10 Things I'd Do Differently if I Weren't a Pastor Today

First, there is nothing wrong, IMO, with a church having a vocational pastor, a good facility, or more than one service a week. The early church did after all meet at first in the Temple (a nice building by any stretch of the imagination), had eleven vocational pastors, and met daily. We would have to reject the book of Acts to come to that conclusion.

Nor is it being said that any church without an active board of elders (or even Presbyterian polity) will automatically become a clone of FBC Hammond, though I would posit that having multiple men apt to teach ought to limit the power of a charismatic pastor. No guarantee, though, as the elders (other pastors) simply watched through the disgusting innuendo of Schaap’s “polishing the shaft” sermon, while it was the deacons who removed him when his criminal acts were revealed.

Rather, it’s simply being noted that when a charismatic leader installs corporate structures in the church instead of Biblical structures, we’re simply walking away from what God intended. I’d add to my previous list that if a pastor allows the church he serves to get so large that corporate structures are required, he’s probably failed to raise up leaders who are capable of leading the right kind of church split—the kind that will end up with two vital churches, two boards of elders, two boards of deacons, and such instead of one where they have a massive mortgage and need to hire off duty officers to manage traffic.

[Mark_Smith]

that if someone suggests you support the pastor of the church you are presumably a member of, that you attend worship and do service at the church you are presumably a member of, that you are somehow “man centered”?

Why do so many at SI assume every pastor is some closet Jack Hyles looking to build his own little kingdom?

Is having more than one service a week, a “nice” building, and a full-time pastor really a “church industry” that is unbiblical and needs to be eliminated?

I highly suspect some people are overreacting to some bad things they experienced and are applying it to everyone else.

Since I made the “man centered” comment I’ll take this as addressed to me.

I am not reacting because of previous bad experiences rather my desire is to think conceptually as to why we do the things we do as Christian communities. Everyone has had bad experiences. The bible tells us to forgive and move on. Some moving on may involve a separation also (at least in heart). I look to fix things so that injustice isn’t continued to others. I admit that possibly a hurtful experience was an impetus to studying the issues but I am not vindictive at all personally, I will leave that to God as the bible instructs.

This is not a Hyles phenomenon but true of many divergent groups. Its institutionalism which the New Covenant abolished and a temptation to assume too much responsibility which may or may not result in ‘over control’.

I am confused but maybe that is why I am not active on SI in the forums. What about his list was unbiblical or wrong? Attending church, serving, praying, loving, looking on the needs of others, valuing leaders God has given, not gossiping but talking to those with whom one has a problem. I guess since I don’t know the author, I just assumed he was saying that he has matured in his love for others and was encouraging us to consider an other’s centered approach. I guess you could assume this is man-centered, but I fail to see how that is in the spirit of “believing all things.” But maybe I am just too naive and thought that these were helpful things to serve one another with love. Oh well.

[Bert Perry]

I’d add to my previous list that if a pastor allows the church he serves to get so large that corporate structures are required, he’s probably failed to raise up leaders who are capable of leading the right kind of church split—the kind that will end up with two vital churches, two boards of elders, two boards of deacons, and such instead of one where they have a massive mortgage and need to hire off duty officers to manage traffic.

Was Spurgeon in error when he preached to his crowds at London’s Metropolitan Tabernacle (seating capacity about 5,500; and often hundreds more standing)?:

[Larry Nelson]

Bert Perry wrote:

I’d add to my previous list that if a pastor allows the church he serves to get so large that corporate structures are required, he’s probably failed to raise up leaders who are capable of leading the right kind of church split—the kind that will end up with two vital churches, two boards of elders, two boards of deacons, and such instead of one where they have a massive mortgage and need to hire off duty officers to manage traffic.

Was Spurgeon in error when he preached to his crowds at London’s Metropolitan Tabernacle (seating capacity about 5,500; and often hundreds more standing)?:

Well, how did the Metropolitan Tabernacle do after Spurgeon died? I seem to remember that membership and attendance dropped precipitously, to the point where the church’s own website notes that they were only filling a few pews. So more or less, Spurgeon did make an error in creating a church structure that only Charles Haddon Spurgeon could make work. Great preacher, great man of God, but he let the “capital investment” get out of hand. Men with great gifts often need to be reminded that they need to apply their gifts to create a structure that a man of lesser gifts can use.

Another local example was Pastor Clearwaters at Fourth—all of his successors have really faced the legacy of a system there (WCTS-FM, Camp Clearwaters, Central Seminary, the school, and some might even argue Pillsbury in Owatonna) that it took a man of Clearwaters’ abilities and energies to work. If you look around, there are any number of men out there who have created a church structure that is extremely likely to collapse when the head pastor retires or dies. I would include most “mega-churches” in this category. You simply can’t depend on a man with the requisite abilities to come in and keep it running.

Not a popular theme in fundagelicalism today, where too many view success simply in terms of numbers, but take a look around. Lots of men out there built bricks and mortar when they should have been building men. How many disciples did Jesus have, after all?

Interesting points. Being a product of Fourth myself, I could probably write at length about their ups & downs over the last 40 years.

I am reminded of Acts 2:41. The Church at Jerusalem numbered in the thousands at that point in time. Where is it today? Is it a bad thing necessarily that churches have life spans or life cycles?

Larry, Jerusalem is an interesting thought. It’s a church that never owned its own building (at least in the Acts 2-10 era), had huge membership, and then was chased out of Jerusalem, right?

Personally, I wonder if per Matthew 28, the early church knew that their situation in Jerusalem was temporary, and whether therefore the sale of homes and lands in Acts was in part people knowing that they were going to be giving up that land or homes, and therefore they simply chose to get some good out of it. It’s not as if they’d never seen unpopular minorities chased out of town, after all, and it’s interesting as well that the kind of communal living they practiced is not replicated anywhere else in the New Testament that I can think of. If there is something to this, it puts Ananias and Sapphira in a somewhat different light.

Whether there is, or is not, something to my thoughts about the sale of lands, however, it is worth noting that the apostles did not build an edifice, but rather spent most of their time training men for their mission to Judea, Samaria, and the ends of the earth. So where is that early church today? Well, in Judea, Samaria, and to the ends of the earth, no?

Local churches can come & go, but the CHURCH endures…..and is on the move/in expansion mode.

Where is Spurgeon’s Metropolitan Tabernacle today? Why, is it possible that your church, my church, or any number of other churches are its great, great, great, great grandchildren…….in the same manner that every church in existence today are descendants of the church at Jerusalem?

–—

ADDED: I know the Met Tabernacle is still in London today (in a newer building?) BTW. I’ve seen it.

I’m just a guy at a small church in flyover country trying to help people grow in Christ. I’m not building a kingdom and I’m not building brick and mortar rather than men.

Agreed that the Metropolitan Tabernacle survives—a former pastor of mine introduced some of the hymnody coming out of there. And agreed wholeheartedly that there are believers all over the world who can trace a portion of their place in Christ to the work of the Met and its pastors. I’d like to visit there if I ever get to London.

So yes, a narrow but I think significant point; we might learn at some point that some of our heroes did the cause of Christ some damage by building brick & mortar, or corporate structures, when we ought to be sitting down and building people.

[Bert Perry]

So yes, a narrow but I think significant point; we might learn at some point that some of our heroes did the cause of Christ some damage by building brick & mortar, or corporate structures, when we ought to be sitting down and building people.

[Kevin Miller]

Bert Perry wrote:

So yes, a narrow but I think significant point; we might learn at some point that some of our heroes did the cause of Christ some damage by building brick & mortar, or corporate structures, when we ought to be sitting down and building people.

But isn’t it sometimes useful to have some sort of “structure” in place to assist in the building up of people? I graduated from Fourth Baptist Christian School, listened to WCTS, and graduated from Pillsbury College. Those structures played an important role in my spiritual development. Is it okay to have those structures in place as long as they don’t become “corporate”? Or does a church automatically start getting the “corporate” designation once they start adding a radio station and a day school and a seminary? You tied the term “corporate structure” with “brick and mortar,” so are you saying that when a church adds larger facilities to accommodate it’s programs, it is then becoming “corporate,” or is it the programs themselves that make the church “corporate’ even if larger facilities are not built?

Kevin, absolutely structures are critical in reaching and edifying people, and my family has also benefited from a lot of Dr. Clearwaters’ innovations. Nothing against “bricks and mortar” per se, but rather that a certain level of capital investment seems to correlate with the inability of the church to minister absent a leader or extraordinary ability. And so when that leader retires or dies, the church is in a lot of trouble.

A couple of rules of thumb might be helpful. If a pastor finds he’s spending an inordinate amount of time managing the institution instead of ministering to congregants and reaching the lost, he’s more or less changed jobs from pastor to executive. Some degree of managing the institution, sure, but that’s not the central role—and if we choose our pastors as executives instead of as pastors, we should not be surprised when our pastors don’t shepherd well. It’s simply the wrong skill set.

Along the same lines, we might suggest that if a pastor of a church of any size can not address most long-term congregants by name, or only visits them when he “needs” something done, he’s more or less changed jobs from pastor to manager. The worst example I’ve seen of this, by the way, is from a church with average Sunday morning attendance of 30. So it’s not just about big churches; it’s about the mindset of the pastor, and that mindset often finds its expression in bricks & mortar.