I was looking through John Piper's Festschrift this morning, and I decided to re-read my contribution. Near the end I talk about the mistaken stereotypes of a pastor and preacher, and thought it might be helpful to repeat here what I wrote. My contention is that a "preacher" who spends the long hours in the study, reading, writing, practicing, focused on Sunday morning, can be just as loving as the "pastor" who is always available, visiting, consoling. A preaching pastor loves his people differently, by taking the time and energy to seriously prepare to "proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light" (1 Pet 2:9, ESV).
We often characterize a person as being a “pastor” (warm, friendly, relational, available), a “rancher” (a successful pastor who now has too many people to spend time with), or a “preacher” (speaker, powerful, teacher, removed). How many times have you asked somebody about their pastor; their response is something like, “He’s a great guy, we love him, but he’s not much of a speaker.” Or, “He’s a dynamic speaker, challenging, but removed from most people.” As the stereotypes often go, the “pastor” is viewed as a friendly person and the “preacher” as not friendly.
After seven years in pulpit ministry I understand how this happens. There is so much to do, staff to manage and encourage, elders to train, people to visit, parking lots to plow, and lawns to mow. The pastor spends his energies loving people one-on-one, and come Saturday night he takes long hot baths trying to think of something to speak on the next day (true story I heard).
The “preacher” on the other hand is committed to his craft, spends time in his study, rehearsing Greek paradigms, reading generally, staying up on culture, pushing his way through exegesis, crafting the sermon, and trying to determine how he is going to be misunderstood so he can massage the message and avoid foreseen pitfalls. But then the assault on his time comes. He’s not available as much for counseling. He is focused on his sermon between services, and so he is criticized for not being friendly. He wouldn’t sit by the bedside of a person nursing the latest hangnail. And he doesn’t have time to argue about the color selection for the bathroom. And when he suggests that a person go to his or her small-group leader for support and encouragement, the preacher is labeled uncaring and the gossip starts.
But I would like to suggest that the preacher is as loving as the pastor, and my hope is that this will encourage you to study. What is the most important thing you can do? What are the most significant obstacles that need to be overcome in people’s lives? I submit that regardless of the size of a church, the mission of the pastor-preacher is to “proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light” (1 Pet. 2:9). Nothing is as important as that. Not the territorial thinking in the missions committee, not the latest disagreements among parishioners, and not the latest board controversy.
Some of these may be (or may not be) important, but when the music has led people to take their eyes off themselves and train on God, when the responsive reading has drawn people into dialogue, when the announcements have reminded people that they are family, and when you stand before your people to preach, there is nothing more important than what you did in the quiet of your study. All of the preparation, from the first day in Greek class to your rehearsing the sermon to an empty room Saturday morning, all your hard work comes to the forefront, and with confidence and humility you stand before the expectant people and proclaim the glory of God. At that moment, you aren’t the church’s plumber. You aren’t the person who has to go to the store to buy more paper for the copier. You are the herald of the king, proclaiming clearly and truthfully the wonders of God. If you have done your work, and if God’s Spirit is so inclined to move, your words will encourage the downtrodden and chasten the sinners. If you are faithful to your king’s decree, you will love your people the most important way, because there is nothing more important than the clear, powerful, rooted-in-truth, Spirit-inspired proclamation of a vision of the glory of God. Nothing. Preachers love their people every bit as much as do pastors. Their love is just shown differently, but it is just as real and just as powerful.
Quoted by permission from, For the Fame of God's Name: Essays in Honor of John Piper. The Pastor and His Study, by William D. Mounce, pages 492-494. Copyright © 2010 by Sam Storms and Justin Taylor, Published by Crossway.
Comments
Thanks so much for this
Thanks so much for this article! I am prayerfully considering entering the pastorate at this point in my life and I am trying to get a read on what it actually means to pastor. I have always had the conviction that proclamation should never be sacrificed for the many "necessary" obligations. Even from the beginning of the NT church we see the disciples focusing on teaching/preaching and prayer. The Lord certainly instructed them to do this and the Spirit empowered them to fulfill it. Why would our calling as pastors be any different? Were not the deacons asked to help the disciples with all of the tangential duties?
Bill, I appreciated your
Bill, I appreciated your article; however, I wonder what a preacher's role is when one of their church members is going through an intensely difficult time. Is is proper for that preacher to be silence and expect that other members in the church will "take care of the situation"? If the preacher is not truly engaged with their members, it makes it extremely difficult to trust, for lack of a better word, the words coming from the pulpit when the preacher seems to be absent throughout the rest of the week.
This is the really har
This is the really har question for most. Do I give up time with my fqmily, or the quality of the sermon (which benefits the much larger group), or do I love on this one person? Really hard decision.
As someone who fits deep
Great post!
As someone who fits deep within the "preacher/teacher" column, this is something I battle inside frequently. Thank you for your thoughts. I have re-posted this (and linked back) on my blog at http://www.danielgoepfrich.com/pastor-or-preacher.
<p>Hi Prof:</p><p>Could there
<p>Hi Prof:</p><p>Could there a be healthy balance between both side? To be a preacher-pastor & pastor-preacher.</p><p>Perhaps you can help me to process something happening with my church. A college student is interested to be baptized on Christmas day. He professed and accepted Christ as his Lord and Savior when he was in high school. However, he is currently dating a nonbeliever who doesn't even come to our church. I told him he is not ready to get baptize yet when he is contradicting and disobeying the Scriptures as he is being "unequally yoked". He seems to understand this truth and recognizes he needs to address this issue. However, I bought this up to my two elders and senior pastor and they all told me I should allow him to get baptize. They said Jesus didn't set any condition for anyone to get baptize, as long as a person says he/she believes and accepts Jesus Christ as their savior that is sufficient, we shouldn't put any conditions for Christians. The senior pastor told me he got baptized when he was still struggling with gambling - as if that makes it okay. I really struggle with what they said. What is your thought on this and how should I approach my senior pastoral staff about their reasons?</p><p>A former student from GCTS. Thank you for the article. Lee Ka</p><p> </p>
In that baptism is the first
In that baptism is the first act of obedience, it is a tad strange to baptize someone who is consciiously sinning. And yet I think your pasotr and elders are right. The people being baptized in the New Testament surely were also sinning. Put it this way, do you baptize people who are gossi[ps, devisive, arrogant, boastful, etc? Sure we do. We baptize even though they are living in conscious, deliberate sin.
This is an interesting
This is an interesting article. Among churches of Christ, we generally take the terms "preacher" and "pastor," to refer to different God-given roles. The terms pastor, elder, bishop, shepherd, we have long seen as synonymous with the leadership of the local congregation. The terms evangelist, preacher, teacher as synonymous as well, but distinct. We appoint bishops (elders/presbyters/pastors/shepherds) in each congregation to handle administrative and shepherding work (as the terms indicate). Preachers are seen as spokesmen, heralds, etc., who labor in the word. Shepherds take heed "to the flock" (Acts 20:28), while ministers/preachers take heed "to the doctrine" (1 Tim. 4:16). Both roles overlap, but priorities are different. Shepherds and preachers working together to establish and maintain these priorities so as to meet the needs of a local congregation is ideal. This arrangement has been of tremendous help to me, to have shepherds that love and appreciate their priorities, and a congregation that is taught to understand the difference. I'd love to hear you elaborate sometime on your understanding of these terms. Thanks for the {always} timely article on this issue.
Hey Bruce -Thanks for chiming
Hey Bruce -Thanks for chiming in! As I said on fabceook, I always enjoy your challenging thoughts. Good stuff.I like the thoughts you pull from Pagan Christianity . I read parts of Barna's book and really identified with many of his thoughts, while others I disagreed with, I still left challenged. I can't speak enough on having a holistic view of Christianity through a variety of thinkers on Christ, with our lens always coming back to the Bible.As far as Barna's response to the expectation of preachers being too great, I agree. We as pastors are expected to wear way too many hats and I don't think that is Biblical. I don't think that there should have to be someone at the top . However, the organizational structure we have at our church (our meaning you and I) is that the pastors are the lowest of the lows (i.e. the ultimate of servants). There is a strong reliance on the elders for wisdom and direction, with our pastor serving as one of those elders. We of course do not do the round table approach on Sunday morning and I cannot speak as a representative of Calvary Assembly, but can offer my own thoughts personally.I am not an advocate for dictator-type leadership which has been prevalent in many churches for many years. Whatever the senior pastor says is of God and you need to submit to it is one of the more frustrating lies you can hear in church. This lie causes some of the biggest train wrecks we see in all of Christianity. This is a large growing trend, specifically in the hyper-Calvinist movement, and it scares me. I'm hoping that some Christian leaders with a larger platform will speak out against this eventually. Otherwise, the rest of us are going to have big messes to clean up (but I digress ).However, on the other extreme of leadership, I also do not believe that flat organizations make much of a difference. I've had this debate too many times at business school, but it is where I end up.99% of businesses are structured in a hierarchical way. I think the reason is because it works. And so are most churches. I don't think that we as leaders of the church need to simply show up on a Sunday and just listen to whoever speak. That is not what church HAS to be. Church is more than a few songs and a sermon. This is why I inserted the one sentence in my post that church is is lived out in and through us as followers of Christ, throughout the week. The model in Christendom where this flat-approach to leadership is happening is the Quakers, who are declining faster than ever. Call it doctrine, call it marketing, call it relevance I think it is their lack of structure, causing them not to make a global difference.Also, the emerging church, to which (pieces) I greatly identify, has reacted strongly to this style of dictator-leadership. I was 100% there a year ago: thinking that we should just show up to church and have a round circle forum/discussion lead by the more spiritual mature among the group (based on spiritual maturity, not just age).I attended a house church for a couple of years too. It was fantastic! A lot of fruitful discussions arose, a lot of heart change happened, a lot of incredible friendships were formed, and we did what we could to help others in need, anytime we could. It was great for a period in my life.However, where it got difficult to figure out was how to facilitate gatherings that expanded beyond our living room. We rented a facility, since we were growing, but whenever we tried to just have open mic Sundays (which was revolutionary in an overly religious place like Lancaster County I might add), they didn't work out that well. It was entertaining and there were some good thoughts, but things weren't as organized as they should have been (even when we tried). The service ran too long. And the bigger issue: people didn't come back. It didn't have to do with the service being completely different from other places either. It had to do with a lack of continuity and preparation. I also understand how the church in Acts is described, however, I believe that Jesus was a very strong leader, and developed other leaders (Apostles) to go and spread His Word. There are many ways to do this, I just think that a monologue format can be one of the most fruitful ways. I can say it is for me at least, and I know a lot of others feel the same. Christ is of course the head, but we have to be the messengers in whatever means necessary. I hope my passion for Christ is seen by people for His sake.Also, I sometimes wonder if in this non-paid-pastor model, elders are required to have the gift of teaching. I won't go into this, but what if someone was very mature, but was not a good articulator? Or not someone who could make teachings that actually stuck with you? The biggest problem also comes down to time. If we were to let 330 people share their opinion this Sunday at church, and everyone got 3 minutes to speak (no one repeating), we would be at church for nearly 1,000 minutes. This would mean a 17 hour day and would not include any other way for people to connect with God (worship through song, prayer, etc.).I think it is important to note that I agree with much of what you are saying, I just probably don't take it quite as far as Barna/Viola are going. I RELY on my time at our small group EVERY week for time for growth, and I believe I have church every week at the Ottos (Steve and Amy of course are not ordained ). Church, to me, is defined when two or more gather in the name of God. How we do that is up for debate, but this doesn't answer my question of is our expectation of the message being presented by someone too great? . I catch myself jumping to conclusions before the presenter has even got to their main point, which is a sure sign of arrogance in my heart. Blah!So, I say all that, not addressing all the concerns brought up in Barna/Viola's statement, with something else in mind. My question had more to do with our expectations of anyone speaking the Gospel in any sort of format and our expectations flowing from that. My question is not is the pastor doing too much? or Is a pastor even Biblical? but instead going to when you are listening to a pastor, are your expectations too high? . My title of the post could be confusing as to this distinction.I'm teaching more tonight on the realities of the Gospel I hope to see your daughters.
Add new comment