Comments on: Styrofoam Theology: Part 2- Some History

By: T

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 18:08:28 +0000

John,
Sorry I’m late to the conversation, I’m picking up second-hand from Scot & Jamie. First, let me say I always enjoy hearing your voice at Jesus Creed. I hope to meet in person someday. The preface to the book Scot recommended “Learner-Centered Teaching” says a lot of what I’ll try to say here, which you can read at Amazon.
I’m not anti-pastor. On the contrary, I don’t see how we’d want to do anything but multiply the pastoral folks in a community as soon as possible, sharing the load of that important work, based on the criteria posed in Titus and Timothy, and the example and value of multiplication that are thematic in the NT.
And the “just ain’t there” point for decision-making overstates the case. The whole community in Acts was involved in working out the decisions that defined them as the people of God, and the apostles (plural) seemed to expect and welcome this (“choose from among yourselves . . .”). This happens on multiple occasions in Acts over major issues (entire community involvement) and does not appear to be unwelcome to the apostles. I don’t care if we call the give-and-take in Acts hierarchical or egalitarian or what-have you, but I don’t think they just mirrored the world around them, nor do I often see that dynamic in today’s churches. It seems like in Acts, most folks in the community (apostles and otherwise) felt responsible for the group as a whole, whether financially or theologically. We’ve lost that dynamic, that sense of shared responsibility for community action. It’s been delegated to the few or just one per congregation. Contrary to Jesus’ advice, we often call make the head pastor into the “father”, “teacher”, etc. in the very sense, I suspect, that Jesus said not to, with the undesirable results for the pastor and congregation. If we want to develop maturity and shared responsibility for the community, then we must share decision-making; if we want to promote the opposite, we just have to do the opposite, which is what we tend to do. Pastors who are parents of grown children know this, but few apply it to congregations and then they wonder why so few folks are excited about all the great stuff that they have planned for them, but not with them. Churches in the West tend to treat congregations like children whether they are or not.
And where did all the plurality of teachers go? The Jerusalem church devoted itself to the apostleS teaching, and that’s not even counting Jesus’ brother James and others who likely did some teaching as well. And how is Timothy going to appoint elders who are “able to teach” if Timothy is the only one ever teaching? Paul has to tell Corinth to not favor one teacher over another and to limit the prophetic messages to 3 per gathering! And he’s upset that he has to go over the basics because by now, they ought to be teaching others. Honestly, do we lack the plurality of teachers in churches because we have exhausted the qualified and gifted people for this important work or for less acceptable reasons, reasons that are contrary to our mission? I don’t think there’s any doubt that it is the latter in the vast majority of churches.
Again, I’m not anti-pastor, I just wish we’d shift to either a missionary mentality or even a parental one (both want to develop maturity and turn over responsibility as soon as its safe to do so). We’re too prone to hero worship and spiritual delegation to keep the work so centralized. The issue for me is developing maturity in people and multiplying ministry. We’re terrible at both of those in the West and I don’t see how that changes without our typical, modern, working definition of “pastor” changing.
I hope that even if you don’t agree with the idea of multiple pastors per congregation, that you think better of the discernment of those who do. At any rate, thanks for raising the issue.

By: Of Pastors, Priesthood & Power « A Living Alternative Our Missional Pilgrimage

Sat, 17 Oct 2009 03:27:14 +0000

[...] around the topic of pastors, leadership and the priesthood of all believers (so far with Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 & Part 4). John, himself a pastor, is down-right angry with some of the talk he has [...]

By: John

John — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 19:41:02 +0000

Lew (#10),
I agree with you.

By: Lew A

Lew A — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 18:44:30 +0000

John,

“poimen” doesn’t mean “servant” or “servant-leader” or “leader”. It literally means “shepherd”. What I was saying is that the term “pastor” or “shepherd” is defined by a servant attitude (among other things). In other words, when the organic church looks at the description given to those who are called to be shepherds they see the NT describing them as servants – I do not find this very often in the modern day church institutions.

God Speed,
Lew

By: John W Frye

John W Frye — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 13:23:13 +0000

Wes (#5),
Maybe some churches are pastorless in China, but not all…and you know that. “Spiritual kings” tips your hand that you have domineering, lording-it-over-type pastors in mind. I despise the OT phrase “touch not the LORD’s anointed” being applied to pastors. Pastors never have been kings and if they think they are, they are wrong. That is very far from the kind of pastor(s) I am writing about.

By: John W Frye

John W Frye — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 13:17:44 +0000

Lew (#4),
I know that not all organic church models seek to erase the pastor, but there is a segment that does. That is the contingent I have in mind. I don’t think pastor is equivalent to servant in a strict sense. Pastor is *poimen* in Greek and servant is *doulos.* If pastors are servants, the NT writers had access to that specific term. And, I do not mean that pastors should not be “servant-leaders” or should not serve in the spirit of a *doulos.*

By: John W Frye

John W Frye — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 12:31:18 +0000

Alan (#2),
So we are left with the interpretive/historical dilemma–are bishops and deacons appointed/installed with multiple leaders over one house church or one for each house church, so that a plurality of leaders are installed in each city?

I know that there is a huge discussion even within organic churches about the 5-fold gifting of Eph. 4:11, that is, the ideal multiple team in any church (or group) is apostle, evangelist, prophet, pastor and teacher. I am no convinced of this because other NT letters do not describe that scheme for each community of faith.

I am glad you’re not in favor of a “thorough-going American egalitarian, democratic, consensual decision-making polity.”

By: Tweets that mention jesus the radical pastor | exploring the life and mission of the 1st century Jesus for our 21st century » Blog Archive » Styrofoam Theology: Part 2 Some History -- Topsy.com

Wed, 14 Oct 2009 02:28:56 +0000

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Apostle Gammage and Robert Hartzell, Larry Vern Newman. Larry Vern Newman said: jesus the radical pastor | exploring the life and mission of the …: Any critique of their priesthood-of-all-b.. http://bit.ly/47LALz [...]

By: Wes

Wes — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 19:39:01 +0000

Great answers Alan and Lew!

I would only add that the organic church movement is not wholly an American phenonemon. The majority of the movement is actually overseas, especially in restricted countries such as China. I’ve spoken with many IMB missionaries who also admit that the organic church model is what they are taught (and have found to be extremely effective) to plant when they are sent to an area to evangelize.

I’d like to know why something that is good enough for missionaries is not good enough for everyone?

Why, outside of a desire for spiritual kings, do we think it is natural to build earthly kingdoms/organizations we mistakenly label “church”?

By: Lew A

Lew A — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 18:56:16 +0000

Hi John,

I’ve read this and your previous post about styrofoam theology. I do not think your understanding of the “organic church” movement is accurate. I do not know anyone who is holding to a more organic theology who also thinks we should get rid of pastors. Everyone I know who is part of an organic church is very concerned about what the Bible teaches and it does not teach. Although the word “pastor” is not a term they define in the modern sense, they do see it as a biblical word… one that more closely resembles its biblical meaning – servant.

The organic church is not trying to erase pastors, at the very most they are trying to biblically define pastors. This is not a bad thing.

Perhaps some do not have a biblical understanding of pastors and are therefore trying to erase them. But the few should not define the whole.

God Speed,
Lew