Pastors As Teachers

One observation stands out: never in the New Testament does one find pastors making decisions in behalf of congregations or enforcing decisions upon congregations without their consent. Indeed, Peter explicitly forbids elders from leading by fiat (1 Pet. 5:3). Whatever pastoral leadership means, it does not involve pastoral authority to force churches to act against their will.

Apparently Kevin knows two options: emasculated pastor or dictatorship that Kim Jong-Un would envy. I am curious, does anyone on here actually believe this series is accurate? I have seen those who don’t agree with me question it as well. I haven’t really seen hearty support.

[James K]

Apparently Kevin knows two options: emasculated pastor or dictatorship that Kim Jong-Un would envy. I am curious, does anyone on here actually believe this series is accurate? I have seen those who don’t agree with me question it as well. I haven’t really seen hearty support.

Well, I’ve seen a bit of stone-throwing from those who have expressed opposition to this series, but not much in the way a competing position with support.

In what way do you believe pastors/elders exercise their leadership? (And to be clear, I’m asking for details, not something like “between emasculated and communist dictatorship.”) Let’s say the pastor in what you see as an ideal church believes there needs to be a change to the doctrinal statement in the constitution. Does he just announce it and then it will show up in the document? Or what about changing the way services are done? Again, is this just told to the congregation and then they do it? Does the “whole church” have input into anything in your model? If you are not talking about a dictatorship (or maybe an oligarchy with multiple elders), I’m really interested to know the way you believe pastoral authority functions, if what Kevin is describing comes across to you as “emasculated.”

Dave,

While James and I are not exactly on the same page, we have generally been making the same kinds of observations regarding this series. I think you ask some good questions. I start with the principle level, looking at the language employed in scripture. The title of the pastor, in particular bishop, mean something. As well, the commands given to the pastor and to the congregation, such as rule and obey, mean something. In general, I always approached my relationship to my pastor from the vantage that if he expressed a desire in his pastoral role, I followed his lead unless I had a biblical reason not to. On your specific question, I don’t think the pastor, or elders if you have multiple leaders, can make changes to the doctrinal statement. I think James would disagree with me here, but he can speak for himself. However, I would see order of service as something within the purview of the pastor. Now, that doesn’t ignore the fact that there are wise and foolish ways to in which to lead. Teaching and opening the topic for discussion prior to change is wise, but does not change the ultimate authority of the pastor in the matter. This was actually something I dealt with during my pastoral tenure. When I suggested we alter one Sunday night a month for fellowship, we discussed this as a congregation. It was my desire, but not something I felt strongly about. When I altered the Sunday evening service to include a short lesson for the kids, I introduced and explained it but did not discuss it because I felt more strongly about it. When I made some major changes to the morning order of service, I spent several week preaching on worship first and then tied the changes directly to the lessons we were doing to provide biblical reasoning for the changes, but again, we didn’t have a formal vote like we did when we changed the doctrinal statement.

Observations … large groups (congregations) cannot lead.

• The can choose (A, B, or C)
• They can affirm or deny (Yes or No)
• They can vote with their feet (to be there or not)

But they cannot lead

(I would suggest that even a small group - say a committee of 5 - cannot lead)

At some juncture someone needs to step up and set direction. If a church has a weak pastor, it will be a strong deacon.

True leaders know how to communicate and how to quietly win allies

You wrote:

At some juncture someone needs to step up and set direction. If a church has a weak pastor, it will be a strong deacon.

True leaders know how to communicate and how to quietly win allies

Very good point. It is this balance that needs to be struck. Well said.

Consider a group going for a hike. They maybe haven’t hiked the route they’re going to take, and maybe they have some members who have little hiking experience.

So they hire a guide. He helps them prepare, pack, choose their route, etc. Then they hike. He watches for the group, helps the stragglers, warns against coming dangers, etc.

In his “leading,” is he a dictator? No. Because he teaches and explains why X should be packed and not Y. He helps the members learn to hike.

But some more experienced hikers in his group might have different opinions about how to do some things. Whether to pack something, whether to take a “shortcut,” etc. Sometimes the “dictator” comes out. In he end he just says, “I’m the leader and we’re sticking together as a group. We’re not doing that shortcut.” I’m sure that Dr. Bauder’s view of leadership occasionally includes such a thing.

What, I think, he wants to emphasize is that the group actually learns to hike and they really do actually hike. They take the path. He shows them, but they choose to follow, and he has only really led when they go with him and take the hike. In that sense, nothing can be done without their understanding (some more than others) and consent.

There may be a lot of questions that the group sits down and discusses. How for do we want to hike each day? Do we want a more scenic route? Or a route with less altitude changes? Do we want this guy for our leader? Such things the group can vote on without leading. And the group will be led, even in voting.

My first ministry was in a large church where I was an assistant. We had 3 secretaries. Also the school office was full of administrators and secretaries.

In stark contrast my 2nd ministry:

• I was the pastor (30 years ago if there was only 1 pastor, one wouldn’t call himself the Sr. Pastor because there was no Junior Pastor). No secretary.
• I printed and copied the church bulletin and did all correspondence (using a TRS-80 with a 5Meg hard drive and a daisy wheel printer (if anyone knows what these even are!) (the 5 meg drive was in a separate enclosure that was about 18’ wide … 7” tall … 24” deep)
• Eye openers for me:
  • I couldn’t believe how much mail the church received: catalogs, promotional materials for schools & conferences, et cetera. Seemed like a large basket every day. A week’s worth of mail would be the size of a large laundry basket.
  • Walk-ins: most asking for money. At least one a week (for money). Other lonely people just wanting to talk to someone
  • Phone calls: missionary candidates, et cetera
  • If I didn’t start the day early I barely had time to study
  • Daily decisions: throw out most mail. What to preach. How to organize time.
  • I would do the bulletin on Saturday morning. And photocopy 100. Because I hate folding .. I would leave in church office and somebody would fold on Sunday am.
• Decisions I felt comfortable making myself:
  • What I would preach (AM, PM, Wed, Saturday AM Bible study (I would normally ask the guys what they wanted to study next). For Sunday school, I would follow the regulary quarterly system our church was using. This was the easiest prep of the week
  • The order of worship. I really didn’t make any changes. Just picked the hymns. We had a rotation of men who lead in prayer
  • I didn’t try to change the constitution (which was a jumbled mess .. . but they muddled through with it) or the doctrinal statement
  • I didn’t spend any $$ without authorization from the deacons. I remember once asking for $ 25 to buy some diskettes
  • I made all decisions about how I spent my day and where I traveled (visitation). I had an expense account of sorts and I kept track of my mileage for reimbursement. If I was going to be gone all day (say to a Pastor’s conference), I would inform the leadership

• During the candidating process (multiple interviews with leadership), I thought I was clear about my intent to use the NKJV (I had been using it in SS at the previous church for 3 years). But after arriving they had forgotten that conversation.


• I preached from the KJV (their standard). Along the way I again brought up the direction I wished to go


• The leadership agreed with my proposal that: each would buy a NKJV, each would use for a year (might have been 6 months), and that we would decide after that time. They did and on the 1st Sunday of January 1984 I began to use the NKJV from the pulpit. Along the way, before that date, we informed the church of the process and the decision. There was no congregational vote

Curious Jim, since you said you were the only pastor, who are you describing as “leadership” in your posts?

I consider Deacons leaders

I don’t mind a little sloppiness in my terminology.

[Jim]

I consider Deacons leaders

[dcbii]

James K wrote:

Apparently Kevin knows two options: emasculated pastor or dictatorship that Kim Jong-Un would envy. I am curious, does anyone on here actually believe this series is accurate? I have seen those who don’t agree with me question it as well. I haven’t really seen hearty support.

Well, I’ve seen a bit of stone-throwing from those who have expressed opposition to this series, but not much in the way a competing position with support.

In what way do you believe pastors/elders exercise their leadership? (And to be clear, I’m asking for details, not something like “between emasculated and communist dictatorship.”) Let’s say the pastor in what you see as an ideal church believes there needs to be a change to the doctrinal statement in the constitution. Does he just announce it and then it will show up in the document? Or what about changing the way services are done? Again, is this just told to the congregation and then they do it? Does the “whole church” have input into anything in your model? If you are not talking about a dictatorship (or maybe an oligarchy with multiple elders), I’m really interested to know the way you believe pastoral authority functions, if what Kevin is describing comes across to you as “emasculated.”

Dave, can we both agree that something can be pointed out as false without also giving the correct response? Kevin has offered sloppy exegetical work for the authority of the congregation in decision making and used a cleaver to chop off pastoral authority.

He has regularly referred to the extremes of Brethren holding baptists in contempt and dictatorships. I am sure poisoning the well is approved in some research positions, but to those who read the NT and believe it is sufficient to communicate truth, we will reject his man made systems. Does it benefit a seminary hurting for dollars to have weak pastors? Probably, but I wouldn’t go so far to think that is what is driving this series.

[Jim]

I consider Deacons leaders

Based on…?

I would say it’s a matter of they are de facto leaders rather than de jure. Many Baptists treat their deacons in many respects in the same manner as the Presbyterians treat their ruling elders.

[James K]

Jim wrote:

I consider Deacons leaders

Based on…?

[Rob Fall]

I would say it’s a matter of they are de facto leaders rather than de jure. Many Baptists treat their deacons in many respects in the same manner as the Presbyterians treat their ruling elders.

James K wrote:

Jim wrote:

I consider Deacons leaders

Based on…?