I usually resonate with most of what Dr. Trueman writes, but I find Trueman's piece to be unhelpful by way of solutions. He has perhaps rightly diagnosed a problem in some cases but this article seems to me to be complaining without offering ideas about how to deal with the problem. Here is a portion of it:
I wonder if we do right in our little Reformed world to make so much of the big personality with the big church. Why invite a man who pastors a congregation of two to ten thousand people to speak at a conference or write a book on church leadership? How much does such a one really know about leading a church, as opposed to merely being a good public speaker, winsome writer, or CEO? Does he know his people by name? Can he pray for them in an informed manner? Does he really understand what it means to die each day for those to whom he seeks to bring the gospel? Is he ever actually there when his people call to him for help, or is that the task of one of his underlings? Is he too busy listening to the questions and needs of those outside the church to have any real time to spend with those within his fellowship? And if Dave Bogstandard-Member calls him, with a pressing pastoral problem, will he cancel a TV gig or a book signing in order to to help him? If not, should we really set such up as the ideal to which those going in for the ministry should aspire?Certain men are going to have big churches. And they always will simply because they have unique gifts and people will gravitate towards them as God has gifted them in unique ways to bless his church. I wish Dr. Trueman would have given us some advice on how a guy like John Piper should do things differently so as to pastor more effectively if having a church of 2,000 or so is really a huge problem. I'm just not sure what pastors of big churches supposed to do? Cap their attendance at 300 and then turn people away and send them down the street? That doesn't seem to be a workable solution.
Some thoughts that I would offer by way of solution. These are by no means fully developed:
1. Big churches that have weak small groups are not going to minister to their people well. This implies that leadership development and oversight of small group leaders should be very high on the priority list for pastors. Like Moses had to do, we should be dividing our people into smaller groups for the sake of ministering to them in healthy way. Seems that plurality of eldership (via JT) is a must.
2. Trueman's article speaks to the need for church planting. We should be constantly raising up new leaders and sending them out and some of the people with them. But it won't solve the problem. If people want to hear mega-pastor preach then it doesn't matter how many churches he tries to plant, they will simply show up to hear him preach.
3. Having a plurality of teachers or up-front leaders might be a good solution. We are six weeks in on this model at The Vine and thus far (I know it is VERY early) it seems to be working well. When there is a rotation of preachers and teachers is it hard to fixate on one guy and make him "the man". But again, for some guys like Mark Driscoll or Piper or Chandler, they have been gifted in such unique ways that they'll always rise above. This is who God has made them to be. We shouldn't look down our noses at these men because they can't name everyone in their congregation.
I would love to hear other solutions that you might have in mind. Dr. Trueman, give us some solutions please! :)
4 comments:
I tend to find that the churches with exponential growth are growing because they are saying something radically different than what people are hearing elsewhere. In most cases this is a good thing. In a few cases not so good..
But there really is no cure for exponential growth. Most growing churches are planting churches -- And still growing exponentially. Some churches in my area have planted churches of 400 or so, and still had increased attendance the week that the new church opened. They build a larger facility but outgrow it before the construction is complete.
God is going to bring people to hear good teachers.
Peter's church grew by 3000 in one day, and nobody is accusing him of selling out the Gospel.
Dr. Trueman seems to question whether a megachurch pastor would know how to care for their flock in a more personal, direct way and should be looked to for advice in how to do it.
I think that would depend on if the church was already large when the preaching pastor was hired and if the new pastor didn't come from a background of smaller (relatively speaking) church experience.
However, if one would do a study of actual megachurches, which are a relatively new phenomenon, I imagine most of them became large while the current preaching pastor was there. In fact, one of the factors in their becoming large is the gifting of the current preaching pastor (as well as the holy spirit, and current cultural tendencies).
For example, when John Piper came to Bethlehem Baptist it had about 400-500 attendees, many over age 65 (see http://www.desiringgod.org/Blog/2534_thank_you_pastor_john_for_30_years/). It was still what we would call a larger church but still of a size where he could and did do personal engagement. He oversaw about one funeral per week for the first couple of years (see http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Sermons/ByDate/1982/335_Jesus_Is_Precious_Because_He_Gives_Eternal_Life/).
I imagine this example is typical of most megachurch pastors and that most have a wealth of background church experience from years of service.
Few megachurch pastors got their positions coming out of nowhere. Joel Osteen may be one of the exceptions who took over the Senior Pastor job from his father, and he may even have more years in the trenches than I realize.
I think there is a distinction that Dr. Trueman is making that doesn't necessarily have to be there. He's pretty much saying that the senior pastor needs to be the all-sufficient shepherd to each member. This means that "under-shepherds" (aka elders, associate pastors, etc.) cannot handle shepherding part of the church. Is there any where in the Bible where it states that the leader of the church needs to personally care for everyone in the church? If there is, please point me to it. That would be good to know. For churches of 400, the senior pastor can often personally care for all members. But a church of 2000? That does not seem reasonable. All of the Pastor's time would be taken up caring for the immediate needs of the church, with little time available for prayer, fasting, studying scripture, etc. Without him doing those things, surely the church would suffer. (I think Acts 6 can generally apply to what we're talking about). Associate Pastors/elders who are adequately trained should be able to handle most of the other duties, such as counseling, etc. The senior pastor should still be involved in the lives and actively shepherd the other leaders, but he need not serve this role for the entire congregation.
Just my opinion. Happy to receive correction.
Glad to know I'm not alone.
I sent an email to the Ref21 website noting my impression that the use of the anecdote about someone from a large church not being able to get an interview with the pastor was neither necessary or helpful in framing the challenges and points that he made in the piece.
To my mind they ran counter to a piece Trueman wrote a couple of weeks ago about generalisations:
"The problem is they build grand cases about general types on very limited access to evidence. When particular figures are dismissed as being polemically minded, relentlessly aggressive etc, it is possible that, on occasion, the criticism is true. More often, however, it is built upon reading a few pages of a blog or a book or a magazine; or listening to one lecture or public statement; worse still, it is based on hostile witness of some kind."
I think the principle translates to this essay. A single incident, without context, becomes a general indictment upon a whole group.
Gary Ware.
Post a Comment