The Pastoral Office

In the past months several churches with which I am familiar have seen their pastors resign and move away. This has left each church to start the process of finding their next undershepherd. And along the way each church will probably take the time to think through just what kind of man they want, and what they expect him to do.

But just how do we understand the pastoral office? Today it is almost a given that the pastor is to have a "shepherd's heart." After all, that's what "pastor" literally means. But I think it is a grave mistake to shape the form and function of the office according to only one of the three terms the New Testament uses to describe it.

It is clear that the Apostles used three different labels to designate the one leadership office in the church. In Acts 20:17, 28 we find Paul calling the "elders" of Ephesus together, imploring them as "overseers" to "pastor" the church of God. The same three words are found referring to the pastoral office in 1 Peter 5:1, 2. Statistically, the term "elder" is used the most in reference to the pastoral office (16 times), with "overseer" coming in second (6 times), and "pastor" a distant third (3 times, with the noun only found in Ephesians 4:11). Yet, despite its scarcity among the apostolic writings, the image of "shepherd" has come to be the dominant figure in defining the modern pastoral office and tasks.

If we allow our personal theological frameworks to be reformed according to Scripture, we'll certainly have to consider that the apostles had a purpose in referring to the pastoral office using three terms rather than only one.

The idea behind "elder" is   wisdom, and especially the wisdom that comes through age. "Overseer" brings the idea of management, of making sure that all the parts are aligned and running smoothly. "Pastor" speaks to leading, feeding, and caring for a flock. My concern is that, by downsizing the church leadership task to shepherding alone we have created two major problems in the church. The first damages the pastor, while the second damages the flock.

The first problem with seeing the leadership office in the church as primarily a "shepherding" office is that it makes it appear that one man can handle all the things that are demanded of church leadership. After all,  the scenes of flocks usually show one man,  dressed in a nice white robe, carrying a little lamb, while the flock of happy, contented sheep are joyfully following along behind him. But this picture has no relation at all to a church congregation as defined in the Bible.

The New Testament is clear that the leadership of the local church is to be committed into the hands of a plurality of godly men who serve together as a team. And even when one is delegated to be the primary visionary leader, it is simply foolish to think that one man could carry out all that the elder/overseer/pastor triad depicts as necessary for the health of the flock and the expansion of the Kingdom. I sincerely believe that the leadership tasks imposed by the Chief Shepherd on the under shepherds of the church are so much more than any one man can effectively accomplish. And we only really come to understand the reality of this when we refuse to see the office as anything less that what all three terms describe.

The consequences of a myopic view of the church's leadership office range from poorly managed flocks to burned out shepherds. We have far too many of both, and the answer is to re-think just how we have imaged the office itself, versus the way the New Testament teaches that the office be understood and occupied by a plurality of qualified, gifted men working together.

But the second problem is just as harmful. The image of the shepherd engenders the idea that he is the primary care giver in the congregation. It is not uncommon for congregations to believe it is the pastor's responsibility to do the visiting, the counseling, the hand holding, the greeting, the encouraging, and the  comforting, in addition to the teaching, writing, planning, organizing, managing, and strategic visioneering. Can you say "superman?" Of course, this is not only ridiculous in practical terms, but it is also a blatant misunderstanding of the New Testament's directions on the how the body of Christ is to function.

In every church there is a large group and a small group. We'll call the large group the "congregation" and the small group the "leadership." In lots of churches, the big group wants to be involved in the leadership decision, while expecting the small group to do the caring and helping. But this is backwards! It also just plain won't work.

Let's plug in some numbers. Suppose you're in a church of 400 people, with a leadership team of 8 men. If the 400 expect the 8 to take care of them, to care for their needs, to basically live life with them, they will certainly be disappointed. The ratios just won't allow it. But many pastors think it is their duty to meet these expectations, and they try their best to do so all the while knowing that more and more of their time and energy are being directed away from the primary things they entered ministry to do. They have less and less time to study, read, write, pray, plan, and make disciples, as hospital visits, phone calls, and committee meetings clog their schedules.

Just as bad, if the 400 decide that the leadership decisions must pass through their hands before being implemented, there will be such gridlock that things will seldom get accomplished in a timely manner. Sadly, too many churches today have let this happen, and they continue to muddle along with increasingly burned out staff, and ineffective ministries while they become less and less relevant to the lost in their community.

But there is a better way. Over 40 times in the New Testament the apostles call the large group to mutual care through a series of "one anothers". And this only makes sense! The large group is in the best position to care for one another, encourage one another, love one another, and about 37 more. The pastoral staff have, as one of their primary tasks, the equipping of the large group to do this "work of service", according to Ephesians 4:11,12.

The conclusion is this: leaders need to lead, and equip, and the congregation needs to use their gifts to care for, and build up one another. In this way the church grows together, matures together, and maintains the health necessary to be salt and light in a dark world. And one more thing: the leadership group must always remember that they actually are part of the large group as well. They are not to be isolated and insulated from the sheep. Just because they do not bear all the responsibility for the flock's wellbeing doesn't mean that they don't bear the same individual responsibility for  one-anothering as the rest. As pastoral player-coaches they coach while also being actively in the game.

Hope this helps,

David