Comments on: Ministers: Masters (of Divinity) or Managers (of Organizations)?

By: Paul

Paul — Sat, 21 Aug 2010 03:55:47 +0000

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.

By: Random Blog Posts and Stuff « Cheese-Wearing Theology

Random Blog Posts and Stuff « Cheese-Wearing Theology — Sat, 21 Aug 2010 00:37:01 +0000

[...] James Grant over at Evangel asks if pastors are supposed to be Masters of Theology or Managers of [...]

By: Pastor Philip Spomer

Pastor Philip Spomer — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 15:39:13 +0000

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.

By: DrewK

DrewK — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 14:14:50 +0000

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.”

By: James Grant

James Grant — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 13:55:45 +0000

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.

By: david carlson

david carlson — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 11:57:44 +0000

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.

By: Ken in Kansas

Ken in Kansas — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 00:58:21 +0000

You forgot entertainer.

By: James Grant

James Grant — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 23:58:58 +0000

What must a minister do to be a shepherd? What should he master? What should be his focus?

By: Orthodoxdj

Orthodoxdj — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 22:48:48 +0000

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.