Pastoring is a gift, not a title

My good Kiwi friend, and former team-mate, Colorado Negrito, pointed me to Kathy Escobar's blog post rethinking the word 'pastor'. I like what she has to say. What do you think?

----------------------------------------------------

i believe pastoring is a gift, not a title. many have come to believe that being a pastor means someone who 1) has gone to seminary; 2) “runs” churches; 3) preaches sermons; 4) marries and buries people. i really don’t think this was the biblical idea of the word poimen, which is synonymous with shepherding...

pastors are the people who are caring for, shepherding, loving, and journeying in close-relationship with people wherever they are, whether that be as part of church, at work, in their neighborhoods, etc. their focus is on relationship, relationship, relationship. years ago a young woman told me that the weekend communicator at the mega-church she was going to was a “really amazing pastor.” it was hard because i wanted to say back to her, “honey, he is not a pastor. yep, he’s an amazing speaker and teacher and extremely gifted CEO,but he will never, ever know your name, let alone your story… he will never counsel you or have you over for dinner, hold your babies or be with you when you or one of your family is sick in the hospital or going through a rough patch. he will never do anything that someone with a true pastor’s gift will naturally do.” yet, he will get all of the kudos and benefits of being a “pastor” without ever actually shepherding or being in pastoring relationships with people. i can’t tell you how many times i have heard from a variety of different churches that their senior pastor “isn’t really a people person.”

to me, pastoring doesn’t require an education. sure, we can all learn new skills and strengthen our gifts, but i know many-a-pastor-in-the-truest-sense-of-the-word who has never taken a class at Bible college or seminary. again, we are mistaking a gift for a role or a job, a leader for a pastor. often people will ask me if they should get seminary training to learn how to become more pastoral. my response “um…well….in my opinion, the best education you can get is to start working the 12 steps for yourself and steep yourself in learning about codependence, boundaries, and spiritual and emotional healing individually and in groups. and yeah, that’s free!”

we need to quit calling people who don’t like to be with people pastors because it is diminishing & unempowering the ones who do. it’s so funny to me how there are women in all kinds of churches who shepherd, love, and care for people and can’t ever be called “pastor” and yet i have seen men-who-can’t-stand-people-and-only-are-in-charge-of-networking-the-computers be called an “operations pastor.” it’s comical on one level, but on a whole other one, it’s not funny at all. my vote is to call preachers who never interact with a person in their congregation beyond the big-donors-they-golf-with “weekend communicators” or “executive directors” and reserve the word pastors for people who are providing spiritual and emotional care to people.

most people’s true “pastors” aren’t the pastor of their church, they are close friends or people in community who care for them and love them. the person who you are going to call when you are hurting, who will be with you in the hospital when you are sick, who loves your babies and cares about their well-being beyond just words, who will provide prayer and spiritual and emotional support when you need it, that’s your pastor. i have a lot of amazing pastors in my life–some with pastor titles, some without–but they are all lovely naturally gifted people that do all of these things for me in different ways. i have one challenge for us this week–tell those people, whoever they are, that you consider them one of your pastors and are thankful for their love & care. it will encourage them–and maybe surprise them more than you might expect. i think that is a step in the right direction to re-claim the word far beyond official church leaders.

i do believe there are all kinds of amazing pastors truly pastoring their churches. their gifts line up with their role and they love their people in amazing ways. i am privileged to know some of these pastors and see their heart for shepherding their communities. it doesn’t bother me a bit that they are called pastors; i honor their heart and commitment to live out what they are built to do. journeying with people is hard work, and i deeply respect those shepherds out there who are really shepherding.

like the word “church”, i don’t know if we will never be able to fully redeem the word “pastor.” i think it might be too far gone. there’s too much baggage with it. the seminary system that cultivates people who have to get “paid pastor” jobs to pay their bills after all that debt perpetuates it. people confusing leadership & pastoring perpetuate it. people who don’t have anyone to fan their natural gifts into flame and validate them will stay underground thinking they might not have what it takes to contribute as much as they could. and so we’ll keep re-creating little systems where there is a separation between the “professionals” and the “not-so-professionals”, the “strong leaders” from the “real shepherds” and those who aren’t the pros or loud or leader-y enough will continue to feel inadequate or unprepared or un-infused with support to use their gifts. i recently told someone that the refuge is “full of pastors.” it is. there are so many mercy-people, shepherds, true lovers of people. they have no education or training or any of the put-together requirements we have placed upon the role. but they naturally pastor people, advocating, caring, and loving for others.

i am not calling for the abolishment of pastors. i believe it is a beautiful and lovely gift; one of the many beautiful and lovely gifts that it takes to make a body whole. i’m just calling for a re-thinking of the word so that its true meaning & purpose shines through instead of associating it with a whole bunch of things that have absolutely nothing to do with the heart and spirit of pastoring...

-----------------------------------------------------

Read the entire article here.

House churches as sending centers

House churches are not permanent structures. They were never intended to be ongoing "home versions" of church. The idea that "church" is something solid, permanent, or institutional, is more what we have fashioned the church into becoming over the centuries, but not what is described in the book of Acts.

Felicity Dale over at Simply Church shares more from the World House Church Summit held in New Delhi, India, November 2009. In particular, I am interested in what she shares about house churches not multiplying if they become permanent structures.

House churches should be neither independent, nor permanent. If they are they will not multiply, but will only have shifted people from the pew to the sofa. Instead, they should be an interdependent network. Each house church is a debriefing center and a sending center that sends people out.

A starfish has no brain or head. If you cut off the arm of a starfish, it will grow into a new starfish. A house church does not require a CEO or a commander. Any of the people in it can multiply it out. The leader is more of a facilitator that cares for the household...

...Church planting is a process. Jesus stayed a few days in Samaria (John 4). Philip, the evangelist, preached the gospel powerfully there and many sick people were healed and baptized (Acts 8:4-13). Then Peter and John (apostles) came and worked with them too (Acts 8:14-25). Different people used their different giftings to see the church there come to maturity (Acts 9:31).

I have to confess that it has taken us 10 years to understand what Felicity shares above. Most of the church planting types I relate to are focused on starting churches. Once we have something up and going, we think, "Great, let's now look around and see who else we might train who might start another one." We have this mindset of permanency. If the house church continues to meet regularly, it is good. If it dissolves after a few months, that is bad. Or is it?

As I reflect upon this, nearly every single church plant connected to our house church network that I can think of, resulted from Christ followers not staying in their home assemblies. Instead, these laborers were discipled, and then sent out to make more disciples. When we make new disciples, churches are planted. The longer we stay together, the more comfortable we get with one another. Soon we want this to go on forever. We want our kids to experience the same we have experienced. We inevitably start organizing, programming, and hiring people to do what we do not have the time to do. Soon, we become the focus of ministry. What we have set into motion begins to define who we are. Before long, 10-20% are the ones engaging in some level of church ministry, while the rest become consumers. Is this what Christ really intended for His Church?

What if the church is something meant to be less permanent, and more fluid? What if we understand Christ's declaration, "I will build my church", to be about his Universal Church (all the saints throughout history), and not the building of local church assemblies? In reality, we are the ones out there trying to build His church. We are the ones trying to do Christ's job for him! Rather than equipping/sending centers; we have organized, programmed, and structured our churches to the point that permanency is what is seen as normal; when in reality, from the viewpoint of Acts, quite abnormal.

Part of the problem is that we have it in our heads that church--whether gathering in a house or a temple--is something solid that must visibly survive if it is to retain its value . In Acts we see the church as more fluid, more about "seeking first the Kingdom"--not the local ekklesia. The above Acts scriptures indicate a church-on-the-move. She is more about being the church in a lost world, and less about going to an organized, programmed, structured place.

I wonder what would happen if there was some way we could reboot our understanding of Jesus and His Church to be more in line with the concept of debriefing and sending centers, and less as permanent structures? Are permanent structures less able to multiply than those which are fluid? What do you think?

Rescue the perishing

Convicting prophetic vision given to William Booth, founder of the Salvation Army.

As sad and horrifying as is the Haiti Earthquake tragedy, every day an equal number of people pass into a Christless eternity while we go about "business as usual."

Thanks to Erich Bridges for pointing us to this video.

If there was no such thing as Christianity

I love blog posts that rattle my cage, cause me to reflect on something I hadn't thought of in quite that way before. There are a lot of great bloggers out there who do this (too many!) John Dennis is one of those. By reposting his article, I am not saying I agree with everything John writes. What follows simply causes me to reflect upon some of my own attitudes, pretenses, baggage and masks I often wear as a Christian.

If there was no such thing as Christianity...

• I would have to appreciate books simply for the good writing.
• I‘d have to socialize with my community rather than the people in my church.
• I’d have to use common sense and wisdom rather than using fleeces and ‘sensings’ to make decisions. So, I wouldn’t have had to get so stressed about missing God’s will if I chose to buy that red car instead of that blue one.
• I wouldn’t be able to watch a movie looking for anti-Christian themes and stuff.
• I’d have no option but to enjoy music simply for the music, not for the message or for the worship experience.
• I would have to love my family, my relatives more than my church family.
• If I couldn’t be a Christian, I couldn’t call a non-Christian my enemy, because I would be one of them myself.
• I wouldn’t feel compelled to turn my eyes away from the topless statue, ‘Venus’, Instead, I would feel compelled to admire its artistic beauty and grace.
• I would not have religious reasons to think I am above the guy I work with.
• I wouldn’t pretend that I don’t like beer.
• I couldn’t have sentimental reasons to favor Israel over the Arabs and would have to let my opinion on that issue be based on what is fair.
• I couldn’t break fellowship with another Christian who doesn’t agree with my view on doctrine.
• I’d have no choice but to give due consideration to the arguments of scientists.
• I would dress up the kids for Halloween thinking only of the fun of it all.
• The crusades - the ‘Holy’ wars, would not have happened.
• People wouldn’t make a fuss about those Harry Potter books.
• I couldn’t say that the devil made me do it.
  

Sometimes I wonder...

If Jesus would really be a ‘good’ Christian by today’s standards of what a Christian is supposed to be like. Maybe somebody would tell him to repent.

Haiti Earthquake Relief Giving

All of us have been saddened by the earthquake tragedy in Haiti. Seeing the images on TV makes one wants to reach out and do something to help. One excellent way is through the IMB and Baptist Global Response. Click HERE to make a safe, online donation with your credit card.

Details of how your money will be used and how it will be coordinated through the various cooperating SBC agencies can be read here.

In the past, we have been recipients of disaster relief funds and can vouch for the effective use of these funds by missionaries and BGR workers who through local contacts in the affected areas, like pastors, churches, and key community leaders, are able to get the help to where it is most needed without all the red tape that often accompanies efforts to help in disaster situations.

Two years ago, the coast of Ecuador was severely flooded. Our team was given immediate access to funds which went directly to some of the hardest hit people whom nobody else was helping. We used our local contacts and were able to canoe into these hard hit areas and provide basic food supplies and drinking water as shown in the video.

Give to the Haiti Earthquake Relief. We have done so as a family. Every bit counts. I remember in the flood relief below, how many houses we went by with children begging for anything, and we had already run out of everything we had been able to purchase. I wished then that somebody would have just given at least $5 more which would have fed at least one more family for several days. Give today.

My thoughts on the new IMB global objectives (KRAs)

The new International Mission Board (IMB) global mission objectives, or KRA's* are great objectives. Three broad challenges. All worthy of our best efforts, energy, time, and sacrifice.

1. Engaging and reaching the UPGs*, UUPGs**, and UUUPGs.***

2. Engaging and reaching the unreached megacities.

3. Mobilizing America's partners to the Great Commission task.

My concern, though, lies in what is not stated. It is in the "fine print" of how some of the key words are being defined where my concerns lie (see my related blog post People or Unreached People Groups?).

I am certainly all for engaging and reaching the "unreached people groups" of our region and the world. But when "unreached" is defined as 2% or less, something within my missionary heart also cries out for the millions who are supposedly "reached" but are on their way to hell! Who decides when 2.1% of a people group has been engaged, they are "reached" and time to move on? Why not 3%, or 10%, or 25%?

The same hold true for the 2nd KRA of engaging and reaching the unreached megacities. Which passage in the N.T. guides us in our definition of "unreached megacities" as cities with populations greater than 5-million and 2% or less evangelized?

The detail in our 3rd KRA is the subjective "partners". Who are we defining as those partners? Are America's Partners...

1) Like-minded Baptists coming from anywhere in the Americas?
2) Any great Commission Christian (GCC) in the Body of Christ?
3) Both #1 and #2?

If #3, great! But for the moment, the parameters around the term "partners" are still not clear to me. Do the former "New Directions" guidelines for partners still apply, or are there new definitions now in place? I just don't know.

What I would like to see lifted from the first two KRAs are the unnecessary definitions that have been tacked on to the terms "unreached" and "megacities".

With these definition of terms, Guayaquil's 7% evangelical population is a "reached" city. But when 93 souls out of every 100 are on their way to a Christless eternity, how does this reconcile with Jesus own teaching on the matter? (See Luke 15 of the Good Shepherd leaving the 99 to find the one lost sheep.)

Some might argue that unless we put definitions to these terms, the 2% or less evangelized people groups will continue to be ignored, lost in the shuffle. But are we to disengage from the millions--in our particular case, 6 million plus--to engage the remaining American UPGs, or UUPGs, with populations often numbering only a few thousand?

My experience has shown the best way to engage UPGs is mobilizing our partners from within the greater than 2% Evangelical population centers. It seems, more than ever, we need strong apostolic presence in the "reached" cities of the Americas if, for not other reason, to make sure all three KRAs are given priority attention.

In summary, it is not the wording of our KRA's that concerns me, but the unnecessary definitions that have been attached to the terms.

The most likely scenario for truly engaging the 2% or less UPGs, UUPGs, UUUPGs and Megacities has less to do with defining percentages as criteria for missionary presence, and more with placing genuine apostolically/prophetically gifted workers in key "reached" centers. There, from a strategic field position mobilize, connect, partner, train, engage, and support coordinated CPM efforts to make disciples of the nations, and bring in the final Great Harvest.

What do you think? How do you see and understand the IMB's Global Objectives (KRAs)? Can you answer any of my questions? Your thoughts are welcome.

-----------------------
*UPG=unreached people groups (2% or less evangelical Christian)
**UUPG=unengaged unreached people groups
***UUUPG=uncontacted unengaged unreached people groups
KRA=key result areas
CPM=church planting movement

30 years ago today...

...Linda and I were married!

We were married in Denton, Texas at Grace Temple Baptist Church (Terry Land, pastor.) The ceremony was done by my dad, James C. Muse, Jr. My best man was my brother, Greg Muse. Linda's Maid of Honor was her friend, Lynne Fuller Morris. Linda came down the aisle to Edvard Grieg's "Wedding Day at Troldhaugen" played on the grand piano by my college room mate, Greg Albright. The solo was "The Lord is My Light and My Salvation" (Psalm 27 ) sung by Linda's sister, Jana Cowan Nelms, and arranged by her brother, Tom Cowan. Ruth Stowell, Linda's aunt accompanied her on the organ.

Being in the dead of Winter, we had not planned on many coming to the wedding, but Saturday, January 11, 1980 turned out to be a bright sunny day, and more than 300 people showed up! In fact there were so many present we were short on food, and neither Linda, or I, got any of our wedding cake, food or drink!

We spent our first night at the DFW Airport Marina Hotel (today the Hyatt) and the next day left for a 7-day honeymoon in Cancún, Mexico.

Over these past 30 years we have:

• lived in 14 different homes together
  
• been with the FMB/IMB 25 of those years
• held nine jobs between the two of us (6 during seminary years)
  
• raised two children, Joshua Caleb (18) finishing up high school in the USA, and Anna Victoria (14) who home schools with Linda
  

In my 53 years, I have made two decisions that have made all the difference in the world: 1) giving my life to following and serving my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ and, 2) marrying Linda Beth Cowan!

The coming crash of organic church?

Christianity Today magazine just released an article entitled, Long Live Organic Church! But what do we do if the world isn't transformed? Is the organic/simple/house church movement doomed to eventually crash on the rocks like all other historical renewal movements? Read what Mark Galli has to say, and then share your thoughts in the comments section.

---------------------------------------------

Long Live Organic Church!
But what do we do if the world isn't transformed?
Mark Galli | posted 1/07/2010 10:30AM


I love the work that Neil Cole is doing—and Alan Hirsch (The Forgotten Ways), Bob Roberts (Transformation: How Glocal Churches Transform Lives and the World), Frank Viola (Finding Organic Church), and many, many others.

In one form or another, they are champions of "organic church." The term is fluid, but it contains at least three ingredients: Frustration with the-church-as-we-know-it, a focus on people (vs. programs) and mission (vs. institutional maintenance), and a vision to transform the world.

As Neil Cole put it in his book Organic Church, "It is not enough to fill our churches; we must transform our world." He puts it similarly in his latest effort, Church 3.0. The book is ostensibly about how to shift from program-driven and clergy-led institutions to churches that are "relational, simple, intimate, and viral." Still, says Cole, "Changing the church is not the idea of this book … . The only reason to shift from Church 2.0 to Church 3.0 is to change the world."

I love the passion. And the prophetic word to institutionalism (believe me, I know the evils of institutionalism: I'm an Anglican!). And the vision to make Christ's love and grace known to the four corners of the planet.

What I worry about is the coming crash of organic church. And after that, I worry about the energetic men and women at the forefront of the movement. Will they become embittered and abandon the church, and maybe their God?

That the organic church movement will crash, I have no doubt...

Read the rest of the article here.