since all of us share the one bread.” Therefore, communion is not simply an individual devotional exercise conducted in the same room as other Christians; it is an act of the gathered body. The Lord’s Supper belongs to the church because at the Table the gospel that reconciles us to God also displays the new community that the gospel has created.

Moreover, the Apostle Paul says, “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes” (1 Cor. 11.26). In other words, the Lord’s Supper is itself an act of proclamation. In preaching, the gospel is proclaimed through the words of the preacher; at the Table, the same gospel is proclaimed visibly and materially through the broken bread and poured cup. The point is that the Word and the Table are not competitors. Communion does not steal time from “gospel-centered worship”; communion is gospel-centered worship. The church hears what Christ has done through the preaching of the Word and then receives the signs Christ gave his church to remember and proclaim his saving work. And we must note here that Paul is clear that this proclamation continues “until he comes.” The Table therefore looks backward to the death of Christ while simultaneously looking forward to his return. As long as the church lives in the already and the not yet between Christ’s first coming and his second, it is called to proclaim the death by which its salvation was accomplished and anticipate the return by which that salvation will be consummated. What I am saying is that the Lord’s Supper is not an interruption of gospel-centered worship; it is one of the ways Christ has given his church to proclaim the gospel when we gather together.

Of course, someone might object, “If we take communion every week, won’t it become routine, empty, rote ritual?” This is a legitimate concern; our sacred rhythms can become thoughtless, and the familiarity of repetition can become mechanical if we are not careful. However, rarity does not automatically create reverence, and frequency does not automatically destroy it. Think of it this way: we don’t preach quarterly so that preaching remains special. We don’t pray occasionally to prevent prayer from becoming routine, and we don’t sing infrequently so that worship retains its significance. These practices become formative precisely through repetition, and the same can be true for communion. Regular observance at the Table reinforces the truths that Christ died for us, that we live by grace, that we belong to one another, and that Christ is coming again. The real question, then, is not frequency versus significance, but thoughtless repetition versus meaningful repetition. This is precisely where pastoral leadership matters. The Table should be intentionally connected to Scripture and the preaching of the Word so that its repeated observance continually directs the congregation to the different dimensions of the gospel it proclaims. However we approach it, the danger is not that the Lord’s Supper might become familiar; the danger is that familiarity might become thoughtlessness.

Now, to make the Lord’s Supper normal is not to make it casual or insignificant. If anything, Paul’s rebuke of the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 11 demonstrates just the opposite. Their problem was not that they observed the Supper too frequently, but that they had lost sight of what their actions at the Table proclaimed. Their selfishness, divisions, and disregard for one another contradicted the gospel the meal was intended to display. Paul’s response was therefore not to discourage their observance of the Supper, but to call the Corinthians to discern what they were doing when they came together. The same should be true for us. Every time we come to the Table, we are reminded that Christ’s body was given and his blood was shed for us, that we belong to one another because we belong to Christ, and that the crucified and risen Lord will one day return. The Supper thus directs our attention backward to the cross, inward to the body of Christ gathered around the Table, and forward to the return of our Lord. To make the Lord’s Supper normal is not to make it ordinary in significance, but ordinary in practice—to weave it into the regular rhythm by which the gathered church is continually formed around the gospel.

None of this is to suggest that a church that observes the Lord’s Supper monthly or quarterly is somehow being disobedient to Scripture. The New Testament simply does not prescribe how frequently the church must come to the Table, and we should be careful not to create a command where Scripture has given us freedom. Nevertheless, Christian freedom does not mean that every possible practice equally reflects the patterns and priorities we find in the New Testament. Acts portrays breaking bread as part of the ordinary life of the earliest Christians. Paul assumes that the Lord’s Supper belongs to the gathering of the church, where the one bread displays the one body Christ has created. And every time the church eats the bread and drinks the cup, it proclaims the Lord’s death until he comes. Perhaps, then, we should ask whether some of our inherited practices have unintentionally pushed the Table toward the margins of Christian worship. The goal is not simply to observe communion more frequently, but to recover the Lord’s Supper as a regular, central, and joyful practice of the gathered church. Perhaps we have spent too much time trying to preserve the significance of the Lord’s Supper by making it extraordinary. The earliest Christians seem to have found its significance precisely in making it part of their ordinary life together. The Lord’s Supper does not need to become more extraordinary. Perhaps it simply needs to become normal again.

For further study, see:
On the Practice of the Lord’s Supper
On Partaking of the Lord’s Supper

Leave a comment   |  tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | posted in Ministry, Practical Theology, Worship & Liturgy

06/15/2026

On Truth and Unity in the Southern Baptist Convention

By Phillip Powers

Last week, Southern Baptists met in Orlando, Florida, for their annual meeting, and one of the most significant items of discussion was the proposed “Truth and Unity Amendment” to the SBC Constitution, introduced by Dr. Albert Mohler. The amendment would add language to Article III concerning the qualifications for churches that wish to remain in friendly cooperation with the Southern Baptist Convention. Specifically, it states that a cooperating church “does not act to affirm, appoint, or endorse a woman serving in the office or function of a pastor/elder/overseer, specifically preaching to the assembled congregation.” The rationale behind the proposal is that recent disputes concerning churches with women serving in pastoral functions revealed ambiguity in the Convention’s existing standards of cooperation. Supporters therefore argue that the amendment is necessary to provide greater constitutional clarity. As to the vote, the amendment received strong support from the messengers, passing by a margin of approximately 75 percent to 25 percent. Of course, this vote has generated widespread discussion both within and outside the Southern Baptist Convention. News feeds and social media reels have been filled with reactions, criticisms, endorsements, and predictions about what the amendment will mean for the future of the SBC. However, it seems to me that much of the discussion has been marked by confusion and misunderstanding. Many reactions appear to be responding more to headlines and assumptions than to the actual text of the amendment and the issues it seeks to address. In this post, I am not primarily interested in arguing for or against the Truth and Unity Amendment. Rather, I would simply like to offer a few observations that may help clarify what the amendment is, what it is not, and why some of the most common criticisms may not fully capture the nature of the debate.

First, it must be understood that the Truth and Unity Amendment has not actually been ratified. According to the SBC Constitution, amendments to the Convention’s governing documents must be approved by two consecutive annual meetings before they become part of the Constitution. Last week’s vote in Orlando therefore represents only the first step in a two-year process. While the amendment received strong support from the messengers, it must still receive the required two-thirds approval at next year’s annual meeting in Indianapolis before it can be officially adopted. Until that happens, the amendment remains a proposal rather than a constitutional provision. This distinction is important because much of the public discussion has proceeded as though the matter has already been settled. Several headlines and social media posts have suggested that the Southern Baptist Convention has formally enacted a new constitutional ban on women pastors or women in ministry. Procedurally speaking, however, that is simply not the case. The Convention has expressed its desire to move in that direction, but the constitutional process is not yet complete. There remains another year of discussion, debate, and deliberation before a final decision is reached. Whatever one’s position on the amendment, it is important that our discussions begin with an accurate understanding of where the process currently stands.

Secondly, many headlines and social media reactions seem to proceed as though the Southern Baptist Convention has never had a position on women serving as pastors. However, this simply is not the case. The Baptist Faith and Message 2000, which serves as the Convention’s official statement of faith, already affirms that the office of pastor is limited to qualified men. Article VI states, in part, “While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor/elder/overseer is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.” Nor is this a position that suddenly emerged in the year 2000. Rather, it reflects the historic understanding of Southern Baptists for the vast majority of the Convention’s existence. For this reason, the “Truth and Unity Amendment” is not attempting to create a new doctrine or introduce a novel theological position. The SBC has already spoken clearly on the question of the pastoral office. Instead, the amendment seeks to address a different issue altogether: how the Convention’s existing confession should be applied in questions of friendly cooperation. Put differently, the debate is not whether the SBC possesses a complementarian confession, but whether churches that affirm women in pastoral functions should be regarded as being in friendly cooperation with a convention whose official statement of faith limits the pastoral office to qualified men. The amendment is therefore best understood as an attempt to clarify constitutional standards rather than to establish new theological ones.

A third misunderstanding claims that “the SBC is trying to control local churches.” However, this reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of Baptist polity. One of the defining convictions of Southern Baptists is the autonomy of the local church. In other words, every local congregation is free to govern its own affairs under the lordship of Christ and the authority of Scripture. The Southern Baptist Convention possesses no ecclesiastical hierarchy. It cannot appoint or remove pastors, dictate church policies, or seize church property. Regardless of a church’s relationship with the SBC, it remains entirely free to call its own pastors and order its ministry according to its own convictions. For this reason, the Truth and Unity Amendment cannot actually force a church to do anything. A church that wishes to appoint a woman as a pastor remains free to do so. The question at stake is not church governance but denominational cooperation. Here it is important to distinguish between autonomy and cooperation. Just as a local church is free to determine its own practices, so also the Convention is free to determine the parameters of its cooperative fellowship. A church may choose a particular course of action, but the SBC may likewise determine whether that action is compatible with its understanding of friendly cooperation. The amendment, therefore, concerns denominational boundaries rather than denominational control. It seeks to answer the question, “What kinds of churches should cooperate together?” rather than “How should local churches govern themselves?”

Of course, another important clarification concerns women and their roles in the life of the church. As I noted above, several headlines and social media reactions have suggested that the Truth and Unity Amendment amounts to a formal ban on women in ministry. However, this is simply not what the amendment addresses. Southern Baptists have long affirmed that women play vital and indispensable roles in the work of the church. Women serve as missionaries, Sunday school teachers, women’s ministry leaders, counselors, and in countless other capacities. Indeed, the Baptist Faith and Message explicitly states that both men and women are gifted for service in the church. The specific question addressed by the amendment concerns the office of pastor/elder/overseer. The Baptist Faith and Message recognizes two church offices, that of pastor/elder/overseer and that of deacon, and it affirms that the office of pastor is limited to qualified men. This conviction is rooted in passages such as 1 Timothy 2.12 and 1 Timothy 3.1–7 among others, as Southern Baptists have historically understood them. While churches often use titles and ministry descriptions in different ways, the amendment seeks to clarify how the Convention understands the office and functions of a pastor in relation to friendly cooperation. The question, therefore, is not whether women can minister in the church, but whether certain pastoral functions are compatible with the SBC’s understanding of the pastoral office.

Lastly, several critics of the Truth and Unity Amendment have suggested that the amendment represents a distraction from more pressing concerns, particularly the issue of sexual abuse within churches. Some have even argued that Southern Baptists should not devote time and energy to questions of ecclesiology while such serious problems remain unresolved. To be clear, sexual abuse is a genuine evil, and victims deserve protection, justice, accountability, and compassionate care. These concerns should never be minimized, ignored, or treated as secondary matters. Churches and denominational leaders must continue to take them seriously. At the same time, it is important to recognize that these issues are not necessarily in competition with one another. The Southern Baptist Convention already possesses constitutional provisions addressing churches that facilitate abuse or protect abusers, and ongoing efforts to improve accountability should continue. However, the existence of one important issue does not automatically render every other issue unimportant. The Truth and Unity Amendment addresses a different question altogether, namely the Convention’s understanding of the pastoral office and the requirements for friendly cooperation. One may agree or disagree with the amendment itself, but it is not necessary to choose between addressing sexual abuse and discussing ecclesiology. A denomination is capable of addressing multiple concerns at the same time. The real question, therefore, is not whether sexual abuse matters more than ecclesiology, but whether Southern Baptists can pursue faithfulness in both areas simultaneously. I believe the answer to that question is yes.

In conclusion, whatever one’s position on the Truth and Unity Amendment may be, the discussion surrounding it will be far more productive if it is grounded in clarity rather than assumption. As we have seen, much of the public conversation has focused on claims that the amendment has already been ratified, that it establishes a new doctrinal position, that it threatens local church autonomy, that it bans women from ministry altogether, or that it somehow prevents Southern Baptists from addressing other important concerns. Yet none of these claims fully captures what the amendment is actually attempting to accomplish. Christians should strive to understand an issue before reacting to it, especially when that issue touches matters of theology, ecclesiology, and cooperation among churches. Careful reading, charitable engagement, and theological seriousness are always preferable to slogans, headlines, and social media outrage. Before we can decide whether the Truth and Unity Amendment is wise, unwise, necessary, or unnecessary, we must first understand what it actually says and what it is attempting to accomplish. Clarity should always precede controversy.

For further reflection on these issues, see:
On the Spiritual Gift of Pastoral Ministry
On Pastoral Ministry and Job Titles

Leave a comment   |  tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | posted in Ecclesiology, Ministry, Practical Theology

11/19/2025

On the Beauty of the Church’s Worship

By Phillip Powers

Several months ago, Matthew Barrett, then a professor at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, announced that he was leaving the SBC to become Anglican. Shortly thereafter, he took a position as Research Professor of Theology at Trinity Anglican Seminary, and he and his family joined St. Aidan’s Anglican Church in Kansas City. He detailed his reasons for making this change in an article on his blog/newsletter, Anselm House. Basically, he suggests that the SBC “officially rejected” Nicene orthodoxy, that the SBC values image over external (read episcopal) authority, and that the “baptist” hermeneutic is ultimately individualistic in its rejection of infant baptism. Though I find these criticisms to be greatly flawed and wholly inaccurate as representations of Baptist theology and ecclesiology, it is not my purpose to respond to them here. This has already been done by several others who are more capable than me. (For example, see Denny Burke’s response here.)

Rather, I would like to respond to another component of Barrett’s argument for Anglicanism, that being the beauty and and antiquity of its liturgy. After giving a rather glowing description of the elements and order of an Anglican worship service, including pictures, he goes on to write, “What a comfort to tell our kids, “The way we are worshipping is how Christians have worshipped across history. It’s really, really old. You are participating in the church universal.”” Now, let me just say that I have no small appreciation for high church liturgy. I have previously written on the use and value of the lectionary, the Christian calendar, and church tradition. I think there is much that modern churches, with their consumeristic performance based, emotion driven worship services, could learn from these practices. However, to say that “Anglicanism is the most beautiful representation of classical Christianity” is surely to place preferences of form over matters of substance.

The fact of the matter is that the early church’s worship was simple; it revolved around Word and Table, fellowship and prayer. As we read in Acts 2.42,  “They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching, to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread, and to prayer.” Beyond this, we simply do not know what worship services in the early church consisted of. We have scattered liturgical details and other descriptions throughout the New Testament, but we do not have an official liturgy for the early church. Did they sing psalms? Probably. Did they read the Scriptures? Definitely. Did they pray together? Likely. Did they observe the ordinances of baptism an the Lord’s Supper? Clearly. Did they recite early kinds of creedal statements? Possibly. Of course, as the church grew, more formal liturgies were understandably developed, especially in the second and third centuries, and by the fourth century, there seems to have been a common or shared understanding of what the worship of the church should include and how it should progress. But, contrary to Dr. Barrett’s claim above, there is simply no proof that the Anglican liturgy is “how Christians have worshipped across history.” No doubt there are many similarities, but there is likely just as many differences that vary across place and time.

However, the more basic point that needs to be underscored here, I believe, is that the church’s worship, no matter what form or style it is expressed in, is beautiful. When God’s people gather together to sing His praise, to hear from His Word, to intercede in prayer for one another, to commemorate the Gospel is baptism and eucharist, there is simply nothing that is more beautiful, nothing more majestic, nothing more glorious. The voices of the saints singing and praying and confessing and expositing the great works of God in Christ as one gathered and united body in the Spirit is the most beautiful thing in this world. Of course, as I noted above, this beauty has sadly been lost in many churches today; we have turned the church’s worship into a show. We have exchanged beauty for spectacle, truth for emotion, participation for entertainment, and this is especially so in churches that do not come stand in the line of high church traditions. But, the point is that it is narrow minded and arrogant to suggest that one particular form or tradition of worship is the most beautiful, the most ancient, the most formation to the exclusion of all others.

In the Book of Revelation, John writes, “After this I looked, and there was a vast multitude from every nation, tribe, people, and language, which no one could number, standing before the throne and before the Lamb” (Revelation 7.9). This vision of the diversified and redeemed people of God standing before the heavenly throne praising God should help us to understand the beauty of the church’s worship. We do not all sing with one voice, we do not all worship in the same way. Every tradition, every culture, every community has its own way of worshiping God, and this is beautiful. The glory of God in Christ cannot be wholly encapsulated in just one worship tradition, but wherever there are genuine believers who are gathered together to worship God in Spirit an truth, this is beautiful. Every church has its own liturgy, whether it be formal or informal, but when we prioritize the form of our worship over the object of our worship, then we have missed the mark. Christ is the focus of our worship, there is no way that we could ever find enough ways to magnify and exult in His glory.

Leave a comment   |  tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | posted in Church History, Ministry, Worship & Liturgy

06/27/2023

On the Strength and Triumph of the Church

By Phillip Powers

TEXT

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

Leave a comment   |  tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | posted in Bible Exposition, Ecclesiology, Ministry, Sermons

06/13/2023

On Pastoral Ministry and Job Titles

By Phillip Powers

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.

1 Comment   |  tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | posted in Biblical Theology, Ecclesiology, Ministry, Practical Theology

06/05/2023

On the Spiritual Gift of Pastoral Ministry

By Phillip Powers

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.

This article is also posted at SBCvoices, here.

1 Comment   |  tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | posted in Biblical Theology, Ecclesiology, Ministry, Practical Theology

03/14/2023

On a Vision for Cooperative Preaching Ministry

By Phillip Powers

A well known seminary president recently tweeted, “Any consideration of Christian preaching must begin with the realization that preaching is essentially an act of worship—the central act of Christian worship.” Putting the possible overstatement aside, the preached word has been a staple of the church’s theological, doxological, and ethical life together since its very inception. Even today, in most churches, preaching occupies the primary place of emphasis and importance in the weekly worship gathering. However, more often than not, the priority of preaching in today’s churches has to do with the charisma and polish of the preacher rather than the authority of God’s Word. We have created a celebrity culture that platforms the personality of the most proficient speakers among us, so that the local church’s experience of the word of God revolves around the insight and understanding of one man.

However, if we believe that a plurality model is the most biblically consistent model for pastoral leadership in the church, then it necessarily follows that we should apply that model to the ministry of preaching as well. In other words, if the responsibilities and burdens of pastoral ministry are best shared among a band of brothers who are equal in position and authority, then the responsibility and burden of the word of God should be shared also. In the paragraphs that follow, I would like to highlight three ways in which a cooperative approach to preaching can benefit the local church, and then I would like to sketch briefly what this approach might look like practically.

The first way that this approach benefits the local church is that it nourishes the primary preaching pastor(s) by helping him to keep his spiritual tank full and avoid burnout. Week after week, the teaching pastor is responsible for feeding the flock; he is locked away in his study preparing lessons and bible studies and sermons. He is expected to give and give and give of himself, and when this continues without any respite, eventually his spiritual fuel tank will hit zero. Of course, most teaching pastors are glad to do this, but the question remains: who feeds the pastors? Shouldn’t the teaching pastor also be able to find spiritual nourishment within the local body of Christ as God intended, or must he resort to online preaching from pastors he admires but doesn’t know personally? A cooperative approach to teaching in the local church helps us to care for and sustain every part of our body, especially the pastors and teachers who faithfully sustain us. 

A second way this approach benefits the local church is that it provides the flock with a diversified diet of spiritual truth. Of course, God’s truth is absolute and unchanging, but it comes to us in vessels that are finite, broken, incomplete. No one has an exhaustive and complete understanding of everything in the Bible. No matter how much they might prepare and study, on this side of glory, their understanding of its truths will always be incomplete. Moreover, every minister of God’s Word comes to the text with different backgrounds, different experiences, different perspectives, and this is a good thing, because, as the Scriptures remind us, “iron sharpens iron” (Proverbs 27.17). There is nothing wrong with one pastor or elder holding the primary teaching responsibility, but it is good and healthy for the congregation to hear from other faithful voices from time to time. In this way, the congregation cultivates a complementary and more holistic understanding of the truth.

And lastly, the third way that a cooperative approach to pulpit ministry benefits the local church is that it accomplishes our commission. The Great Commission is to make disciples, and part of making disciples, as the Apostle Paul instructed Timothy in Second Timothy, chapter 2, verse 2, is committing to faithful men what we have heard who will then be able to teach others also. Local churches are called to train up the next generation of leaders, faithful men who can step into the pulpit and teach the Word of God faithfully. As pastors and elders, we must look forward to our succession. Who have we invested in that will be able to take up the baton of God’s Word when we are gone? A collaborative approach to teaching allows us to train and prepare faithful men, to give them the opportunity to stand before their spiritual family and teach the Word of God in the safety of a community that loves and supports them. 

In an ideal plurality situation, the primary preaching pastor should preach between 35 and 40 sermons annually; mathematically, this would come out to about three sermons per month. The remaining 15 or so can be equally shared among the other members of the elder team. However, a cooperative approach to the ministry of preaching goes beyond the allocation of Sundays. It should include discussion and planning of the direction for not only the series overall but of individual texts, and it should also include the opportunity for evaluation and feedback. Of course, this approach does not remove the individual pastor’s responsibility for textual work; every minister of the word must commit themselves to hard work of plumbing its depths. But it does mean that we are not alone in the process. As plurality of brothers, we come alongside each other in the ministry of the Word, so that we all can attain unto “maturity with a stature measured by Christ’s fullness.” (Ephesians 4.13)

This article is also posted at SBCvoices, here.

Leave a comment   |  tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | posted in Ministry, Practical Theology, Worship & Liturgy

01/06/2023

On the Annual Celebration of Christmas and Easter

By Phillip Powers

When it comes to a church’s life together, there are two pillars around which the rest of the annual calendar swings, i.e. Christmas and Easter. These are the high points in the church’s worship every year. Many churches still commemorate these holidays with special programs, musical and dramatic presentations of the Biblical story, and a focus on inviting the community in for high attendance, after all these are the only days that the CEOs come to church anyway (Christmas and Easter Onlys). It is clear that these holidays hold a special place in the devotion of most Christians. They focus our reflection on the primary movements of the story of redemption, how God the Son came to earth incarnate as a baby in a manger and how he died on the cross for sin and rose again some thirty years later. Even though they are mostly overcome by the cultural consumerism that so obviously characterizes our society these days, they are still a meaningful season in the worship of the church.

However, the question remains, “why do we celebrate these annual holidays anyway?” After all, there is no explicit command in the Scriptures to commemorate the nativity and/or the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ annually by a special holiday. In the New Testament, the church’s worship moved away from the annual calendar marked by special holidays and feasts that characterized the worship of the Jews in the Old Testament, and they moved to a weekly calendar marked by the gathering of the saints on the Lord’s Day for the preaching of the Word and the breaking of bread. Further, the Regulative Principle for Worship (RPW) states that only those elements that are clearly prescribed in the Scriptures should be included in the church’s worship. A strict application of this principle would mean that since Christmas and Easter are not explicitly prescribed by the New Testament, then we are in error when we make them a primary emphasis or central component in our devotion and worship, whether corporately or individually.

We do know that the church began to celebrate these holidays fairly early on in her existence. Within a century or so of the life and death of Jesus and His first followers, the church began to include these annual feasts as a regular part of the worship calendar. Of course, critics often suggest that these festivals were borrowed and adapted from the pagan world; however, these criticisms tend to fall apart quickly under close historical scrutiny. After examining the evidence, one author recently concluded that “no modern Christmas [or Easter] tradition can draw a straight line to any clear and decisive pagan origin.” While there has certainly been growth over the centuries in the lore and cultural traditions that surround these holidays, none of this is original and/or essential to the Christian celebration of them. Rather, it is evident that Christians recognized very early on in their history how important it was to commemorate the two decisive moments in redemptive history, namely the birth and death/resurrection of the one who is called Christ.

Of course, tradition alone is not a sufficient enough reason to justify the continued celebration of Christmas and Easter, but neither is it a sufficient reason for discontinuing the observance of them either. All traditions are not bad; in fact, some are quite helpful in the formation of our faith and practice. I have previously written on the question of tradition here, but suffice it to say that there is great wisdom in learning from the faith and practice of our Christian forebears, both from what they did well and from what they did not do well. So, perhaps the proper question should not be whether the celebration of Christmas and Easter is right or wrong, but whether it is wise and good. Does the annual observance of these holidays have spiritual value for the growth of the followers of Jesus in conformity to His image? And if this is the question, then we must answer in the affirmative. The fact of the matter is that we are a people who are quick to forget, quick to move on, quick to believe that we have outgrown our need for the Gospel. But there is nothing more foundational, nothing more crucial, for our formation in Christlikeness than to be reminded regularly of exactly what Christ has done on our behalf.

His incarnation and resurrection are the primary aspects of His redemptive work; they tell the story of how God the Son came to earth as a child, lived a sinless life, died on the cross for sin, and then rose again. In fact, the Apostle Paul instructs us in Second Timothy, chapter 2, verse 8, “Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead and descended from David, according to my gospel.” Or again, in the Letter to the Romans, that Jesus Christ “was a descendant of David according to the flesh and was appointed to be the powerful Son of God according to the Spirit of holiness by the resurrection of the dead.” Throughout the New Testament, these movements – the incarnation and the resurrection – are the hinge pins upon which the Gospel swings. And as followers of Jesus, we take great joy in celebrating these glorious acts of redemption each and every year, because it reminds us of the beautiful salvation that we have in Christ. It reminds us who we are, and it reminds us of why we are here. The church is a body of believers whose existence and purpose are defined by the redemptive work of God in Christ. Therefore, it is right and good that we celebrate these movements of God’s grace, not only every week, but as a matter of purposeful reflection every year on Christmas and Easter.

This, however, would seem to be the challenge in our modern culture, focusing our worship on Christ during these holidays and not becoming distracted by the cultural baggage that is so obviously associated with them. Just last month, I was chided vociferously on social media for suggesting that Santa Claus is neither necessary nor useful in the Christian enjoyment of the Christmas holiday. It would seem that in this particular cultural milieu Christians will need to be purposeful and strategic in how they celebrate going forward. We must make it clear that Christmas and Easter are about Christ and Christ alone, and if that means dispensing with some of the traditional festivities that have become associated with these holidays, then so be it. The celebration of Christmas and Easter should be a time when those who follow Jesus can celebrate anew the wonder and glory of what Christ has done for us in the Gospel. May we never grow tired of celebrating this timeless story each and every year.

This article is also posted at SBCvoices, here.

1 Comment   |  tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | posted in Ministry, Practical Theology, Worship & Liturgy

09/15/2022

On the Theological Bogeyman of Calvinism

By Phillip Powers

A few days ago, I posted a quote on my social media feed from the reformer John Calvin. Now, the quote in question said nothing about the doctrines or concepts that are usually associated with that name; actually, it had to with the usefulness of catechism in the transmission of the faith to the next generation. However, within a short amount of time, a recent acquaintance of mine messaged me with concern that if churches saw me posting quotes from this particular figure, then they would not ask me to preach. I am sure his concern was well intended, but since moving back to the Bible Belt five years ago, I have been constantly perplexed by the reactions that Calvin and his teaching seems to provoke.

On another occasion a few years ago, I was interviewing with a church in another state. They had received my resume from a state convention, and so they reached out to set up a virtual interview. After logging on, we exchanged pleasantries and said a word of prayer, but before asking me for my testimony or personal background, the first question they asked right out of the gate was “What do you believe about Calvinism?” Examples like this could be multiplied, but the fact remains that the slightest scent of affinity for John Calvin or for the doctrines known as “Calvinism” often provokes a visceral reaction in most churches in this area. There is a ubiquitous disdain for these concepts, especially in the more rural churches, and to be quite honest, it boggles my mind.

Reasonable disagreement on the question of God’s sovereignty and man’s ability when it comes to our salvation is understandable; this is a debate that has ebbed and flowed for the entire history of the church, but this kind of revulsion is simply beyond the pale. And so, in the space that remains, I would like to suggest four possible reasons for why rural Bible Belt Christians are so put off by so-called “Calvinism”.

First, there seems to be widespread misunderstanding when it comes what so-called “Calvinists” actually believe. Because of this, those beliefs are regularly mischaracterized and misrepresented in ways that no reasonable student of Reformed theology would ever agree with. Accusations that “Calvinists” do not believe in evangelism or that “Calvinism” makes God the author of sin are such tired critiques that they almost need no response. Answers to these questions and many more are readily available from reputable and godly scholars in both printed and electronic forms, but it is easier to label and dismiss someone’s beliefs than to listen and engage the merits of those beliefs. Whether you agree with the concepts or not, if you cannot explain those concepts in ways that their adherents would agree with, then you probably shouldn’t be critiquing them to begin with. As I have suggested in another post, this is how we show grace to those with whom we disagree.

Another reason why Bible Belt Christians harbor such vehement resentment for so-called “Calvinism” is that many rural churches have been hurt by pastors who held these beliefs in an unhealthy, unchristian manor. Time and time again, I have heard stories about how “Calvinism split our church”, and this absolutely saddens my soul. However, I would suggest that the essential cause of the pain had more to do with the character of the pastor in question and less to do with the theological concepts that he espoused. In most cases, “Calvinism” is simply a symptom of the problem, not the root cause. Pastors are called to the highest standards of Christlikeness, and a consistent attitude of combativeness or divisiveness driven by the nagging need to always be right should be a direct and immediate disqualification from pastoral ministry. The glaring absence of Christlikeness coupled with biased preaching that beats its preferred theological hobby horse every week, regardless of what it may be, is a recipe for heartache every time.

A third possible reason for the emotional overreaction to “Calvinism” in the Bible Belt might be linked to the lasting influence of Revivalism in this area. The theological example of men like Billy Graham and Adrian Rogers casts a long shadow over those who were directly influenced by their ministries. These were faithful, godly men whose proclamation of the Gospel led many to faith in Christ. For these Christians, the lasting memories of multi-night revivals with altars filled with throngs of people coming to faith in Christ represent the good ole’ days of the church. Even to this day, there is a deeply felt and inherent longing in many churches to experience those highs once again, and the assumption is that if we just preach the way that they preached, believe the way that they believed, program the way that they programmed, then we can reproduce the same results. Unfortunately, the culture has changed significantly since the heyday of these ministries, and the methods that worked then are unlikely to work in the same way now. However, as they did so well, so also must we proclaim the Gospel boldly and invite people to repent and believe, whatever that may look like.

Lastly, I think a final and more fundamental reason for the vitriolic reaction to so-called “Calvinism” has do with the conflict between the sovereignty of God and the ability of man. Again, my purpose is not answer that age old question, but simply to point out that the exaltation of God’s sovereignty, which is a basic principle in Reformed theology, is a direct affront to our own innate sinful desire to exalt ourselves. The suggestion that there is nothing that I can do to save myself or to turn myself toward God and away from sin apart from His gracious intervention is an insult to my own prideful sense of self. No one wants to admit that they are so deeply corrupted and enslaved to their own sin that they cannot lift themselves up by their own volitional, moral and spiritual effort. Except this is exactly what the Gospel teaches us. Whether we hold to the theology of so-called “Calvinism” or not, we must admit that we cannot, nay will not, save ourselves, even if we were given the opportunity. We are completely and totally dependent upon God to save us from sin and from ourselves, and this He did by sending His Son to die on the cross and rise again. This is what all Christians must believe.

In the final analysis, whether a person agrees or disagrees with John Calvin and his theology is not the point. We must be willing to listen to and learn from one another “as iron sharpens iron”; we must learn to discuss our differences with grace and understanding. And if we must disagree, then may the content of our disagreement be concerned with the Scriptures and with what they teach us about God and mankind, about sin and salvation, because these are the questions that matter in eternity. As our Lord Jesus said, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!” (Mark 1.15)

Leave a comment   |  tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | posted in Church History, Ministry

09/01/2022

On Unrealistic Expectations in Pastoral Ministry

By Phillip Powers

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 have given 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.

This article is also posted at SBCVoices, here.

Leave a comment   |  tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | posted in Ecclesiology, Ministry, Practical Theology

Tim Challies

Slow To Write

"let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger."

lovegavehope

Just another WordPress.com site

Jared Cornutt

Pastor | Speaker | Writer

Denny Burk

A commentary on theology, politics, and culture

G3 Ministries

Events + Resources for the Local Church

Biblical Reasoning

Biblical and Systematic Theology According to the Scriptures

RetroChristianity

Reclaiming the Forgotten Faith

SBC Voices

Southern Baptist News & Opinion

Lucid Theology

Thoughts on words, books, theology, and life.

Baptist21

A pastor-led voice for Baptists in the 21st century

Center For Baptist Renewal

The Personal and Professional Blog of Phillip Powers

The Pastor's Well - Pastor Well

The Personal and Professional Blog of Phillip Powers

Welcome

Articles - AlbertMohler.com

The Personal and Professional Blog of Phillip Powers

The Gospel Coalition

The Personal and Professional Blog of Phillip Powers