I posted this in my monthly post at Out of Ur blog.
I think I was in college when I first saw that title of a magazine that
brazenly called itself SELF and it was so bold it could have been
called SELF! Nurtured in a theology that drew its juices from the
Bible and learned to pour them into the cups of the likes of Augustine
and Luther and Calvin, I was taken back by anyone or any magazine that
would advertise itself with the word “self.” The self, so I was taught,
was to die daily (Luke 9:23) or be put to death (Romans 6). In fact, my
pastors often spoke of the “mortification” of the flesh (and self).
Nurture, then, put me on my heels when I saw SELF and that magazine made its nest in Whitney Houston’s famous song “The Greatest Love of All” when its clinching words tell us that “learning to love yourself is the greatest love of all.” Well, yes, I say to myself, we do need to have a proper love of our self … but how can our “greatest” love be one directed at ourselves? The Me Generation has created what Jean Twenge is now calling Generation Me. And iGen. It’s everywhere; it’s the air GenMe breathes; and it has made potent inroads into the church.
I saw recently a church’s website where instead of finding “Pastors” or “Staff” I saw “Personalities.” A click-through revealed the “personalities” of these personalities, or at least the “personalities” these people wanted to be or others to see. I don’t recall all the details, but I read things about what they ate for breakfast and what they’d do if they weren’t doing their church jobs and what …. It went on and on and I had enough so I clicked the red X at the top and went to my favorite chair and just wondered awhile.
I wondered about the nurture that led me to be offended and shocked by any leader or pastor permitting himself to be displayed this way on the church’s website. That nurture taught me these things about a pastor:
First, that it is a sacred calling to be yanked from sin into the world of not only receiving grace but dispensing it. The primary task of the pastor is to “spread gospel.” How? As a pastor of people and as a preacher of the gospel. To be sure, the pastor learns to spread gospel to herself or himself too. The website could easily reflect this. It didn’t.
Second, that it is a noble calling to be a leader of God’s people in this world. The previous generations created an image of pastors that focused on distance, separation, and holiness, and it sometimes overdid the nobility of that image. This generation has undone that image and, in the process, has become enamored with “authenticity” and “I’m just like you in all ways.” I doubt the apostle Paul had the latter notions in mind when he sent off his instructions for elders in the Pastoral letters. Leaders lead because they’ve got something to say and show to others.
Third, that it requires a commitment to reverence both before God and about the task of pastoring. Perhaps the biggest needs of the current generation are models of holiness and reverence. That is, some pastors who flow into silence before the very Name of God, who speak in hushed tones in the sacredness of God’s presence, and who speak of themselves and their tasks with a sense of gratitude. We need more Eugene Petersons. You might think of others.
Fourth, that pastors, above all, are to be examples of the mortification of the self and the flesh and daily self-denial. The pastor stands before his or her congregation as a whole package: pastor, father, husband, mentor, spiritual director, sibling, friend, and fellow Christian. As a “fellow” Christian the pastor is model before everyone as a “death to self, death to the flesh” life and lifestyle. Many today are (sometimes rightly) nervous about putting pastors on pedestals and of elevating pastors above the general priesthood of all believers. Yes, indeed. But not at the expense of the pastor being a really good example of what it means to live properly before God.
I don’t consider myself old-fashioned; I don’t consider myself a stick-in-the-mud. But I’m quite happy to pull out the old word “nurture” and say that pastors are to be holy and reverent and so deeply grateful for the grace to be a pastor that they’d never advertise themselves with the word “personality,” which is nothing other than the word “SELF” dressed up in postmodern clothes they picked up on Freud’s couch. The best word for a pastor on the website is “Pastor.”
posted February 13, 2009 at 1:20 am
Scot,
Good observations and thoughts. Being one of those pastors who is trying to be authentic and still say “follow me as I follow Christ” is a daily challenge. All too aware of my flaws and constantly humbled to be exhorting people to love God more deeply when there are days my love for God feels and looks so shallow. But that is the divine mystery, is it not? That God chooses, and not reluctantly but enthusiastically, imperfect folks like me to bring him glory.
I appreciate your comment on leaders. Scripture is pretty clear that a leader has to be out front – not too far – but far enough for people to see that there is a direction we need to follow.
But people do follow because of personality. I can’t do anything about that. But I CAN make sure I am not exalting myself above the One who deserves all our adoration.
posted February 13, 2009 at 6:18 am
What a great post Scot. I’m not a pastor but it seems to me that there is so much of the upside down Kingdom in pastoring. In contrast to leadership models dominated by power, success, technique and strategy it seems to me that the most effective pastors are men & women who know and love God deeply, really do trust that it is the gospel, not anything else, that ‘is the power of God for salvation’. I wonder if what you are talking about is partly a sort of semi-Pelagian view of how dependent God is on us?
posted February 13, 2009 at 8:32 am
Most of what I see in contemporary pastoring is a focus on “self care” rather than self denial. Finding that balance is tough, as we’ve discussed here before, and many pastors are unhappy. Perhaps the problem, again, is in that term “self,” and we would do better to think in terms of “community care” and “community denial.”
posted February 13, 2009 at 9:00 am
Scot,
Good post, really good.
Doesn’t our typical (evangelical) way of doing and thinking about church, though, very, very often lead to the personality of the pastor being central, especially for the marketing of the church, regardless of which title is used? To put a finer point on it, aren’t even the churches who call their pastor “pastor” still, in fact, chiefly marketing themselves through the personality of the pastor, at least to the degree that criticizing another church for making explicit what for them is implicit would just be hypocrisy to a significant degree?
posted February 13, 2009 at 10:19 am
just to play advocate: I think we confuse selfishness with self. To me, having a self redeemed is what is important. without a self, we have no personhood, no sense of what we feel, think, believe, desire, long for… we cannot love without a self.
So, we must differienate between the selfish consept of a self and a redeemed self in which we are made whole in Christ.
I define a self as… being able to think my own thoughts, feel my own feelings, know my own desires, have beliefs etc.
Growing up, i was taught that my thoughts should be the same as my spouses, my beliefs the same as his, even my feelings should be define by him, that i should give myself away to him and my children… that was considered noble. Actually, it was quite pathological and led to a near suicide (the result of having no self). I could not really love anyone else, i was a mirror of what they wanted and needed and no one was home inside. (the false self or sin-self we create to get what we need–love, identity etc but it is false because it is anchored outside of our own inner person and the identity God desires for us in himself)
I believe a pastor must have a strong sense of self, or he or she cannot lead. without a strong sense of self, they will be pleasers… pleasing the most powerful person in the group, or the most intimadating person in the group. Or without a sense of who they are… they will be led by whatever church growth fad is out there… not know What God is really speaking to them or what flows out of their own identity. (God cannot be left out of the equation because created us)
A God-centered self is whole and anchored in knowledge of God’s love and a understanding of what God has placed in us in terms of gifts, talents and call. We cannot even know our call without knowing our self. Because God created that self.
I think we might be careful when we speak of self. because having a self and knowing that self is mature. Jesus had a strong sense of self and because he knew himself and his call, he could align himself with the mission of God… when he needed to lay his life down, no one took it from him, he gave it freely.
Many churches and congregations are heavily enmeshed because they have no sense of self. Being enmeshed creates all kinds of church conflict. the greater level of personal maturity, people who can self-differienate from others, the better congregations are able to process conflicts and deal with disagreements on doctrine and policy etc.
We must develop mature, god-centered selves. no self, as edwin friedman says, is like a cell with no nucleus.
posted February 13, 2009 at 10:30 am
This is an important post. Your four points are important. It struck me as I read through your post that such a strong sense of self-consciousness is present now among many in ministry. We are very,very conscious of how we appear to others and seem to work hard to create the right impressions,etc. After all, most everything in this culture seems to be personality driven.
I remember a conversation with a young minister once who had come back from a national ministry event. One evening, some people who I knew had gathered for coffee after the events of the evening were complete. I asked this young guy if he had gone to that coffee. His answer? “Oh no, you have to be a ‘name’ to go to one of those.” He went on to talk about how some ministers are personalities, names, famous, on the circuit, etc. Then–there are the rest of the ministers.
What bothered me was his perception. I knew some of those people at that coffee. They do not perceive themselves this way at all. Yet, this was this young man’s very real perception of these ministers and of himself.
Anyway, thanks for a great post.
posted February 13, 2009 at 10:38 am
http://www.academicleadership.org/emprical_research/The_Edwin_Friedman_Model_of_Family_Systems_Thinking.shtml
link to systems theory of leadership…
posted February 13, 2009 at 10:46 am
Pushback time.
I don’t think the first task of the pastor is to spread gospel. It’s to equip the church to spread the gospel. We all receive and dispense grace.
I agree, seeing pastors as “personalities” and “celebrities” is a big problem. But I think it’s a problem caused by just this kind of clergy/laity divide kind of thinking.
posted February 13, 2009 at 10:54 am
John Stott has some great thoughts on how self-denial and self-affirmation are both illuminated by the cross in his “The Cross of Christ,” pp. 274ff.
posted February 13, 2009 at 11:03 am
Travis,
Pushback. I see your “first task … is to equip” to be a distinction without a difference. Part of spreading the gospel for me is the pastor’s task to teach others how to be part of that task. Pastors are gospelers and called to draw others into gospeling.
It is not true that this is a clergy/laity divide; there have nearly always been distinctions between clergy and laity (which terms are mostly later). There have always been “clergy” who made themselves “personalities.” The issue here for me is not “office” or “role” or “clergy” or “laity” but “heart” and “sacred calling.”
posted February 13, 2009 at 11:29 am
I haven’t been keeping up on your iGen posts but as a person who works with youth I have a few thoughts.
First, yes generation me is very real. Just a few minutes channel surfing and you find the most self-loving/self-loathing people and advertisements you’ve ever seen and it is a true reflection of what it is like to grow up today.
Second, I think teenagers and young adults are quickly burnt out on everything being about them and models of ministry have yet to catch up to this burn out. We constantly feed their “me-ness” with programs and concerts and self help books, etc.
Third, I am incredibly thankful for the voices out there who have stepped up and started calling us back to God focus. Mark Yaconelli, for instance is training youth pastors to help young people seek the living Christ through the spiritual disciplines.
There is a trend for pastors to be overly self-involved and for other people to worship said pastors, especially if they communicate well ideas that we already agree with and say swear words every now and then to shake things up. Holiness though, requires that we move away from this passionately. Each year throughout the country traditionally “holiness” denominations meet together to discuss and pray over what holiness looks like in the 21st century. I’ve been pleased at the refocus on serving the least of these as an imperative part of holiness and I’ve been pleased that “don’t drink, don’t watch movies, don’t dance, and don’t smoke” is a conversation that has been tucked away hopefully to never surface again. I think the voice for holiness is rising up and that spiritual disciplines is the open door to this way of life.
posted February 13, 2009 at 11:50 am
Scot,
You don’t see any link between describing pastors as specialized religious professionals who have a special, higher, sacred calling by God, to be filled with reverence and solemnity and pomp, yanked from sin into a life of dispensing grace (all this in a way distinct from other Christians, apparently) and pastors getting the big head?
I think it’s in our fallen nature to want priests, shamans, medicine men. Somebody with special access to God to whom we can delegate religious obligations. The village has a potter, a smith, some farmers, and a priest. Division of labor. Perfectly natural.
But we have only one priest. And he’s called all of us, and gifted all of us, in a glorious variety of ways. Some are gifted to give. Some to encourage. Some to be compassionate. And yes, some are gifted to lead, or to teach, or to counsel and shepherd, or maybe some combination of these, although I think the conflation of different spiritual gifts into one role of pastor is unbiblical and unhealthy.
Don’t pooh-pooh authenticity. I don’t understand why it’s such a problem that pastors admit they have problems and doubts and make mistakes. Sure, if there’s some kind of repeated unrepentant sin going on, he or she maybe should step down for awhile. But I love that we’re all struggling together, and rely on each other to be Christ in our lives. If “I’m just like you (but without sin)” was good enough for Jesus, then “I’m just like you (and just as redeemed)” should be good enough for all of us.
posted February 13, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Scot,
Let me see if I can offer another lens on this. I think the churches calling their pastors and staff “personalities” are attempting to acknowledge and change something that is wrong, but, I agree, not in a particularly helpful way. What’s wrong is the perception (and frequent reality) that (head) pastors are the ones doing Christian ministry, and typically doing it from above and not with others. I know you think ecclesiology is really important and often very thin in evangelical circles. The head pastor ecclesiology and practice is the pinnacle and foundation of that individualism in Western Evangelical Christianity. In all sincerity, where is individualism more deeply practiced and modeled (and even celebrated!) than in the “head pastor/lone preacher” of America’s churches? Who is more alone in their work and personal life than head pastors? Where are the two by two missionaries, the functioning elders of churches–they have been swallowed by the “head pastor” role, as has the man in the role.
It seems to me that having (i) that ‘ultimate individual’, usually titled ‘the head pastor’ in American Christianity, and (ii) someone to listen to him teach/preach are the only necessary ingredients for what evangelicals call “church.” Even the idea of truly shared eldership is viewed with skepticism. Why? Because this isn’t just a leadership or marketing issue, it’s the heart of our ecclesiology from the top to the bottom, which is based and modeled on “the lone preacher/pastor.” I think it is unfortunately true that even the very good suggestions in your post regarding holiness will, if heeded without pulling it out of its individualistic context and pattern, only serve only to encourage the lone wolves to try harder and be less human, deepening the loneliness and personality worship it tends to create.
posted February 13, 2009 at 12:41 pm
T @ 11,
Very perceptive analysis. I agree.
posted February 13, 2009 at 12:48 pm
T,
Good points. First, somehow this has gotten sidetracked into a laity vs. clergy thing, when I’m not yet convinced that is what is driving the issues. Still there is something about a celebrity status for pastors involved.
Second, and more importantly, for 2000 years — or at least for 1900 years — we’ve had some clear distinctions between laity and clergy. I don’t believe there ever was a time when there wasn’t a gifted leadership, and we can begin with the apostles in the lifetime of Jesus. It was they who were sent out in Matt 10. OK, that point is clear to me.
Third, the church history tradition shows the same: plenty of leaders. Seemingly always a single pastor/elder/priest/etc. We might think we can get behind such, but I’m not convinced we can.
Fourth, now my point: something has changed recently in this regard. I’m pointing out that change. The vast majority of pastors today would agree with the need for laity to be involved in ministering; the vast majority don’t suffer from “personality” syndromes like this. And I wanted to point to that way of framing who they are as a mistake.
posted February 13, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Scot,
T makes some really good points. We’ve had a distinction of gifted leadership from the beginning, and a clear distinction between clergy and laity from an early point. But the lack of ecclesiology in much of the protestant church today means that the local head pastor is at the top of the pyramid – deciding what goes. In many cases the church board is selected with the expectation that they realize their subordinate position. This came out explicitly in one recent article you linked about one megachurch pastor.
The problem isn’t gifted leaders – the problem is lone wolves accountable to no one; and the pressure that some more “ordinary” pastors might feel to emulate those lone wolves, keeping themselves set apart.
But – I agree with the essence of your post. The pastorate is a calling that should be taken seriously – and neglecting this does not help the church.
posted February 13, 2009 at 1:24 pm
There’s some good and helpful pushback here, and it helps us in this conversation, so let me respond briefly … am about to get a call from a radio station:
The issue of “personalities” may be provoked by the distinction of laity and clergy, and even exacerbated by the sort of “semi-papal” structure that arises with some low church evangelicals, but I would contend that this problem drives deep into the heart of a pastor who has distorted what his or her calling is. For me, the “personality” focus is revelation of a “cracked heart.”
posted February 13, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Scot,
I agree that we’ve gotten into a related conversation to the one you initially raised, and I agree with your initial central point that changing “pastor” to “personality” is very likely going to cost the church more than it benefits the church. Amen.
Nor am I against a gifted leadership, particularly as partS of a larger gifted body (though I’d like to see it not focused on one person per church). I just don’t tend to see the kind of consensus, submit to each other, multi-voice leadership and teaching dynamic clearly present in Acts, Corinth, etc. as our regular pattern today (or even close), nor do I think we realize how much Western or even specifically American individualism is driving our “head-pastor” weighted ecclesiology and missiology. The head pastor models non-community Christianity; he’s the ultimate individualist, and we live our faith through him. Meanwhile, even the apostles were sent in twos, not solo, even when the workers were the fewest they’ve ever been! Finally, only because I know the rampant individualism in the Church bothers you and you have greater knowledge of the NT than I do, I’d love to see you ponder the relationship between our ecclesiology (or lack thereof), our typical head pastor practice and expectations, and American individualism in the Church.
Feel free to return to the topic of calling pastors “personalities” now! In that vein, why don’t churches rotate bios of various “personalities” in their church on their website (not just their staff)? Or, my personal preference, why not rather talk about the Personality the whole church is seeking to follow and embody and how and why they do that? “Oh my goodness, this church is about JESUS!”
posted February 13, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Scot,
Thanks again for your graciousness and honesty in this conversation. You do it so often, it would be easy to take for granted. Thanks.
posted February 13, 2009 at 4:38 pm
T, I will just sit back and let you say what I want to say better than I can say it. I’ll also second your comment at 19; if it wasn’t for the atmosphere Scot creates here of respectful give and take, I’d probably spend a lot less time online.
Back to our regularly schedule programming…
I don’t think anybody denies that the pastor personality cult is a problem. I just think a solution would focus more on what the church as a whole is, building a healthy ecclesiology, instead of more language that (scriptural though it may be) has the result of exalting the pastor further. Which is what I get from your solution, Scot, although I think you intend the opposite–that the pastor be humbled by the gravity of his/her job, not self-aggrandized.
If it isn’t prideful to toot my own church’s horn, I’ll share that on our website (www.emmausway.net), there isn’t even a page of pastor bios. Rather, everyone has their own profile. Kind of like Facebook, I guess, though it isn’t quite as easy to use. It’s a bit of a work in progress, but it’s one way we’re trying to build an ethic of mutually-submissive community centered on Jesus and not any outsize personalities.
posted February 13, 2009 at 4:45 pm
And yes, we have pastors.
posted February 13, 2009 at 9:57 pm
I may have missed some of the flow here, but it seems that “personalities” is a good fit for many pastors who may have become more CEO than shepherd. It’s hard to be selfless when there are numbers to crunch, budgets to meet and rolls to expand.
I’ve heard our pastor say, at least imply, that small churches are small because God is not blessing them or they are not doing the work of Christ effectively. If they were they would be growing. I’m not certain he’s correct – but what I do know, the size of the flock does not necessarily reflect the heart of the shepherd. If it is, than perhaps small churches should start closing their doors and send their people to the places that are growing. Places with “personality.”
posted February 15, 2009 at 3:33 pm
And here I thought the pastor’s primary job was equipping the saints.
Ephesians 4:11-13 – (NASB)
And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ.