A Good Read

Here is a blog I found that may be helpful for some of us pastors...

Seven Reasons Why Pastors Quit...

"Where is the house you will build for me?"

Isaiah 66.1-4:
"This is what the Lord says: 'Heaven is my throne and the earth is my footstool. Where is the house you will build for me? Where will my resting place be? Has not my hand made all these things, and so they came into being?' declares the Lord. 'This is the one I esteem: he who is humble and contrite in spirit and trembles at my word.'"

What folly! Did you honestly think that you were going to be the one who builds a church institution and church building that could contain the Lord over all creation?  What folly! God will not esteem you or be in awe of any grand gesture of your hand! You are obsessed with creating something that validates how great you are. Did you honestly think you were going to "Wow!" God?  You acted as though God needs you so you can build a house where he can be safe. Ha! What folly!  Pride!

The one who God esteems is humble and is poor in spirit - the one who grasps the omnipotence of the God of all creation. The one who God esteems is the one who humbles himself or herself in contrition and worship. He or she knows God's word and trembles.

Notice they were doing all the things required by the law. They were worshipping with the practices prescribed. But, "The most sacred exercises of true God-given religion are like the worst sins when they are divorced from humility of spirit" (NIV Bible Commentary 1145).

Meeting "Needs"?

I am reading a great book for my DMin program: Derek Tidball, Ministry by the Book: New Testament Patterns for Pastoral Leadership (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2008).  During his study of the Gospel of Luke, he explains that "Many pastors have become chaplains to religious clubs, or managers of a religious supermarket, and their primary focus has been on satisfying the needs of its members or keeping the loyalty of its customers" (64).  This rhetoric is nothing new; I have been hearing this for years. 

He does, however, make a good point later, while quoting William Willimon: "We need not just to be satisfying the needs of the insiders [of the church] but helping them to learn whether those needs are even legitimate ones to have or not [emphasis added].  [Willimon] writes: 'Our culture tends to be a vast supermarket of desire.  Anyone who goes out to meet my needs is going to be working full time!  I believe this is one reason many pastors are so fatiqued.  They are expending their lives, running about in such busyness, attempting to service the needs of essentially selfish, self-centered consumers, without critique or limit of those needs.  Flannery O'Conner mocked a clergyman of her acquaintance, whom she called 'one part minister and three parts masseuse'" (64-65).

In our effort to be missional, have we created "needs" that really aren't needs at all?  In our effort to present the Gospel in a way that people can understand, have we created a need that is really a consumer's preference?  I think so.  I am becoming more convinced that these "needs" that we are trying to fill are really pacifiers.  For example, does our culture "need" a light show to worship God?  Or is this just their preference to be entertained and we made it a need?  This particular example is something that comes to mind as I process Tidball and Willimon's statements.

Thoughts?

Theology: A Congregational Journey

A paper I just presented in a DMIN seminar.

THEOLOGY: A CONGREGATIONAL JOURNEY

Introduction

            Aaron and Susan are new to your church. They recently made a public profession of faith and were baptized in a baptismal service.  They are now attending the new believers’ discipleship class each Sunday.  Aaron volunteers to help with service activities in the church and is building friendships in the church with his outgoing personality.  This past Sunday, after most of the congregation left morning worship, Aaron hangs around in the lobby until he has an opportunity to speak with you alone. 

            “Pastor, I need your advice,” he says.

            “Sure, Aaron, what can I do for you?” you respond.  “Let’s sit down.”

            “I’m not sure what I need to do, and I need your help.  You need to know that Susan and I love this church, and we are really growing spiritually in the discipleship class.  But there is something that is bothering me.  Susan and I aren’t married.  We have been living together for the last ten years.  But we are still married to other people.  We haven’t seen our spouses in years.  What should we do?”

            What should we do?  Aaron asked an important question for his life.  He is experiencing a crisis and he has come to you, his pastor, for an answer.  Aaron’s question forces the pastor into a role that is part of the calling of pastoral ministry. 

Before the pastor can begin to address Aaron’s question, there are significant questions that demand reflection.  First, why does Aaron come to you with his question?  In other words, what expectations does Aaron have of you, his pastor?  Second, is Aaron’s question a theological question?  Why or why not?  Third, how will you respond to Aaron?  Will you attempt to answer his question?  If so, by what process will you reach your recommendation?  Finally, on what authority will you rely to respond to Aaron?  In other words, why should Aaron listen to you?

The Minister as Theologian

Pastoral ministry is filled with interactions in which the pastor and parishioner engage in discussions such as these.  Of the many facets of pastoral ministry, theological reflection and proclamation holds a significant place.  In the early church, the Apostle Paul insisted that leaders in the Church of Jesus Christ fulfill a calling to instruct God’s people in all matters of faith.  Of the many qualifications he describes in 1 Timothy 3, he requires that the elder (i.e., church leadership) must be able to teach God’s people.  The writer of Ephesians puts it this way:

It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.  Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming.  Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ.  From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work (Eph 4:11 – 16).[1]

The writer of Ephesians insists that the goal of pastoral ministry, in concert with other ministries, is to reach unity in faith, the knowledge of the Son of God, spiritual maturity, and the fullness of Christ.  Paul reinforces this position in Col 1:9 – 10:

. . . [W]e have not stopped praying for you and asking God to fill you with the knowledge of his will through all spiritual wisdom and understanding.  And we pray this in order that you may live a life worthy of the Lord and please him in every way: bearing fruit in every good work, growing in the knowledge of God . . . 

It is typically the parishioner’s perspective that the pastor is the first stop on the journey in which serious questions concerning faith and practice arise and answers are sought.  They often lean on the pastor’s study, understanding, and proclamation of God’s.  Aaron is asking a theological question, because he is seeking, through the pastor’s study and understanding, what God’s will is in his situation.  “This life crisis is a theological crisis . . .”[2]  Even though he may not be able to articulate it as such, in Aaron’s mind, his situation has theological implications. 

The pastor, then, needs to have a clear understanding of the nature of theology.  There are countless definitions of theology that emerge from various faith traditions.  The etymology, however, gives clues to its definition. Howard W. Stone and James O. Duke explain, “It comes to us as a compound word from ancient Greek: theo-logia are logia (sayings, accounts, teachings, theories) concerning theos (the divine, gods and goddesses, God).  This root meaning carries over into the most traditional use of the word: a belief, conception, or study of God.”[3]  Across the spectrum of definitions, a pattern emerges that is useful for the pastor: theology is simply humanity’s attempt to know God and know God’s will.  This definition makes an essential implication:  our faith insists that there is “ . . . a message from God concerning God’s relationship to the world, to history, and to all human life.”[4]  The pastor is an essential part of God’s plan to make that message clearly known to God’s people and to those outside of the Christian faith. 

Furthermore, the nature of theology cannot be limited simply to abstract concepts, philosophical propositions, and theories.  Since this message from God focuses on God’s relationship to the world, history, and to all human life, Christian theology must address the reality of life in this world and history.  Theology must engage and guide our experiences and the motivations behind and responses to those experiences. 

Traditionally, theology has been divided into four major categories: biblical theology, systematic theology, historical theology, and practical theology.[5]  Although the pastor typically engages in some respect in each of these theological disciples, the locus of pastoral theology and ministry is placed in practical theology.  Andrew Purves argues, however, that “Practical theology is practical because it is theological: it has to do with God.  All theology, all knowledge of God, by virtue of the subject matter – the acting God – is inherently a practical knowledge of God.”[6]  In other words, if theological reflections do not affect our the totality of our lives, it is no longer theology.

The pastor and scholar are not the only theologians.  Everyone is a theologian in one respect or another.  Even those that are outside of the Christian faith are theologians.  Not only are the pastor or scholar called to clearly articulate the Christian faith in a way that is meaning-driven and transformative, every Christian is a theologian. “It is a simple fact of life for Christians: their faith makes them theologians.”[7]

Since theology is shaped by the knowledge of God and God’s will, since all theology should shape our understanding of God’s relationship to us and our lives, and since everyone is a theologian, then the calling of the pastor is to be a guide in the process of theological formation in the church to whom he or she is called.  God calls the pastor to intentionally reflect theologically and teach his or her congregations how to reflect theologically, which is essential to understand God and God’s will. 

Theological reflection should not be isolated to the pastor.  It is a congregational journey that should be shared as a community of faith.  Patricia O’Connell Killen and John de Beer insist that ministers “ . . . must help those with whom we work develop the practice of theological reflection.  Assisting them to bring their life experience into dynamic conversation with the wisdom of the Christian heritage creates contexts for long-lasting insight and significant growth in faith.”[8]  They identify five essential factors that are necessary for theological reflection in groups.[9]  First, pastors need to understand the people that they intend to guide through theological reflection – their conceptual skills, thinking skills, openness to group discussion, familiarity with the Christian tradition, and contextual factors that would serve as boundaries for understanding.  Second, the pastor must have a purpose in mind by clearly answering the question: “Why are we facilitating theological reflection with these people?”  Is there a specific contextual need that necessitates a season of reflection?  Identifying clear purpose is critical because it guides the congregation to identifiable theological goals.  Third, there need to be clear environmental parameters that guide the reflective processes.  Fourth, the pastor must provide a focused presence in the reflective process.  The pastor must be willing to give considerable energy and focus to the process for it to bear theological fruit.  Finally, there needs to be a clear process that the congregation can see and follow. 

Types of Theology

Let us return to Aaron’s situation above and the questions that arise from this interaction.  Should the pastor choose to respond, and, if so, on what grounds should he or she respond?  The pastor could justify providing an authoritative response to Aaron’s situation because he is a new follower of Christ.  The pastor’s response, though, will be guided by one of two types of theology.

Many times, ministers guide a congregation and respond to theological questions based on a type of theology of which they may be unaware.  Stone and Duke identify a type of theology that is “ . . . disseminated by the church and assimilated by its members in their daily lives . . . called embedded theology.”[10]  They assert, “Christians learn what faith is all about from countless daily encounters with their Christianity – formal and informal, planned and unplanned.”[11]  Embedded theology is deeply rooted in our lives and is the “implicit theology that Christians live out in their daily lives.”[12]  It is the underlying theology that drives many of the methods of worship, practices, teachings, symbols, standards of behavior, and boundaries in Christians’ lives.  It is usually the “flash-point” of most of the theological, moral, and social issues of our day.  “Christians rise up to defend their theological convictions or express outrage when those convictions are threatened.”[13] The theological response to Aaron’s situation may be driven by the embedded theology of the pastor and the congregation.

            One should not immediately respond with criticism to embedded theology.  There is significant value in the embedded theology that guides the Christian in life.  In fact, it is a person’s embedded theology that renders the Christian able to make immediate theological decisions when time and distance for reflection are unavailable.  When someone is faced with a significant choice in life and time to reflect on the issue is simply unavailable, it is a person’s embedded theology that can provide a theological “safety net.” 

Instead of providing an immediate, authoritative response, the pastor could chose to guide Aaron on a theological journey that will develop his ability to reflect theologically and provide continuous spiritual growth through a type of theology that Stone and Duke call deliberative theology:

Deliberative theology is the understanding of faith that emerges from a process of carefully reflecting upon embedded theological convictions.  . . . It inspects a range of alternative understandings in search of that which is most satisfactory and seeks to formulate the meaning of faith as clearly and coherently as possible.[14]

Aaron has an embedded theology that led him to ask the pastor for direction.  Deliberative theological reflection “ . . . carries us forward when our embedded theology proves inadequate. Sincere or not, our embedded theology may be ill-informed or even mistaken, sufficient only until a crisis, a conversation, a controversy, or our own spiritual growth leads us to reflect again.”[15]  His embedded theology has taken him only so far and a deeper understanding of God and God’s will are necessary for Aaron to grow in his faith.

A Congregational Model for Deliberative Theological Reflection

            What Aaron and the pastor need is a tool for deliberative theological reflection.  They need a process that seeks to understand God and determine God’s will within his situation. This process focuses on the issue at hand and the faithful response to that issue.

            The study of theological reflection and processes reveals a very diverse and, sometimes, complex set of principles.  W. Paul Jones points out the division in the church between the liberal and conservative theological camps:

. . . [T]here is a growing chasm.  Liberals, on the one hand, advocate a broad relativism of options, encouraging openness as the mark of tolerance.  The result in practice, however, is often an eroding of commitment through theological indifference.  The result is a Christianity that provides little more than supplemental activities and religious support for the values generally implicit in modern culture. On the other hand, conservative sectors have been growing in number and appeal, in part because they exhibit faith as firm commitment and costly discipleship, providing a cultural alternative.  Yet the result, in practice, is often allegiance to a historically conditioned dogmatism that fails to engage the majority of persons involved in the central sectors of contemporary life.[16]

Jones calls the Church to embrace the contributions from both sides and take a posture that is “both postconservative and postliberal.”[17]

            First, with Jones’ call taken to heart, a search for the contributions of both camps yields a surprisingly consistent conceptual pattern that emerges when one “takes a step back” and views theological reflection as a process with multiple starting points for various disciplines.  Typically, within the liberal theological tradition, the starting point is within the human condition and moves toward an engagement with tradition.  The goal within this tradition is to interpret the human experience in light of the Christian faith and discover “meaning.”  Within the conservative theological traditions, the typical starting point is to correctly exegete scripture, discover eternal truth (doctrine), and moves toward interpretation (i.e., the application of doctrine to everyday life).[18]  This type of reflection is typically referred to as applied theology.  The reality is, depending on the type of theological reflection, both of these are valid starting points for theological reflection.

            Second, a review of works on practical theological reflection generally reveals four essential elements for theological reflection: (1) the occasion, (2) reflection on reality, (3) the source(s) for authority, and (4) the action.  While they may be described by different terms, the concepts remain generally constant.[19]  Theologians typically offer these concepts in a general process for reflection.  The deliberative theological process offered here includes each of these elements.  I include, however, an additional element: collaboration, which will be explained below.  Furthermore, the process offered here (see figure 1) is a continuous process of theological reflection. 

Figure 1

            For the various theological disciplines, the starting point will be different.[20]  For example, the biblical theological discipline will necessarily begin with the study of Scripture in its various historical/grammatical contexts.  For the pastoral theologian, which finds his or her perspective in practical theology, the beginning point will often be in the experience of the parishioner.  There are times for theological reflection beginning in the study and exposition of Scripture, which begins the process of reflection toward collaboration, meaning, and so on.  For much of pastoral care, it begins in the occasion or experience of the parishioner and moves to reflection on reality and so on.

The Occasion

            The process for pastoral theological reflection begins in the occasion that gives rise to theological questions or crises in the human experience.  In the case of our friend Aaron, the crisis emerges as a question of godly relationships and marriage.  Within this stage of theological development, it is important not to assign meaning.  At this stage, the important task is to clearly describe the experience, occasion, crisis, or problem to be addressed.  Killen and de Beer suggest that during this stage we enter into our experience and attempt to describe the occasion or experience with simple concrete descriptors.[21]  In other words, we are looking for “just the facts.”

Reflection on Reality

            At this stage in our journey, we are seeking to reflect on the real-world cause(s) of our theological reflection and our emotive reactions to them.  Michael Cowan describes it as “interpreting the world as it is.”  It is the beginning of understanding the why behind our occasion for theological reflection.  Furthermore, it is during this stage that we begin to explore the emotive response to the theological occasion.  Killen and de Beer insist that by identifying and naming our feelings in our occasion, it joins our mind and body, which leads to identifying the “heart of the matter . . . the significant issue of an event brought for reflection.”[22]

Source(s)

            Once we have clearly identified the “heart of the matter,” we can now move to the source(s) or resources for theological reflection.  For different faith traditions, these sources may be different.   In the conservative traditions, for example, Scripture will be placed as the source for insight.  Stone and Duke identify four essential sources that are used for insight.  The first source for insight is Scripture.  “Christians seek to hear through these writings a message from God – the Word of God.  The Scriptures proclaim the Word that called for the faith of Israel and the faith of the earliest Christians. That Word of God is still heard today by the reading of Scripture.”[23] It is within this phase, and with this source of insight into the knowledge of God and God’s will, that we turn to the formal theological processes of exegesis and biblical hermeneutics.  The second source of insight is engagement with tradition: “the sum total of what the church has passed down over time.  Not only the content of the Christian message of God but also the teachings, writings, rituals, and customs of the church are referred to as tradition.”[24] A third source of insight is reason.  This is the process of how we think through our faith and is essential to our process of filtering what we accept as essential to faith and what we reject.  Finally, experience itself plays a significant role in our theological insights.  Stone and Duke point out that “All of life – and the life of faith – is a matter of experiencing.”[25]  We grow in our understanding of God and God’s will through our encounters with God in the context of community and practice.  Stone and Duke provide a significant value to experience as an essential source of the knowledge of God: “Experience often serves as a reality check against overblown and false theological statements.”[26] 

Meaning

            From the sources of insight, we draw meaning.  This is perhaps one of the most abstract and ambiguous terms used in theological reflection.  Drawn from the existential and phenomenological traditions of theology, it focuses on the understanding of being and life’s purpose.  This statement needs a more concrete expression.  When a Christian refers to meaning, it should always mean what God means.  It should always reflect what God means for our insight to mean.  In other words, meaning should never be solely a subjective response to an occasion.  The meaning should always be cast in light of the knowledge of God and God’s will.  At this stage, then, should be a crystallization of lived principles drawn from the insights in the reflective process. 

            There is a further understanding of meaning that needs to be asserted.  Meaning is never to be left in an abstract concept.  Meaning should imply action.  The process should culminate in an approach to Christian life in which the insights about God and God’s will lead to a life faithfully lived.

Collaboration

            This phase in the process of theological reflection is often assumed throughout the process but rarely intentionally performed.  I add this step as an essential in reflective process to be more intentional about exposing our insights and principlized meaning to the accountability of faithful and mature believers. Through this step, the community of faith can rigorously test our exegesis of Scripture, our interpretation and application of tradition, our reasoning processes and experiences as sources of theological insight and meaning.

            Theological reflection cannot be done in isolation from the community of faith.  Stone and Duke describe the work of theology as “ . . . a matter of personalized conversational thinking about shared convictions” [emphasis added].[27]  Furthermore, “Its aim is less to set forth my understanding of my Christian faith than to develop the best possible understanding of the faith that our Christian church seeks to understand.”[28]  In other words, the insights gained through the deliberative process should be exposed to and for the community of faith.  They insist that all theology is fashioned through assessment and provide tests of the appropriateness of the insights from our theological reflection that need to be done at this stage in the process:[29]

·               Christian appropriateness evaluates a theology in light of its “Christianness,” that is, its faithfulness to the Christian message.

·               Intelligibility is the concern that a Christian theology makes sense to Christians even if to no one else.

·               Moral integrity is concerned with a theology’s ethical standards.  Christian faith is, in addition to believing and heartfelt feeling, a way of living guided by moral values.

·               Validity.  The question of validity has to do with the credibility, reality, and truth of the theological views. 

Conclusion

            Aaron came to a pastor during an occasion that demanded a faithful, theological answer.  At this point in his life, he did not need pat, simplistic, authoritative answers because the occasion was a complex problem, which needed deliberative theological understanding.  This process, this journey of theological reflection, is a model whereby the pastor, the congregation, and the individual follower of Jesus Christ can enter into a journey with a clear set of goals and safeguards to know God and know God’s Will.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cowan, Michael. “Practical Theology” (unpublished lecture, 2000). Available at: http://www.loyno.edu/~mcowan/PracticalTheology.html, accessed June 26, 21012 at 12:13 AM.

Erikson, Millard. Christian Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998.

Jones, W. Paul. Theological Worlds: Understanding the Alternative Rhythms of Christian Belief. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1989.

O’Connell Killen, Patricia, and John de Beer. The Art of Theological Reflection. New York: Crossroad Publishers, 1994.

Osmer, Richard. Practical Theology: An Introduction. Grand Rapids: William b. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2008.

Purves, Andrew. Reconstructing Pastoral Theology: A Christological Foundation. Louisville and London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004.

Segundo. Juan Luis. The Liberation of Theology. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1976. In R. Daniel Shaw and Charles E. Van Engen. Communicating God’s Word in a Complex World: God’s Truth or Hocus Pocus? New York: Rowan and Littlefield, 2003.

Stone, Howard W. and James O. Duke. How to Think Theologically. 2^nd Edition. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2006.

Swinton, John and Harriet Mowat. Practical Theology and Qualitative Research. London: SCM, 2006.

---

[1] Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture citations will be from the New International Version of the Holy Bible. 

[2] Howard W. Stone and James O. Duke, How to Think Theologically, 2^nd Ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2006), 17.

[3] Ibid., 7.

[4] Ibid., 8.

[5] Ibid, 8; see also Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 24).

[6] Andrew Purves, Reconstructing Pastoral Theology: A Christological Foundation (Louisville and London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004), 7.

[7] Stone and Duke, 1.

[8] Patricia O’Connell Killen and John de Beer, The Art of Theological Reflection (New York: Crossroad Publishing, 1994), 112.

[9] Ibid., 116 – 119. 

[10] Stone and Duke, 13.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid., 15.

[14] Ibid., 17.

[15] Ibid., 18.

[16] W. Paul Jones, Theological Worlds: Understanding the Alternative Rhythms of Christian Belief (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1989), 11 – 12.

[17] Ibid., 12.

[18] Purves, xix – xx.

[19] These four elements can be found in the following: Killen and de Beer,119 (e.g., [1] focusing on some aspect of experience, [2] describing that experience to identify the heart of the matter, [3] putting the heart of the matter into conversation with the wisdom of the Christian heritage, and [4] identifying new meanings and truths to take back to daily living); Richard Osmer, Practical Theology: An Introduction (Grand Rapids: William b. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2008), 4; (Osmer offers these concepts in the form of questions to be answered: [1] “What is going on?” [occasion], [2] “Why is this going on?” [reflection on reality], [3] “What ought to be going on?” [source], and [4] “How might we respond?” [the action]; Michael Cowan, “Practical Theology” (unpublished lecture, 2000), available at: http://www.loyno.edu/~mcowan/PracticalTheology.html, accessed June 26, 21012 at 12:13 AM,  offers a four step model of practical theology, as well: (1) Articulate concerns and identify issues, (2) interpret the world as it is, (3) interpret the world as it should be, and (4) determine our contemporary obligations, act accordingly, and evaluate our actions; Juan Luis Segundo, The Liberation of Theology (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1976), in R. Daniel Shaw and Charles E. Van Engen, Communicating God’s Word in a Complex World: God’s Truth or Hocus Pocus? (New York: Rowan and Littlefield, 2003), 73 – 75, has a four-step model as well: (1) context, (2) ideology (suspicion), (3) God’s Word, and (4) a new encounter with the context.

[20] John Swinton and Harriet Mowat, Practical Theology and Qualitative Research (London: SCM, 2006), 5.

[21] Killen and de Beer, 25.

[22] Ibid., 61.

[23] Stone and Duke, 47. 

[24] Ibid., 50.

[25] Ibid., 54.

[26] Ibid., 55.

[27] Ibid., 6.

[28] Ibid., 7.

[29] Ibid.,, 36 – 37. 

Another one...

Here is another great quote from Andrew Purves in his amazing book, Reconstructing Pastoral Theology: A Christological Foundation:

". . . the whole of Christian faith and life, everything in discipleship and ministry, is the explication of Jesus Christ and faith in him, which means a sharing in his life.  He is not one 'doctrine' among others; all other doctrines are expression of or elements in the one faith in Jesus Christ.  Thus in all aspects of Christian life and ministry, in everything that is said and done, Jesus Christ in his living personhood is the principal actor, the 'thing itself,' in whom we live and whose ministry we share.  He is not a point of reference, or even the most religious of all ideas, as though that which is  Christian is somehow at a distance from him.  Neither is he a principle for action derived from his life, a kind of timeless ethical directive to be followed.  Everything is the 'speaking' of God's own Word and Truth who is Jesus Christ in his actuality, and as such, he is inherently and irreducibly a practical and personal Truth.  Whatever else pastoral work is about, if it would be Christian it concerns directly Jesus CHrist as the living and personal Word of God.  Pastoral work has no other basis or validation than Jesus Christ, he alone is its self-sufficient basis."

Wow...

He alone...

I love this statement by pastoral theologian Andrew Purves:


"The incarnation of Jesus Christ discloses the only path to God, and he is thus alone our human destiny. John 14:6 has been taken very seriously by the church in its reflection of the meditation of Christ: 'No one comes to the Father except through me.' This is both an absolute claim and a singular statement of authority and access. In the face of today's religious pluralism this affirmation may seem offensive. We should certainly respect all religious viewpoints and treat all person of whatever creed with dignity. But Christian faith as expressed through the creeds and confessions of the church makes a singular claim for Jesus Christ that cannot be compromised without undoing the gospel itself - Because of who he is. Here we must speak of truth. He alone is the mediator between the Creator and the creation, between God and a sinful humanity; he reveals the Father and does God's work for us and among us; and at the last he brings us home to communion with the Father in union with himself through the Holy Spirit. All other paths to God, no matter how apparently pious, are inadequate, are ultimately not saving, and, indeed, are ultimately deadly, leading to judgment. This singular claim is not made on behalf of the church, or any theological school, or system of doctrine, but is made by the New Testament on behalf of Jesus Christ, who makes it for himself" (Andrew Purves).

A Man After my own Heart

Check out this blog post called the "Detergent Church."  Good stuff...

http://ahavafriend.blogspot.com/2008/06/detergent-church-by-doug-giles.html

Top 10 Myths about Church Growth

Before I give you my list of top ten myths of church growth, I would like to provide a type of disclaimer.  Larger churches are not bad churches.  Many of the larger churches are exciting places to worship God and are doing amazing things in God's Kingdom.  Please understand that I am not being critical of larger churches, per ce.

This list is a reaction to the church growth culture that has been created (and not necessarily biblical) that is causing more damage than good in the Church of Jesus Christ.  It is a reaction to the consumer-driven entertainment industry that the church is buying into.  It is also a reaction to the "star" system, which I will address below.  It is a reaction to denomination emphases on church growth instead of faithful Christian ministry.  There are precious saints of the Lord that labor every day to be faithful to the ministry of Jesus Christ in the pastorate and are marginalized, neglected, overlooked, and dismissed as irrelevant and incapable because they pastor a smaller church.

Myth #1:  Smaller churches are unhealthy churches

Smaller churches have been pigeonholed into "unhealthy" church status from the church growth movement and the denominational leaders that cater to the larger churches and their pastors.  There is a destructive concept out there that says that "healthy churches grow automatically."  Whereas this may true in some contexts, it does not mean all small churches are somehow unhealthy.

But, how does the Bible describe a healthy church? In other words, by what standard would Jesus Christ judge a healthy church? First, you will not find the term "healthy church" in the Bible.  What you will find, however, are very clear expectations of the church in any context and of any size.  For example, Paul exhorts the church at Colossae: " . . . [W]e have not stopped praying for you and asking God to fill you with the knowledge of his will through all spiritual wisdom and understanding.  And we pray this in order that you may live a life worthy of the Lord and may please him in every way: bearing fruit in every good work, growing in the knowledge of God, being strengthened with all power according to his glorious might so that you may have great endurance and patience, and joyfully giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in the kingdom of light" (Col 1:9b - 12, NIV).   That sounds like a healthy church to me, regardless of how many people are in the church and regardless of how many people are being "added" to the church over any given period of time.

Myth #2: God is displeased with pastors of small churches

In other words, the pastor of a smaller church is a spiritually inferior pastor and probably not a good leader.

I love the conversation that Jesus had with Peter after his resurrection (see John 21:15 - 19).  Jesus asked Peter, "Do you love me?"  Peter responded, "Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you."  Jesus said, "Feed my sheep."

How does a pastor find favor in the sight of the Lord?  Feed His sheep!  Later, Peter, when exhorting the pastors in Asia Minor, said, "Be shepherds of God's flock..." (1 Peter 5:1).  That is when we find favor in the sight of the Lord.  That is when we will hear, "Well done, good and faithful servant!  You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things.  Come and share your master's happiness" (Matt 25:21, 23).

God is not angry with pastors of small churches.  In fact, God looks favorably to those pastors that suffer and work for the Lord in the most grueling of circumstances.  God looks favorably on pastors that refuse to measure the quality of their ministry by the standards of success as defined by the world.

Listen to Jesus: "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.  For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it.  What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul?  Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul? For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and the he will reward each person according to what he has done" (Matthew 16:24-27).

Myth #3:  Only healthy churches grow automatically.

There are a lot of large churches that I would call "unhealthy" if you take scripture seriously.  There are churches that are growing large because they are preaching anything but the authentic gospel of Jesus Christ.


Myth #4:  You have to "brand" to be effective in ministry

Be careful what "image" you are trying to copy at your church.  Branding is image control.  The only "image" that we need to focus on is being conformed to the image of Christ.

Believe it or not, the world does not give a rip about your brand.  When you focus on branding, you become another "product" that the world perceives as being sold.  It's actually counter-productive.

I say this because there are some pastors that are really image driven.  Unfortunately, this can become idolatry.

Be careful!

Myth #5:  Mega-church pastors are by default wise pastors

"The culture that surrounds the electronic church has developed a 'star' system.  Authority comes from an individual's celebrity status in this [church] subculture [authority and 'celebrity' is measured by the number of butts in the pews, how many hits on their website or 'views' on YouTube].  There is a great temptation for preachers [and pastors] to imitate the styles and manners [and models of ministry] of these stars in order to [draw] and hold an audience" (Richard Ward 98).

"In our current religious culture, we've made attendance the most important measure of our success. We honor and extol the largest churches. Their pastors become elite priesthood that others look to for guidance. But this belief system cripples us from focusing on what's required to fulfill the great commission . . . One way to give up the god of attendance is to replace it with a different goal. When our goal moves from wanting recognition from others to transformation of others, we put the god of attendance in its place (Bill Hull in The Complete Handbook of Discipleship, p. 265).

Be careful who you idolize!

There are some very wise and powerful pastors of small churches.

Myth #6:  Pastors should strive for or focus on breaking growth barriers

No, pastors should focus on shepherding God's flock (see 1 Peter 5:1-4).  God will break the growth barriers.

Myth #7:  "Traditional" churches are unhealthy churches

Actually, every church is a traditional church.  I once heard a pastor of one of these "new-paradigm churches" say, "Contemporary churches are healthy churches.  Traditional churches are selfish churches."  What?  Are you kidding?

If you do something once, you do something twice, and you intend on doing it a third time because it is meaningful to you, you have yourself a tradition.

I am finding that some of the traditions of these "new-paradigm" churches are unhealthy.  For example, the tradition of preaching "self-help" messages instead of holiness is "unhealthy."

Myth #8:  Programs are bad for churches and will prevent a church from growing

Every church has programs.  Even Rick Warren's church is "program-driven" (which he calls a bad thing in his book The Purpose-Driven Church).  His program is the "purpose-driven church" model and the "purpose-driven life."

People don't like programs when it is not their program.

Myth #9:  You should staff for growth

No, you should staff for ministry.  In Exodus 18, Deuteronomy 1, and Acts 6, "staffing" was added to meet a specific need, not to grow Israel or the Church.  Go look up in a lexicon the definition of the Greek word diakonos, from which we get our word "deacon."  You might find out what a healthy church really looks like.

Myth #10:  Church growth only means coming up with methods to add numbers to a church.

Since I teach a "church growth and evangelism" course in a Christian college, I have thought a lot about the concept of "church growth" and what that really means.  Really, their are four main facets of church growth instead of just one (i.e., how to put more butts in the pews).  For my students, I compare church growth to an oak tree.  First, an oak tree grows "deep."  It has a strong root system.  Likewise, the local church should grow deep in authentic worship (reverence, piety, and service), spiritual formation, revitalization, discipleship, and maturity.  This specifically has to do with the individual growth of the believer in the local church. The church is not "growing" unless it is growing deep.  Second, the oak tree grows tall.  This has to do with adding people to the kingdom of God through the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  In the broad sense, it has everything to do with adding people to the kingdom.  In the narrow sense, it has absolutely nothing to do with the consumer-driven models that are being crammed down our throats in the Christian marketplace.  The church is not "growing" unless it is proclaiming the true gospel of Jesus Christ and seeks to add to the kingdom of God.  Third, the oak tree grows wide.  This is compared to the influence of the Church of the Jesus Christ in the world.  This facet seeks to ask, "How can the Church universal influence and transform culture?"  The church is not growing if it is not trying to influence and transform culture.  The problem I see with the church growth movement is that, in some cases, they have assimilated postmodern culture with Christianity instead of seeking to transform the culture through the Gospel.  Finally, the oak tree produces seed that falls and is intended to reproduce.  This is church multiplication (planting).  The Church is not growing unless it is multiplying by planting new churches (regardless of how large they become).

These are my ten myths of church growth.  I want to encourage you awesome pastors of small churches.  Keep up the fight over the souls of the precious saints that God has called you to shepherd.  God is going to reward you for your faithfulness, not how good an entrepreneur you can be.

Don't commit the same sin that some larger church pastors are doing to you.  Don't ignore and dismiss the good work that larger churches are doing.  Fellowship with each other and with them.  Learn from each other.  We are in this together!

An Example of Lordship (1 Peter 5:1-4)

THE EXAMPLE OF LORDSHIP

Introduction

I would like to invite you to turn in your Bible with me to 1 Peter 5:1-4.

Main Introduction

            Throughout my life, I have had the opportunity to serve under excellent leaders.  While I was in the Army, I served under highly intelligent and capable leaders.  In fact, as you can imagine, effective leadership in the military is essential in combat operations and emphasized daily.  For almost every rank that a person may achieve in the U.S. Army, there are schools to further develop the leader, whether officer or enlisted. 

            I have served under great leaders that went on to do great things in our military.  Over the past ten years, I have seen the men I worked with in the cavalry actually testifying in congressional hearings.  One of my former commanders went on to lead the Fifth Corps as commanding general into Iraq during the invasion of 2003. 

            We all want to serve under great leaders.  We want leaders that are proficient in their jobs.  We want leaders that look out for the well being of their subordinates. We want leaders that keep us informed.  We want leaders that have the know-how and courage to lead us in crisis situations.  We want those leaders that keep a level head during those crisis situations.  We all want to have a great leader.

            But, I have also had not-so-great leaders.  There have been those under which I have served that simply made life miserable for the troops.  It was obvious that they were motivated by something other than accomplishing the mission and the welfare and morale of the troops. 

            Not only do we want to have great leaders, we have a desire to be great leaders.  Leadership is a hot topic in most circles today.  Colleges and universities offer degrees in leadership with every imaginable specialization.  My bookshelf is bulging with books and manuals on leadership that I have received in military training, law enforcement training, and in my seminary education.  Philosophies on leadership are endless as academics and practitioners try to decide if leaders are made or born.

            The church is no exception.  Church leaders around the globe have recognized the need for effective leadership education all the way from denominational presbyteries to the highest levels of church governance.  When I was in seminary, there were entire blocks of instruction that was classified as “practical theology” that centered on leadership. 

            Actually, the Holy Bible has much to say about leadership – about how to lead and how not to lead.  For example, the Book of Proverbs is filled with leadership principles, both positive and negative.  We can look at the examples of leadership in Moses, King David, King Hezekiah, and the Apostles Peter and Paul. 

            As the gospel of Jesus Christ spread and the church begin to grow during the New Testament period, there were times of crisis that required excellent leadership.  The church found itself being persecuted. The church found itself being infiltrated by false teachers.  The church found itself struggling with sin in the membership.  The church found itself confronted with competing theologies about the Lord Jesus Christ.  These presented crises that demanded effective and timely leadership.  And the leaders of the first-century church looked to a single source as their model of how to direct the ministries of the church and handle the crises that they were facing – Jesus Christ.  Jesus Christ gathered twelve young men and taught them God’s will on leadership in the church.  One of those young men, Peter, learned directly from the greatest leaders what it means to be a leader in the church. 

            Today, I want to focus on one of the leadership principles that Peter learned during the three years that he was with Jesus Christ on earth.  And, I want to show you how that leadership principle carried over to a crisis situation that the church was facing in the first century.  I want to show you how God wants the leaders of the church today to relate to the people that are under their care by following the examples of Jesus and, later, Peter.

To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed: Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers – not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock.  And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away (1 Peter 5:1-4).[1]

           

Sub-Introduction

            The Apostle Peter wrote this letter to several churches spread out over a large area during the first century.  These churches were in the Roman Empire and were experiencing real challenges in the culture in which they lived.  At the very least, they were struggling to “ . . . live for God in the midst of a society ignorant of the true God.  Because they were Christians, they were misunderstood and subjected to cruel treatment.”[2] At the worst, this letter may have been sent during the period of the first major persecutions of the Christians under the Roman Emperor Nero.  As a result, people were being influenced to compromise their faith and holiness to stop the intense pressure and mistreatment that they were experiencing. The Christians in these churches were in crisis and they needed real, godly direction and leadership. 

Peter’s audience for this letter was everyone in those churches, but he becomes very specific in chapter five and addresses the “elders” in the church – the leaders – because he knew that it was the elders that were critical to the spiritual well being of the saints in these churches.  Peter specifically challenges the elders in these churches with understanding healthy motivations for leadership in the church of Jesus Christ.  Today, I want to specifically address one of those motivations found in the passage that I just read and how it applies to anyone that is a leader in this church or any church.

Main Body

Explanation

            First, I want you to notice something in verse 2.  Peter establishes “ownership” of those that the elders are leading.  He says, “Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care . . .”. Peter wanted the elders – the leaders – in those churches to understand that the saints in those churches did not belong to them.  They belonged to God.  These saints were not for their use and misuse.  These people were the children of God, and God had placed them under the elders’ care. 

Notice that he says “care,” not “control.”  Unfortunately, there are leaders in the church that seek to control people instead of care for people.  Controlling people is the result of taking ownership of something.  But when it is clearly established whom this flock belongs to, care versus control becomes very clear.  A person who owns something controls it.  The flock belongs to the Lord. The flock is under his control.  It is clear that Peter wants the elders to understand that the elders don’t own this flock.  God does.  And God has called leaders of the church to care for his flock.  You see, when you control something, the focus is on you and your needs.  When you care, the focus is on the needs of others.  Also, when you control, you are limiting.  When you care, you are facilitating growth. 

            The implication should be clear to all of us.  Peter is making it very clear that when you are not in control, when you do not own the flock, you are not the master.  But when you are caring for the flock that belongs to the Lord, that makes you a servant to the Lord and to his people.

            This should cause leaders in the church of Jesus Christ a moment of serious pause and consideration about what this means for all leaders.  If the flock, the church, does not belong to us but belongs to God and is under our care, not control, then we will one day give an account of the condition of the flock when the Lord returns.  This should directly affect our motivations in how we lead God’s people!  Our motivation should be to care for the flock, not control the flock.  We should always be asking these questions to remind us of whose flock this is and to hold ourselves accountable for how we lead: When Christ returns, in what condition will he find his flock? Will he find them healthy or malnourished and diseased?  Will he find them safe or harassed by the enemy?  In what condition will the Great Shepherd find the people that he loves when he returns?

            Because the elders are called to care for the flock instead of control the flock, Peter carries this principle further in verse 3: “ . . . not lording it over those entrusted to you . . .” The word Peter uses in the Greek text is katakurieuontes, which literally means “to lord it over someone, to domineer, to exercise complete control.”  The way the word is constructed in the Greek suggests that the action is unfavorable to the object.[3] In the New Testament, this word occurs four times and always has a negative force.  “It is characteristic of Gentile rulers to exercise their rule to their own advantage and contrary to the interests and well-being of the people.”[4]

            Where did Peter learn this principle?  From Jesus!  In Mark 10:42, Jesus said to the disciples, “You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them.  Not so with you.  Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all.  For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”  This is one of the most challenging and counter-intuitive principles of Christian leadership.  In the world’s system of leading, the idea is that people must be governed with a strong hand.  But in God’s kingdom, leadership that is the greatest is defined by downward mobility, not upward mobility.  The leaders in the church of Jesus Christ are not to lead as the world leads. We are called to lead as Jesus leads – by becoming a servant of the Great Shepherd and serving his flock.  But how do we do that?  How does Peter tell us what becoming servants to God’s flock looks like?

Illustration

            “Shepherds of God’s flock are not to lord it over the flock, but to prove to be examples.  They are to lead by their example.  This is graphically illustrated in the U.S. Army.  The symbol of the infantry (foot soldiers who do most of the front-line fighting) is a soldier with a rifle in one hand, helmet cocked, and head looking back behind him.  The rifle is pointing forward, the other arm is giving a ‘Come on ahead’ motion, and the leader is shouting back, ‘Follow me!’  This symbol illustrates leadership-by-example, as this soldier calls his men to follow him into the heart of the battle.”[5]

Application

            Peter says that instead of lording over God’s flock, the leader in the church should set the example.  The Greek word translated into English as “example” is tupos.  It is the word from which we get the English word “type.” In classical Greek, tupos referred first of all to a concrete object and then to the impression that it leaves in another object.  Figuratively, it means to leave a moral pattern.

For example, do you remember when you were a kid and played with Play-Doh?  If you take a quarter and press it into Play-Doh, the quarter leaves an impression of the face of the coin in the surface.  Tupos is both the coin and the impression that it leaves.

            So, the question is not whether you are leaving an impression in God’s flock.  The question is, “What impression are you leaving in God’s flock?”  Also, we need to be asking ourselves, “What should a godly, Christian leader be leaving in God’s flock?  What would that impression look like?  What ethical and moral pattern are you presenting to people and impressing on people?”

            To apply this principle to our lives, we should turn to Paul’s first letter to his protégé, Timothy.  In 1 Timothy 4:12, Paul uses the same word, tupos, when instructing Timothy on his leadership of the churches in Ephesus: “ . . . set an example for the believers in speech, in life, in love, in faith, and in purity.”  Let’s look at each of these impressions or examples that we should be leaving in God’s flock.

            First, God wants us to set the example in speech.  As leaders, one of our primary functions is to communicate.  We use our mouths a great deal.  The problem we run into is that the Bible teaches us that “We all sin more readily with our tongues than with any other part of our bodies.”[6]  In the Epistle of James, he says in chapter 3:6 and 8, “The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body.  It corrupts the whole person, sets the whole course of his life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell. [N]o man can tame the tongue.  It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison.”  Every word that comes from our mouths needs to be moderated by our brain before we say it.  As leaders, we need to gauge everything we say.  As Christian leaders, we should never be quick-tempered.  Also, one of the ways that we set the example is by godly speech.  Our words should never be crass or vulgar.  The example we set should be a Christ-like example of speech. 

            Second, God commands us to set the example in our lifestyle.  “ . . . All Christians are to imitate Christ, but those set aside [as leaders] are to live exemplary lives that serve to model, inspire, and encourage imitation and emulation of others.”[7]  Our lifestyle should be, “ . . . first and foremost, of holiness and uprightness.”[8]  The Apostle Paul teaches in Titus 1:7 – 8, “Since an overseer [in other words, a leader] is entrusted with God’s work, he must be blameless – not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain.  Rather he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined.”  As God’s flock looks at our lives, they should be able to see very clearly what a devoted follower of Jesus Christ looks like.

            Third, God commands us to set the example in love.  “Love is the priority virtue, and it must be conspicuously present in the [leader’s] life.  It is not an option but an absolute necessity.”[9]  Paul teaches in Colossians 3:12 – 14, “Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience.  Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another.  Forgive as the Lord forgave you.  And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity.”  As shepherds of God’s flock, we are to be the examples of what it means to love the Lord with all of our heart, mind, and strength, and loving our neighbors as ourselves. 

            Fourth, God commands us to set the example of faith.  The first way that we set the example of faith is by standing firmly on the teachings of the faith, the total body of the objective truth of God’s Word.  As faithful leaders, we should set the example of what it means to stand firmly on the foundation of God’s Word and “ . . . to develop our understanding of it and its application to contemporary life.”[10]  Also, we are to be examples of what it means to “walk by faith and not by sight.”  By our actions and our commitments, we show people how to live lives with total trust in God. 

            Finally, God commands us to set the example by living a life of purity.  Purity is an essential aspect of our relationship with God.  There simply is no room for debate on this issue.  The Christian leader is called to be an example of faithfulness to his or her spouse and called to deliberately aim for sexual purity.[11]  In Paul’s teachings in both First Timothy and in Titus, Paul makes it abundantly clear that one of the primary characteristics and qualifications for leadership in the church is sexual purity.  We are called to set the example of what self-controlled and pure person looks like.

Conclusion

            The primary motivation for being a leader in the church is to care for God’s flock, not to control it.  The primary motivation for being a leader in the church is to serve God by taking care of the precious saints who have been entrusted to us until the Great Shepherd returns.  The Bible teaches us the primary way that we care for God’s flock – by being the example to the flock.  By being an example to the flock, we give them the example of lordship – what it looks like when Jesus is Lord of your life.  You are not the Lord.  You are the example of submitting to the Lordship of Christ.  In whatever ministry you may be involved, ask yourself, “Am I seeking to care for these that have been entrusted to me or am I trying to control them?”

            “General Eisenhower would demonstrate the art of leadership with a simple piece of string.  He’d put it on a table and say: ‘Pull it and it will follow wherever you wish.  Push it and it will go nowhere at all.  It’s just that way when it comes to leading people.  They need to follow a person who is leading by example.  At another time he said, ‘You do not lead by hitting people over the head – that’s assault, not leadership.’”[12]

           

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Green, Michael P., Eds. 1500 Illustrations for Biblical Preaching. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004.

Jones, L. Gregory, and Kevin R. Armstrong. Resurrecting Excellence: Shaping Faithful Christian Ministry. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2006.

Plum III, Edwin A. Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, ed. Kenneth L. Barker and John R. Kohlenberger III. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994.

Prime, Derek and Alistair Begg. On Being a Pastor: Understanding Our Calling and Work. Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2004.

Rogers, Jr., Cleon L. and Cleon L. Rogers, III. The New Linguistic and Exegetical Key to the Greek New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998.

Verbrugge, Verlyn, eds. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology and Exegesis, Abridged. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003.

---

[1] Unless otherwise noted, all scripture citations are from the New International Version of the Holy Bible.

[2] Edwin A. Plum III, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, ed. Kenneth L. Barker and John R. Kohlenberger III (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 1041.

[3] Cleon L. Rogers, Jr. and Cleon L. Rogers, III, The New Linguistic and Exegetical Key to the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 578.

[4] Verlyn Verbrugge eds., The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology and Exegesis,  Abridged (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003), 325.

[5] Michael P. Green, eds. 1500 Illustrations for Biblical Preaching (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004), 216.

[6] Derek Prime and Alistair Begg, On Being a Pastor: Understanding Our Calling and Work (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2004), 39-40.

[7] L. Gregory Jones and Kevin R. Armstrong, Resurrecting Excellence: Shaping Faithful Christian Ministry (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2006), 86.

[8] Prime and Gregg, 40. 

[9] Ibid., 42.

[10] Ibid., 43.

[11] Ibid., 44 – 45.

[12] Green, 216.