I think you definitely are right in the blame being on both sides. I do want to clarify, if I haven’t already, that in these posts, I am not trying to put all the blame on the position of pastor/preacher. Granted, I’m picking on it quite a bit, but it’s just one element in the mix.

The thing Raborn was trying to point out is what I’ve been trying to articulate, too. There is an element to which the way we play out the pastor/preacher model encourages this kind of immaturity. It may not be the sole cause of it (I agree with you that it isn’t), but it doesn’t seem to help!

The aspect of physically arranging our church sanctuaries to put the preacher at the center and elevated sends a subconscious signal, not that the Word is central, but that the man is central.

The fact that our services are dominated by the monologue-style sermon sends a signal that this is the most important part of the Christian worship gathering. Note that I’m not complaining that the Word itself is central, or that teaching in general is central, but that the manner in which it is presented (lecture format) is central.

Finally, I have to keep coming back to the instructions in 1 Corinthians 14. Teaching was to be weighed by others. In context, it was weighed publicly and on the spot. This does not happen in our current model, and in fact, would not even be accepted if it were. No one in the so-called laity would even dare stand up and say, “What you just spoke is incorrect.” So the model sends a signal to the “laity” that the speaker is authoritative, not the message. This is a crucial distinction.

Having said all that, I still don’t think we’re far apart at all. I’m not seeking to tear down anything (except maybe a few vain traditions), but to see a greater fulfillment of the gifts that have been given to us by the Holy Spirit for our maturity.

I do agree with you on the elder/mentor thing, because that is clearly biblical, in my opinion. This whole discussion really has to do with a particular aspect of that, namely the monologue-style lecture that is considered of prime importance, and is very, very rarely negotiable (except in the rare case of a guest minister, in which case, they usually do their own lecture). It’s that very narrow thing that I’m talking about.

The new post is up for your further attack…uhhh, I mean, discussion!

steve

I think, (and this might just be my defense mechanism kicking in here) that the way the role of pastor is currently being exercised may not be the primary cause of the lack of this.

The first three chapters of Revelation come to mind here. The warnings of the seven churches of Asia were addressed to the “angels” or “messengers” of those churches, yet the meaning of the warning was for all.

I believe that what we are seeing is the “luke-warming effect” of a decline of spiritual passion. This is why the church is largely ineffective in both evangelism and discipleship. You have Christians who have their focus on the world, loving pleasure more than God, not enduring sound doctrine, satisfied with the milk and not the meat, etc. On the other hand, the church has infused so many worldly and man-centered techniques into its function that it has ceased to operate in the power of the Holy Spirit, thus producing the “institutional church” to which you referred earlier. The pastors probably are the most culpable in this side of the equation.

I have been doing some thinking and theorizing on how the modern model of the American/British church developed. I want to do some more research before I speak to it, though.

On a sidenote, my verification code is: ibryt (I be right) lol, I couldn’t pass that one up!

I would really like to see you interact with the two passages I referenced in the post (Hebrews and 1 John). Raborn went back to the 1 John passage, but to date, I haven’t seen you really address those particular comments.

The reason I am pointing out those verses is because I think what you are proposing is a strengthening of one particular component of discipleship. What I am proposing is a strengthening of the entire process.

Let me explain: The Ephesians passage that you brought up references the roles of certain gifts that are designed for the building up of the body. The question is, building up for what? For doing. It is this doing of the work of the ministry that is not happening in our churches.

I started to write more, but it’s so lengthy, I’m going to turn it into a post. Check in a few minutes, if it’s not there yet.

steve

Now perhaps that doesn’t have to always be monolithic teaching. But I certainly think that it does factor into it.

A big difference between the days of the early church and our day is that we have the complete canon of Scripture. (Don’t worry Steve, I’m not going to open that one up right now). In that day, God often spoke directly to believers. I believe in our day God speaks through His word.

This makes the interpretation of the word subjective. I often tell our church that where two Baptists are gathered together there will be three opinions. Now this is not to elevate the role of the pastor back to the “elitist” level we discussed earlier, but you need someone who knows their Bible who can assume the role of leadership.

This should never become dictatorial or elitist, however. A pastor should be accountable in all things, particularly in doctrine. Neither does the role of pastor/teacher necessarily have to be confined to one man. I am convinced that the more people a church has who are involved in teaching others, the stronger that church will be.

How do you think the role of pastor/teacher as described in Eph. 4:11-12 applies to our day?

Why are there not more preachers today? I think that what you described is one factor. There certainly are times when an “elitist” attitude arises in the ministry discouraging those who may be called but not “up to standard”.

I believe another factor is materialism. I hate to lay the blame on something as simple as this, but I believe it to be true. Allow me to explain.

When I was growing up, there were several years where I travelled with my dad in full-time evangelism. I can remember, as recently as the 1970′s, it was not unusual to go into even a “small” church and find at least 2 or 3 “preacher boys” who were preparing themselves to serve in the ministry. In larger churches that number was even higher. As years went by I saw the number decreasing. The same demographic that once was heavy with ministerial prospects was now seeking after lucrative careers. Now, if God isn’t calling someone to the ministry, we all know they are a fool if they try, but I can’t help but think that some were following filthy lucre rather than God’s calling. I don’t want to judge, and I would never tell someone that is what they are doing, but I see that as a contributing factor as well.

As far as members reading their Bibles and letting God speak to them, I am not sure that it is necessarily the pastors who are the hindrance here. Indeed, there may be some cases where this is true, but most pastors that I know strongly encourage their people to read the Word. At some point, the people must understand that they are responsible for a portion of their spiritual growth and take the initiative. I think this goes back to what I said to Steve about us returning to our first love. I have found that Christians who are truly in love with Christ have a hunger for the knowledge of the truth and they are not satisfied with just what I serve up from the pulpit, or what they hear in their class.

In my answer to Steve’s fourth question, perhaps I should have defined my answer more clearly. What I meant is, you guys have objections (I believe with some degree of validity) that are focused upon the reality of the way things are.

In the ideal sense, I don’t think the pastor will be a hindrance if he is truly passionate about Christ, sincerely delivering the meat of the Word, and the people are receiving it with a ready mind and willing heart.

I call this idealistic because rarely do you find all three factors in play simultaneously.

I too am thoroughly enjoying this discussion. Good effects of iron on iron happening here. God bless.

As far as I Cor. 12-14. I don’t think Paul was offering a compromise. I think (and I emphasize think) he was giving them advice on how they could better apply the “style” of church they were employing. Some might say that this is a mandate for the way we should do church, they might be right but I am not sure this is direct commandment here as much as it is advice. There are certain underlying principles (which I think we discussed in an earlier post) of orderliness, charity, etc. which are the commands of these chapters. Understand that I am not prepared to fall on my sword over this interpretation. Like you, I am still hashing this out in my mind, but that is the way I am leaning right now.

I think ultimately the problem in Corinth was that their methodology was divorced from their doxology and that was producing errant theology. (How’s that for a three-poing outline?)

Now let me try to answer the four questions you posed.

1. I am not sure the focus of preaching in the church should come down to “one man”. I know that it usually works out that way, and I think that is probably because there are too few preachers and too many churches (but that is another topic). The current institutional church (and I can agree with your definition of that) has created a monster in the pulpit. I don’t know that I can answer your question of what the goal is in having a pastor preach a specified number of services each week. In all honesty, it is probably just a result of the evolution of the church.

2. As far as the church-members relationship with their pastor, I think that the pastor should be a spiritual mentor to the people. One who watches for their soul, a shepherd, the N.T. uses a number of descriptive phrases. What I do NOT think a pastor should become is a chaplain or CEO. Unfortunately, the contemporary models of pastoring are reflecting those characteristics more than they are the biblical pastoral ministry.

3. I think the desired goal of one’s personal study should be for God to reveal His truth to them through the Word, to prepare them to teach others, and ideally should reinforce what they are being taught at church. I routinely tell my congregation that they should never believe something just because I preached it (although I do try to preach the truth). I encourage them to study the Word for themselves and let God plant the seed of truth in their minds.

4. As to your fourth question, I think we are dealing with a matter of idealism vs. realism. I do think your concerns have a measure of validity to them as far as what preaching has largely become. As for what it is intended to be, I believe that it can be an enhancement to growth as opposed to a hindrance.

It is when pastors become dispassionate in their own walk with God and power-hungry, or when congregations place unbiblical expectations on the pastor that the position becomes a hindrance.

I hope these answers are a little clearer than mud.

Ultimately, I believe the solution to all of these problems is for the church to return to their first love, Jesus Christ. I am convinced that when we truly love Him with all of our heart as we are commanded to, the other pieces fall into place much more easily and the outcome is much more in line with what the Bible describes.

God bless.

I don’t knock theological debates (in fact, I usually enjoy them, for the most part), but I do find it interesting that Jesus seemed to spend far more time ministering to people’s needs and preaching the very practical truth of the Kingdom to them than He did debating the spiritual leaders of the day on the finer points of the Law.

In fact, when He did “debate” them (which usually was pretty much just a short answer from Him that sent them scrambling!) it was often because He was doing something that they came and questioned.

I don’t want to run too far with that, but wanted to at least affirm the very appropriate nature of your comment to this topic at hand.

steve

Bear in mind that when I talk about “institutional” church, I am talking about the extra-biblical layers of heirarchy and positions that have been added to the very simple New Testament descriptions. Additionally, I think you would agree that the “authority” vested in church leaders today goes well beyond what Jesus talked about, and what Paul wrote about. We’ve talked about some of those things on this blog already, and I won’t rehash all of them here, but again, I think that you are correct in that you and I are not far apart (if at all) in our observations.

There is one comment you made that I want to press a little bit further on. You are not the first to tell me that we need to be careful looking at the Corinthian church. And it causes me to ask in return a couple of questions:

Do you think that Paul’s instructions in 1 Cor 12-14 are any different than he would have given to other churches? In other words, was Paul striking a compromise with the church in Corinth by saying, “Well, since you all are going real crazy here with your worship services, it’s ok to let multiple people speak. Just keep it orderly.” Or was he, instead, actually giving sound advice valid for any church to receive?

In other words, what are you cautioning against? Like I said, you’re not the first person to make this kind of comment, so I wonder what I’m missing. Make no mistake about it that those of us who draw from 1 Corinthians in our ideas are not attempting to model the church in Corinth as it existed when Paul wrote the letter. Rather, we seek to learn from Paul’s instructions as to what they should be doing.

It seems to me that 1 Corinthians contains the most clear and detailed explanations of what Paul instructed churches in, with regard to practice.

So, again, I’ll throw it back to you. You’ve identified what makes you a little nervous (hehe) about the position Raborn and I are taking, but you haven’t really offered alternative solutions.

Specifically, I’d love to get your thoughts on the following:

1. What is the desired goal of having one man preach weekly (in your case, three times weekly)? (I think it bears mentioning here that ded, Raborn, and I have all been on the other side of the pulpit ourselves. We all have been the ones preaching, so this is a question we have had to ask ourselves individually. It is far from rhetorical for me, at least.)

2. As one grows in their faith and matures in their walk, what should their relationship to that one man (the pastor/preacher/head elder, pick your term!) be?

3. If one is expected to remain under the preaching of one man continually, what is the desired goal of their own study of the Word?

4. Is it at all possible that our observations are valid that the method of preaching within the church actually does hinder maturity in the believer? Note that while I agree wholeheartedly with you that many men preach very milky content, I’m not questioning that per se. I’m suggesting that the practice of preaching, even if solid meat, still gets in the way of growth. And if you do completely disagree with our observations on this particular issue, spell out even more clearly why you believe that it should be the way it is (albeit with great depth of preaching, not shallowness, for the sake of discussion).

I appreciate your interaction, Gordon, as always. Thanks for your patience with me as we talk through these things.

steve