There are pastors who could learn a lot from visiting my church. Here are a few things my current pastor does that more pastors could emulate.
1 - Keep Politics Away from the Pulpit
My pastor probably has political views. Everyone does. But I don't know what they are - at all. I couldn't even make an educated guess because he leaves it out. Our small church includes Republicans, Democrats, and Libertarians and the reason we don't mind is because our pastor has established an environment that is not political. Every one should learn from this example. (Someone show this to John Piper and Donald Miller, please.)
2 - Roll Up Your Sleeves
No one works harder than our pastor. On a workday he is there first and leaves last - usually doing the hardest work, himself, with a smile. Try to keep up with him if you want but you won't be able to because he'll leave you behind. Some pastors are known for sitting in their office behind a wall of books. It's important for a pastor to study but the pastor is also a shepherd to their people who needs to be among the flock.
3 - Delegate
My church does as much work as a church two or three times bigger. The pastor is industrious but he couldn't possibly get that much work done on his own. Instead, he oversees many groups that do many jobs. The result is a little church that does a lot of work because our pastor delegates many responsibilities to volunteers within the church. Everyone is involved and more work gets done.
That's what I've learned at my church over the last few months. What are some other lessons minsters have taught you?
12 comments:
God has given him a large gifting towards being a good shepherd, and he probably needs it, too. lol
Being that we go to the same church, I would like to add something that our pastor does that I really appreciate: He remembers that he is sinner redeemed by the blood and grace of Jesus Christ, and he is not afraid of admitting imperfection in himself at all. His humility is one of the most inspirational assets God has granted him. God has given us a pretty cool pastor. :-)
I agree Adam in the sense that the pulpit is no place for a political rant for sure.
I do think you should be able to make some assertions about his views political or otherwise based on his theology... my "political" views are defined by Scripture alone...
Although it isn't a place for him to declare that he is a republican or democrat, etc... or that any opposing parties are wrong....
rather than rant about a specific party being wrong on a certain issue, let's make our voice heard by taking a stance against that issue based on whatever Scripture reveals rather than with a particular politician or party..
I think your pastor sounds awesome man... I wish they all had such wonderful Godly characteristics... you and Kelly are right, that is the most inspirational assets a pastor can have and that's such a blessing...
I love Piper... Miller is a straight up nit wit though haha...
that has nothing to do with my post, just wanted to toss it in there!
Piper annoyed me when he said that Sarah Palin should stay home and take of her children rather than pe in politics. That theologian needs to stay in the library and not tell women what to do with their lives. It really deflated my image of him to see him tell a woman that she shouldn't work and to get involved in politics in such a negative way.
Donald Miller simply believes that all Christians MUST vote Democrat. That is very narrow-minded of him and foolish.
Both of those "scholars" should be ashamed.
Piper annoyed me when he said that Obama was making Christianity a "ministry of condemnation" by inviting Gene Bishop to the inauguration events. His argument was a giant stretch, too. Then, I was reading some of his stuff and came across him saying things like the following (this sort of quote makes me angry):
"Can we really say that our people are being prepared for heaven where Christ himself, not his gifts, will be the supreme pleasure? And if our people are unfit for that, will they even go there?" (God is the Gospel, p. 15 (emphasis mine))
I could go on...
@Adam - agreed Piper overstepped his bounds there... forgot that one
@Kelly... what was wrong with that quote from Piper? what was right about inviting a gay bishop to the inauguration?
First off: inviting Gene Robinson was a political move. It's no less evil in that context than inviting all the Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, etc. leaders. Inviting people of disparate religions and political viewpoints is completely in line with our political system. In Piper's article he makes a case for Robinson being someone who makes Christianity into a ministry of condemnation for preaching that homosexuality is God approved from a position of supposed Christian authority. He then claims that Obama does the same by inviting Robinson to be part of the ceremony. Obama is not a spiritual leader. So, while I can understand Piper's logic somewhat in his case against Robinson, his logic concerning Obama fails as Obama's move to invite him would be commonly understood as politically authorative, not spiritually so.
Secondly, the problem with the quote I mentioned is that it places a non biblical condition on salvation. This is not an isolated phenomenon either. Piper repeatedly suggests that if we are not "prepared" to accept Christ as the ultimate gift/pleasure of the gospel, we are probably not saved. I don't mean to say that means that Christ is not going to be the ultimate pleasure or the greatest gift of the gospel. I simply don't believe that perceiving or believing that specific is a requirement for salvation. (Romans 10:9-10) Piper bothers me greatly for suggesting as much.
well I would beg to differ on the Obama point... on the Piper point we can agree to disagree... and that's ok...
you're right though, it would have no different than inviting any other religious group in. Obama wants to make bold, and unsubstantiated, claims about what type of nation America is or isn't based on religion. Yet he more or less endorses Robinson.
Robinson teaches that homosexuality is not condemned by Scripture... that is false... which gives you him as a false teacher...
I will go as far as to say that he made the same wrong move by allowing Rick Warren to pray. Rick Warren went one step further and gave a prayer that was inclusive of several world religions (including Islam). Either because he is ignorant of the truth OR he is ashamed... both of which are addressed in Scripture...
that's what I'm saying... (p.s. - I know inflection is hard to gauge in text responses so please don't read any animosity or anger or arrogance into any of these as I read none from yours... just clarifying because I've read posts before and gotten angry because I read it with that type of motive I suppose...)
You mention that he is therefore "endorsing" Robinson, but I disagree. At least to the point of saying that, if he is endorsing Robinson, than prior Presidents (and Obama as well) would also have been endorsing Islam, Judaism, etc. Because Obama is not a figure of religious authority, I think this move does not mean that Obama was/is making Christianity a "ministry of condemnation." There's a lot of anti-Obama sentiment out there that seems very hate driven, and this seems like the same thing. I think Piper would do better to stick to theology than to politics. Even there I think he is not so great. But, you're probably right, we probably need to agree to disagree on that one lest this comment thread become further hijacked with an irrelevant (esp. to the original post) discussion concerning Piper.
(I also do not mean to be sounding arrogant, angry, etc. here.)
see and you are correct on the point that Obama should not put himself up as a religious figure head... yet he does.. in Turkey he said we are not a Christian nation and that we are not a nation of any specific religion... I'm not debating his statements because that would take too long... but in making statements like that and then subsequent statements like the ones he made a short time after that if we are to be called a religious nation we'd more closely be an islamic nation solely based on the number of muslims living here, he even said we'd be one of the largest..
well regardless of the fact that we'd actually only rank about 33rd or 34th in that category... he has no business making those assertions but by doing so he puts himself into a realm where he is not qualified to speak... as a response, believers need to stand and counter those responses with scriptural offenses... and while I would prefer piper stay out of politics for the same reasons I want Obama out of religion... we have a certain degree of responsibility to defend the truth (Jude 3).
I'm saying Obama is NOT a religious figure, regardless of what he says. It's not his office to hold. Of course, he's also not the first president to make statements about this country and it's beliefs. George W. made several statements concerning this nation being a Christian nation.
Frankly though, I'm addressing Piper's words directly in my argument; not things that have been said or have happened since. Why? Because Piper wrote that article at the time of the inauguration, not yesterday. ( here's a link to Piper's article) I was intending to critique Piper here, not Obama. Obama's position of authority granted by the office of President is relevant to Piper's article, but Obama's actions outside the scope of Piper's accusations are not. Obama, as a secular leader, is carrying the weight of representing not just Christians but non-Christians as well. If you want to argue about how he is doing this, that's a different conversation though than Piper's article.
(cont...)
Being though that you addressed something Obama said, I think you and I might agree on some or all of the following. (but I want to clarify my position anyhow so as to avoid misunderstanding):
This nation is not a nation of any specific religion, and it's a mistake to make claims one way or the other that it is when there is no legal reinforcement for coming to that conclusion. Obviously, Christianity has dramatically shaped the culture of our nation, providing many of our shared moral viewpoints and even guiding many of our leaders in their decision making in the past. I would argue, therefore, that any claim that we would be a Muslim nation based solely on numbers is false.
According to this article in the Washington Times ( Obama's Muslim comment sparks debate - Washington Times ), Obama said the following: "If you actually took the number of Muslim Americans, we'd be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world". The article goes on to state that this assertion is incorrect: "...several unofficial estimates put the Muslim-American population at roughly 5 million, which would rank the U.S. about 35th among 150 countries with Muslim populations." This is close in line with what you were saying about the U.S. being 33rd or 34th in the world.
So, if you want to say Obama is a liar, go ahead. There's proof at least of his being in error. Of course...that's par for the course in politics these days. (not an excuse, just a statement of fact)
I do believe we need to stand up and defend our faith and misrepresentations of it. Paul writes that "We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. " (2 Corinthians 10:5). Obama has made a statement that he himself is a Christian. There's a lot of disagreement on this. Mostly people argue that he can not be a Christian because he is pro-choice. I don't think that's an appropriate measurement personally. I would say that, if he is a Christian, he needs some people of sound theology and moral authority to be in his life disciplining him in the way of following Christ. (i.e. he's not doing that so well IMO, and that his stance on abortion is part of that.) Likewise, Christian leaders (I mean pastors, etc. here, not necessarily political leaders who are Christian as well as they must also carry the burden of representing the interests of non-Christians as well as Christians.) should be making it clear to the church and the world that homosexuality is wrong and sinful, and that Gene Robinson is not representing Christ correctly. So, people shouldn't be seeking Gene Robinson as a voice of authority because he is, frankly, at best a quack and more likely the worst, a heretic. So, getting back to Piper, if Piper had restrained his apparent despise for Obama and focused on Robinson instead, he would have written a much better and not slanderous article.
Post a Comment