Snares of pastoring.org
I was refreshed to read Kevin Miller’s “Heart and Soul” column (Fall 1998), undoubtedly because I fit his description of a thought leader. Although I have been in ministry more than 15 years, only during the last 3-4 years have I tried to define my growing resistance to the prevailing view that “organizational leadership” epitomizes pastoral leadership.
It is not that I cannot “manage by objectives.” My resistance developed as I felt several conflicts between my beliefs and the practice of this leadership style.
1. The organizational model of ministry tends to mechanize people, fitting them into systems as one fits a cog into a machine. Only a rather narrow set of skills are needed for church ministry systems (i.e. music or teaching or small groups). People with gifts and interests outside the dominant systems feel guilty. They may have other God-honoring, Christocentric, Spirit-led priorities but feel guilty because they are not meeting the stated need of the church.
The problem, however, is not the people God has brought to the church. The problem is the structure to which the church is yoked.
2. The organizational model has a persistent emphasis on production. A church focusing on producing (attendance, conversions, baptisms, etc.) places value on what people do. In such a system, the church is not required to be the church, only to do church things.
Qualities such as love, truth, and authority (which belong to the nature of the church) are developed only for their usefulness, as means to a measurable end. As a result, they cease to be virtues and are transformed into mere tools, used for our purposes. Robbed of their value, these hollow virtues become non-convincing arguments for Christianity.
An all-too-common outcome of organizational leadership is successful production rather than maturity in Christ. A shallow victory at best. A far greater victory is learning to value and nurture virtues for the pleasure of maturing in Christ.
3. The organizational leadership model has developed primarily by studying contemporary business practices. I’m concerned about what we are imitating. Corporate leaders are often highly competitive. Pride and envy provide a strong motivation to achieve, based on the belief that one’s value is relative. Someone wins and the others lose. I find it difficult to idealize a leadership style built on these qualities.
The church is left sidelined in a culture thirsting for spirituality that is relevant, transcendent, and freeing.
Engaging thought leaders on these issues will undoubtedly bring balance to leadership perspectives. However, thought leaders seldom look for the most expedient solutions. Thought leaders’ perspectives will undoubtedly create tension and uncertainty for organizational leaders. But those feelings aren’t new to leadership. We thought leaders have experienced similar feelings for years.
—Daniel G. Hotovec Faith Baptist Church, Portland, Oregon
P.S. Perhaps you’ll consider a new tag line for Leadership: A Thoughtful Journal for Church Leaders. Well, it was just a thought!
Balance or sloth? Gary Preston’s article, “Get a (Balanced) Life” (Fall 1998), troubles me. There are legitimate concerns related to the work ethic of some church leaders, and Pastor Preston’s comments make it evident.
This is not to argue with the desire to balance family, ministry, community, personal well being, etc. We all should take care with these important areas. But let’s look at how he defines the work portion of that balance.
Preston expects church staff to work “42-45 hours per week.” In that he specifically includes having lunch with a new couple, visiting sick people, spending time in prayer and study, and having dessert with church members. He includes evening work as well as office hours.
Compare it with a typical member of his congregation (not just the gentleman who “works at least 70 hours per week”). Employed church members are surely expected to study and pray, volunteer time in the church and participate in small group ministries. They too visit sick friends and otherwise minister to others.
Add it up, and it would be surprising if individuals in the flock are not spending at least 50-60 hours per week on work and church work—significantly more than their shepherd on an “apples to apples” basis. (It would also be interesting to compare vacation time. Those employed in business typically take two or three weeks per year.)
The flock could, as easily as the pastor, produce pictures of their children and talk about balancing family, work, and church life—but they cannot find that balance with only 42-45 hours per week on work and church.
I sometimes wonder if pastors understand how hard their congregations are working.
—Larry D. Smith Lake Forest, Illinois
Copyright © 1999 by the author or Christianity Today/Leadership Journal. For reprint information call 630-260-6200 or contact us.
