In a lecture on Introductory Theology, Kevin Vanhoozer describes how ministers were once considered Masters of theology, but now are considered Managers of programs for whom theology is only peripheral. He explains:
The pastor is the Manager of resources, financial and personal – no wonder the MBA may be more appealing than the MDiv. Note, however, that this picture of leadership is taken from other social institutions. The Israelites wanted a king like the other nations; we evangelicals want managers of megachurches to be like the megacorporations of our age. On the institutional level, the pastor is a professional manager of organizations. On the individual level, minister function as Therapists, applying psychological technology to individuals. The Manager and the Therapist are the dominant social paradigms for leadership in our times: the question is, to what extent should the Church follow suit?
Hopefully we will start asking the question more frequently, but the answer to it is a bit more complex. For example, some of this depends upon the size of a church. In a smaller, independent-type church, the pastor will often have to wear the hat of not only the minister, but the secretary, occasional janitor, administrator, etc. Now I know (or rather believe) it is not supposed to be that way normally, but it is nevertheless the case in smaller settings.
But consider a larger church. It seems to me that mega-churches within evangelicalism are functionally Anglican. I know we don’t want to admit it, but the significant precursor of the large program driven church with lots of staff is something close to an episcopal structure. What makes this even more fascinating is the numerous churches, usually of a Baptistic tradition, that are going down the road to a multi-site. This too needs to be part of a broader discussion of ecclesiology–what is your doctrine of the church that brings you to function in this way.
Now here is the point in regard to the quote. Since we have not consistently thought through our “doctrine of the church” in regard to these structures that have developed within evangelicalism over the past 50 years or so, and since we have not acknowledged, at least on some level, that this is functionally epsicopal, then we sometimes fail to make the distinctions between the one who has been called to be master of the word and teaching, and the one who has been called to manage the congregation. Of course, we end up calling these rolls Senior Pastor and Executive Pastor, and that is a step in the right direction for the large churches, but as we see more church planting movements, and more “campuses” connected to a central church, and multi-site ministries, etc…etc. I’m just wondering out loud now for ways to think through the importance of this distinction Vanhoozer made, and the necessity of “managers” and “masters,” and what kind of ecclesiastical structure we are conveying as we think through this. I’m also wondering out loud, although I didn’t get this far, about the responsibility of those evangelical churches with resources to those who are further away from the city center without resources. Again, that involves a discussion of “connectionalism” that evangelicals tend to avoid.
August 19th, 2010 | 6:48 pm | #1
I do not believe that ministers ought to be masters or managers. No one is a master in theology. The title seems pretty ridiculous. The title of manager also seems ridiculous because the best example of what a minister is is that of shepherd.
I think a great analogy for Christianity in general is that the Church is a hospital. Sin is the illness. Jesus is the doctor. Sacraments are the medicine.
August 19th, 2010 | 7:58 pm | #2
What must a minister do to be a shepherd? What should he master? What should be his focus?
August 19th, 2010 | 8:58 pm | #3
You forgot entertainer.
August 20th, 2010 | 7:57 am | #4
Great Blog Post – I am not sure about your contention (observation) that mega-churches within evangelicalism are functionally Anglican. I know we don’t want to admit it, but the significant precursor of the large program driven church with lots of staff is something close to an episcopal structure. , but it is worth discussing.
Couple of questions.
Why shouldn’t larger churchs have staff in charge of administration/managment? We have all heard (and made) the jokes about the Church Secretary, but lets face it, they have been the ones running the details in smaller churches in the US for decades/centuries. As churches get larger, it makes sense to have a staff person focus on personal, facility, etc issues. It leaves the preaching pastors the ability to focus on, well, you know, theology.
It does not strike me as very far different than when the apostles established deacons – there were administrative tasks that needed to be done well, so they apointed men to do them. Why not administrative pastors/staff in a church should that be the need of the congregation?
Churches are large organisms that need the participation of many, each focused on a specific area. The pastor cannot do all of them, yet he is responsible for their well functioning lives. Appointing some in charge of administration is the right thing.
August 20th, 2010 | 9:55 am | #5
I wouldn’t deny that large churches need a staff. I think that is necessary in that situation. I’m sure a small church pastor would like some type of staff to handle all the matters that come up in a small church that do not require the pastors attention. My point, rather, is that the answer to Vanhoozer’s question is complicated by the size of the church. Sometimes, in a small church, the pastor has to manage more than he should. Sometimes, in a large church, the pastor ends up only managing programs and never really pastoring the people (and I do not equate managing programs with pastoring). In a large church, the distinction between something like a senior pastor and an executive pastor is necessary. However, that broader discussion is begging the question of how the church is functioning. So there are basically two concerns that I see as related.
For the second concern, the concern about being functionally Anglican, let me put it like this. We have a large church that has distinguished not only between senior minister and executive pastor, and the senior minister focuses on teaching and vision, let’s say, and the executive focuses on administration, but we also have in the same church individual pastors who are responsible either for different age groups or different geographical regions. So we have a central location, with a senior minister, and various other ministers under his authority (and/or the authority of a board, etc.), and this often results in multiple sites that have their own ministers but are never fully disconnected from the main “campus.” Although I have just described many “megachurches,” I have also just described the traditional structure within church history of an episcopate covering a city and the regional areas.
So I see two conversations. One about the issue of pastors being managers and theologians at the same time and the need to distinguish this issue. The other conversation is connected because as the church gets larger, and it has the ability to deal with this distinction with staff, the ecclesiastical structure is taking on a different shape from its independent past. So a typical Baptist megachurch is no longer functioning as it has traditionally with autonomous independence, but an interrelated system of ministers/managers that are covering broad geographical areas.
August 20th, 2010 | 10:14 am | #6
Excellent observations. In my mind, this proves there is no ONE biblically sanctioned structure for churches. This is mostly a pragmatic and not a dogmatic issue. Bottom line:” Unless the Lord builds the house, they labor in vain who build it.”
August 20th, 2010 | 11:39 am | #7
My first church had about 1600 members and a school. I found that these circumstances distorted the pastoral function from administration of Word and Sacraments, to administration of an organization, the latter of which, I found corrosive to the spirituality of everything. Before I left I suggested that they hire a manager to do the managing, freeing up the pastor to be a pastor.
August 20th, 2010 | 8:37 pm | #8
[...] James Grant over at Evangel asks if pastors are supposed to be Masters of Theology or Managers of [...]
August 20th, 2010 | 11:55 pm | #9
In response to the first reply . . . One would hope that a pastor/minister/presbyter/etc. would be at least as much a master of theology as a surgeon is a master of the art of healing the body. For theology is about the health of the soul. And just as the work of the physician depends upon the scientia of biology, so also the pastoral art depends upon the scientia of theology.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact