Ok, so I might be splitting hairs on the title because the person who has shown up at the parishioner’s door is one and the same person: the pastor of the church, the spiritual leader, the parson, the preacher. No matter what title is attached, that particular person has taken time to come calling, and that same person will be at the pulpit the following Sunday delivering the sermon. There are questions, however: which is (or should be) the dominant role, and does it matter? Should more emphasis be intentionally placed on one over the other? What can a congregation reasonably expect, and what can they reasonably demand?
I have known and witnessed some exceptional pastors who were marginal, at best, as preachers, and I’ve known and witnessed some exceptional preachers who seemed to have no clue what it means to be a pastor, a shepherd of a flock, a spiritual leader of a people called forth in mission and ministry to the world. Of course there are many who are adept and gifted at handling both roles very well, and they have dynamic and thriving congregations to show for it. There are even some churches which seem to do well with an outstanding preacher who puts very little into pastoral tasks, believing that the dominant role he or she is called to fill is at the pulpit where the Word is proclaimed.
Dynamic and lively worship experiences most certainly fill pews as is evidenced by so-called mega-churches that spend extraordinary amounts of money to hire professional musicians, for instance, to lead worship, but can we reasonably question the mind and the heart of a worship leader who is there only because he or she is being paid to be there? If the church ran into financial difficulties, would that music leader or musician still show up for worship at that particular place of worship for the sake of worship itself … for free? Somehow I think not which is why I wonder what role it is that a pastor should put emphasis on. It is not reasonable to expect any human person to be all things to all people, and a church’s pastor should be no exception to this reality.
Having been appointed only this year to my first full-time appointment (I have been a part-time local pastor since 1999), I now find myself with more time to do the things I really did not have much time for when I had a full-time secular job in addition to my part-time pastorate. Subsequently I find it much easier to manage time for sermon preparation, prayer, and study with ample time left to devote to visiting parishioners. The time I have devoted to sermon preparation, however, is not necessarily planned more than it is allowed. I do not close my office door because someone walking in will be no less disruptive than a knock on a door. Still, isn’t this why I’m here, to be available?
The conflict I wonder about, however, is the seemingly rigid policy that some pastors have in which their study and sermon prep time is an absolute, no-visitors-no-calls-allowed time that will surely from time to time conflict with the congregation’s or a parishioner’s need for a “pastor” when the “preacher” will not allow himself to be disturbed.
Maybe it is not so much the role of the pastor than it is the expectations of a congregation. Does a congregation want to be fed, or does it need to be entertained? This question may seem unfair, but the reality is that for far too many it falls on the pastor to get and keep a parishioner’s attention. If this much is true, has that pastor somehow failed or did the previous pastor fail to do his job? Or is it a lazy parishioner who does not have a heart or a mind set for worship and is, instead, expecting “paid staff” to do his worshiping for him? And is this a pastoral problem, or can a preacher best deal with it?
I have no conclusions, only questions that I intend to answer as I go. I’ve gotten compliments on my sermons, and I’ve been greeted at parishioners’ homes with more surprise and suspicion than with hospitality because too many pastors in the past did not put much emphasis on “pastoring”, so maybe I have found a least a tenuous balance between the two but I also sense that the balance can be tipped either way rather easily without much notice until it is perhaps too late.
This balance surely cannot depend on a pastor’s personal preference, but it also should not be so much an answer to a congregation’s desire above their genuine need for spiritual leadership which would necessarily involve uncomfortable challenges to those most content with “navel gazing” than with social ministry, for instance. Maybe the bigger question would be how dominant a pastor/preacher should even be to his congregation.
I hope for perspective and will welcome input.
No comments:
Post a Comment