The Truly Successful Pastor
The successful pastor preaches and teaches the entire Word of God without compromise (2 Timothy 4:1-2), so He calls people to repentance just as to faith. He does not water down the Gospel or let any contemporary issue usurp the Gospel in priority. He does so winsomely and does not set out to offend people, but he understands that the Gospel is inherently offensive.
His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.’
-Matthew 25:21, ESV
Last time, we concluded our look at the pastoral office and its relation to church conflict by looking at the downfall of three high-profile Christians: Mark Driscoll, Rob Bell, and Ravi Zacharias. We talked of lessons learned from these situations, like the importance of accountability, the danger of valuing numbers and giftedness above character, and the need for safeguards to prevent misuse of authority. But we did not talk at all about the root cause. We will now examine this and then provide the remedy: a definition of pastoral success that comes from Scripture not society.
Bad Apples?
Were Mark Driscoll, Ravi Zacharias, and others like them just a few bad apples, or was there something more going on? When unethical behavior is unearthed in any organization, people often say that the perpetrates were just a few bad apples who do not represent the values or culture of the organization. But I am reminded of a lesson on ethics from a leadership course I took years ago. The instructor first pointed out that apples can go bad because they are in a bad barrel: their behavior was facilitated or even encouraged by the culture of the organization. As I observed in my leadership paper, W. Edwards Deming, Joseph Juran, and Myron Tribus all noted that the vast majority of quality problems in organizations come from the system and not the individual. The instructor was suggesting that this can apply to ethical failures as well. This should come as no surprise to Christians, since we know that all people are sinful, so organizations are made up of people who are sinful. Therefore, every organization has the potential to be a bad barrel, so it takes extreme leadership vigilance to keep the barrel from turning the apples rotten. But the instructor took the analogy a step further by saying that the barrels may be bad because of a bad barrel maker. This means that the organization creates or facilitates bad behavior because it was created and shaped by a bad culture in a broader sense. In that case, a few bad apples may be indicative of a much larger societal problem.
Are people like Mark Driscoll and Ravi Zacharias bad apples because their organizations enabled their bad behavior? If so, did their organizations enable their bad behavior because of our culture? I would answer “yes” on both counts. Both ministries were built on the men rather than the Gospel, so they were tempted to tolerate behaviors in those men that they wouldn’t tolerate from anyone else. These bad apples were facilitated by bad barrels. But I would argue those bad barrels were the product of a bad barrel maker: a Christian culture that overemphasizes fame, massive churches, and emotional experiences. This is the result of a consumerist view of the church, so they are merely responding to the market. This is not to say that Mars Hill or other such churches abandoned the Gospel to cater to consumerism, but they did understand that a large proportion of the people who attended, listened online, and donated did so primarily because of Mark Driscoll or those like him. So when such pastors disqualify themselves by their behavior, they are often not confronted because it is seen as preferrable to silently endure their errors rather than risk the downfall of the ministry by exposing them. But God promised that the truth will come out in the end (Luke 8:17), bringing about the downfall they fear. The foundation of such churches may still be the Gospel, but the way they build on those foundations cannot stand the test of hard truth:
According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building upon it. Let each one take care how he builds upon it. For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw—each one’s work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.
-1 Corinthians 3:10-15, ESV
Mars Hill and similar churches build upon the foundation of the Gospel with the wood, hay, and straw of personality, skilled delivery, catchy and emotionally engaging music, and various other things that either intentionally or unintentionally cater to the consumerist Christian. This model may produce short-term growth, but it is not the way that God builds His Church, so it will ultimately fail. Therefore, this model that is viewed by so many as the pinnacle of successful ministry is actually the opposite. To truly evaluate successful ministry, we need to view it the way God does—and He has a very different definition of success than we do.
God’s Definition of Successful Ministry
What is the definition of successful ministry from God’s point of view? It is to labor to build the Kingdom of God in the way that He has ordained that it be built, which Jesus described in His teachings on the Kingdom:
He put another parable before them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed that a man took and sowed in his field. It is the smallest of all seeds, but when it has grown it is larger than all the garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and make nests in its branches.” He told them another parable. “The kingdom of heaven is like leaven that a woman took and hid in three measures of flour, till it was all leavened.”
-Matthew 13:31-33, ESV (cf. Mark 4:30-32, Luke 13:18-19)
And he said, “The kingdom of God is as if a man should scatter seed on the ground. He sleeps and rises night and day, and the seed sprouts and grows; he knows not how. The earth produces by itself, first the blade, then the ear, then the full grain in the ear. But when the grain is ripe, at once he puts in the sickle, because the harvest has come.”
-Mark 4:26-29, ESV
Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, he answered them, “The kingdom of God is not coming in ways that can be observed, nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you.”
-Luke 17:20-21, ESV
The point is clear: Jesus will build His Kingdom slowly and gradually. Like a mustard seed, it starts small but steadily grows until it cannot be ignored. Like leaven, it appears insignificant at first, but through small and often unnoticed acts of faithfulness it will permeate and ultimately take over the entire world. Like seed in general, it grows in ways that we cannot understand. It is the tiny stone of heavenly origin that toppled the statue then grows to be a mountain filling the whole earth in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream (Daniel 2). Its growth is often imperceptible, but that does not mean it isn’t there. As we discussed here, the Kingdom is built over many generations.
-
In Defense of the Gender Binary
We are, it seems, losing our grip on what it means to be human. In an age where all aspects, once cherished and considered sacred, fundamental to our humanity are fuzzy shadows of our parent’s outdated ideas, we stand to lose something central to human flourishing.
We are now seeing seismic shifts in perception about sex, gender, and marriage.
You might think this has been occurring for some time now, and you wouldn’t be wrong about that. But, granting that as truth, the shift seems especially pressing in the last several years where fundamental, traditional assumptions about these issues are being reinvisioned.
The plausibility structure of the gender binary is losing its grip on contemporary consciousness. And, it’s not just in contemporary culture writ large, but we are seeing and experiencing shifts in the Church. For these reasons alone, we ought to pause and think afresh about a couple of things: 1. What does it mean to be gendered and how is this related to sex? 2. How do these views impact our life? Otherwise, we come closer to abandoning traditional belief altogether.
If you doubt that massive shifts have and are occurring, then just consider a few things with me. There’s certainly nothing wrong with having a bit of healthy skepticism about cultural shifts both in and outside the church, but it is a problem when those shifts are staring us in the face, out in plain sight, and, as you may have heard, hidden in plain sight.
Consider the shift in perceptions about the nature of marriage since 2015 with the Federal legalization of marriage between same-sex couples. Consider also the uptick in discussions about polyamory (not polygamy mind you, but polyamory really is just an egalitarian version of what ancient civilizations once considered acceptable). Consider, even more, the uptick in discussions about sexual plurality. This isn’t just occuring in contemporary culture, either. It’s also occurring in the pews and longstanding liturgical practices. In a recent study, the laxity on pornography use has expanded, but, more surprising, is that the perception on pornography use between couples has become almost normalized amongst many couples who profess Christian belief.
You might think that gender and sexual practice are not strictly related, but the demand and attention simultaneously suggest that both are related. And, that shouldn’t really be all that surprising, as historic practice has often tied sexual practice to gender expression in the context of definitions about marriage. They are interrelated, and cannot be cleanly separated.
More fundamental still, many are even beginning to wonder if there is anything to be made of the traditional view that genders are fixed in any way. I recall a conversation several years ago with a theology professor of one of the most prominent evangelical schools confessing some confusion about gender fixity of being either male or female. I realized quite pointedly then that this wasn’t going away. You’ve, no doubt, probably heard of the discussion on transgenderism on the famous Dr. Phil show where Matt Walsh challenges gender fluid advocates with one simple question: What does it mean to be a woman? This is now a live discussion in our culture, and it has made its way into the church.
Holding such views has impacted our society in a variety of ways. We can’t, as a result, avoid it.
Judith Butler once famously stated: “There is no gender identity behind the expressions of gender.” I wish I could say that this statement would be met with looks of perplexity by the common man on the street, but there appears to be a growing number of people for whom this statement seems so obviously true that it cannot be denied. To deny it is tantamount to oppression. In other words, it is harmful both to believe and practice the fact that there is a gender binary (i.e., male and female). In varying ways, challenging gender essentialism is becoming quite common in Christian circles, despite its permanence in most of Church history. Others will go so far as to claim that science settles the fact that gender has no fixed connection to biology, but, unfortunately for gender activists, this has not been accepted science. If you are a Christian, then a commitment to the essential nature of being both male and female is part of a package. To deny it is to effectively lose our grip on essential Christian doctrine.
Read More
Related Posts: -
Submission to God’s Will
And as in all areas of Christian discipleship, Jesus gives us the perfect example of what this looks like. In particular, His prayer to His Father in the garden of Gethsemane shows us the way. Jesus’ words on the night He was betrayed are some of His most remembered, as He prays “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will” (Matt. 26:39). I want us to examine these words carefully because they give us three important insights into living in submission to the will of God.
The first thing to notice about Jesus’ example is how they express His relationship with His Father. This is a dynamic relationship in which Jesus talks with His Father, makes requests of His Father, and expresses His desires and fears to His Father as He walks through life.
It is significant, I think, that Christ has talked of His coming death throughout the Gospels. He has even said that the whole reason He came was to give His life as a ransom for many. So, given how completely His mission and identity as an incarnate man are tied to His death, it might be surprising that Jesus would pray here, “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me” (Matt. 26:39). But surely this is nothing less than an honest prayer as the cross looms right ahead. This is an example of Jesus, in His humanity, laying His heart bare before His father in perfect holiness as He stares suffering in the face. That honest dialogue is part of Jesus’ relationship with His Father, and such regular dialogue should be found in us, too, as we navigate the details of our lives in relationship with our heavenly Father.
The second thing to notice about Jesus’ example is how quickly and repeatedly He expresses His willingness to submit to His Father’s will. In Matthew’s account of Jesus’ prayer in the garden, Jesus prays three separate times. And all three times Christ prays, He ends each prayer with the same thought: “Nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will. . . . Your will be done” (Matt. 26:39, 42). -
Ancient Promises
Written by R. C. Sproul |
Monday, August 1, 2022
Indeed, in the Pentateuch, the entire New Testament is concealed, yet the revelation therein opens a gateway for us to understand all of the rest of the revelation that God provides from Joshua through Revelation. In our day the covenantal structure of redemption is often obscured. What should be plain by even a cursory reading of the Pentateuch is passed off into darkness and replaced by some other structure or framework invented by human speculation. The covenant structure of redemption does not end in the fifth book of the Pentateuch. It continues throughout the Old Testament.
“The new is in the old concealed; the old is in the new revealed.” This famous statement by Augustine expresses the remarkable way in which the two testaments of the Bible are so closely interrelated with each other. The key to understanding the New Testament in its fullest is to see in it the fulfillment of those things that were revealed in the background of the Old Testament. The Old Testament points forward in time, preparing God’s people for the work of Christ in the New Testament.
The history of redemption began with creation itself. The book of Genesis, the first book of the Pentateuch, starts with the beginning, or the “genesis,” of the universe as expressed in the revelation of God’s mighty work of creation. The creation of the universe culminated in the narrative of the creation of humanity. This was followed very shortly by humanity’s cataclysmic plunge into ruin as a result of the sin of Adam and Eve. From the third chapter of Genesis through the end of the Bible, the rest of the narrative history is the history of God’s work of redeeming a fallen humanity. Genesis shows that the same God who is the God of creation is also the God of our redemption.
The book of Genesis gives us an overview of the patriarchal period and the covenants that God made with them. They form the foundation for everything that follows in redemptive history. Beginning with Noah and moving toward Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the sons of Jacob, the story unfolds God’s consistent pattern of redemption, which looks ahead for centuries, as God’s people awaited the ultimate fulfillment of the patriarchal promises. These promises were fulfilled in the person and work of Jesus.
The book of Genesis ends with the children of Israel migrating into Egypt to be rescued by the intervention of Joseph, who ruled as the nation’s prime minister. Exodus opens with the scene having changed from one of benevolent circumstances under Joseph to one of dire circumstances, as the immigrant nation of Israel had been enslaved by Pharaoh. The stirring account in Exodus is the Old Testament, watershed work of divine redemption. It sets forth for us the narrative of the divine rescue of the slaves held captive in Egypt. The captives were redeemed by the triumph of God and His mercy over the strongest military force of this world embodied in Pharaoh and his army. It points forward to an even greater liberation by a greater Mediator from slavery to sin.
Read More
Related Posts:
