Emerging Role of the Pastor
March 21, 2007
A few weeks ago at the Atlanta Emergent Cohort, we discussed the changing role of the pastor, and what a possible “emerging role” of a pastor would be. We had folks from different denominational backgrounds and that added to some of the richness of the discussion. I’ll admit that I went into the conversation hoping to find the “perfect” Emergent metaphor for the role of the pastor. However, that simply doesn’t work - and is very un-emergent.
Some of the metaphors that we brought to the conversation both from our experiences and our denominational perspectives are listed below:
- CEO
- Shepherd
- Plurality of Elders
- Chaplain
- Shaman
- Teacher
- Poet Gardener: Someone who can connect with someone’s imagination - someone who will sow and work with something - to help grow it
- Fellow Sojourner: Journeying together in the Kingdom of God - Westerhoff
- Fosterer of Imagination - Helping others to live the re-imagined life - encouraging divine imagination
- Visionary
- Personal Trainer
- Servant
Of all of these - I am most attracted to the Pastor as Poet/Gardener and as one who helps to Foster Imagination. However, a Korean friend who was there reminded us that those metaphors simply wouldn’t work in his Korean church culture. With the drive for success and competitive nature found in the Korean culture, the pastor would be a teacher, an educated guide - not a “gardener” or one who “imagines.” That only helped me to remember the cultural implications of context, and how that affects even what the role of the pastor might be.
So, who is the pastor? In the Presbyterian tradition, the pastor is the educated one - the one with the seminary education. The pastor knows Greek and Hebrew (supposedly) and is the one who can bring the Word of God to the congregation. The pastor is really an educator. It’s interesting to think about metaphors for the pastor - and to see how many of them have power imbalances inherent within them. For example, even the pastor viewed as Shepherd, one who cares for and gives guidance to the congregation makes the pastor the leader, the one who guides and protects the “sheep” - and clearly separates the pastor from the congregation - for the Shepherd is surely not a sheep.
What metaphor for pastor speaks to you? Have you found one that you think works?
Tags: Emergent, Pastor, PC(USA), Presbyterian
Posted in 
Adam Walker Cleaveland: I am a 28 yr old 
March 21st, 2007 at 10:15 am
warrior/monk - not in the crusades type of warrior, but the one who is well trained and prepared for the true battle within.
i too like the less violent poet/gardener much better, but thought maybe that the one above might resonate within the culture of your friend??
March 21st, 2007 at 12:29 pm
I liked Poet Gardener and Fellow Soujourner.
I’m most comfortable with a pastor who is willing to reveal some vulnerability and say things like “I’m not 100% sure” and “I’m still growing myself”.
March 21st, 2007 at 12:33 pm
Park Ranger - Someone who knows the land, takes care of it, has been educated about it, loves to spend time in it and is eager to walk and share with others as they explore the land.
March 21st, 2007 at 12:41 pm
OOOHHHH.
Can I change my vote? I like Shawn’s.
March 21st, 2007 at 12:46 pm
I think along the lines of catalyst and facilitator, even if the latter doesn’t sound pretty. Both are about dealing with people/situations as they find it, but catalyst is about making something happen; come alive.
March 21st, 2007 at 2:13 pm
I like Shepherd. Not for philosophical reasons, but because my last name is Shepherd. I honestly like all of them because the role of a pastor may be different in every community. However, I like the term guide. Someone who helps guides the journey.
March 21st, 2007 at 5:14 pm
I like “fellow sojourner” or “fascinated pedagogue” - my own concoction.
For the most part, the Church is burnt out on God. I know many people - including myself - who was raised to unconsciously believe that God was mostly mad and mostly sad at me all the time. He was always there, but silent disapproving and disappointed at my lack of spiritual growth or seemingly “slowness of pace” at which I progressed.
The Church needs to have a fresh revelation of the gladness of God. We need to grow confident in His love for us even in weakness. Leadership in the past generations have not done a good job at differentiating between rebellion and immaturity. Don’t see this as an excuse to sin. However, believers have grown so afraid of this disappointed, frustrated God that they run AWAY from Him in weakness, sin, and immaturity instead of running to Him.
This is another topic that I could cover later.
However, I firmly believe that believers are desperately looking for the man/woman who live “within the veil” and has marked and perceived not only the ways of God, but has experienced the fascination and beauty and gladness of the real God of the Bible.
The Church has been abused by the CEO-types, those more interested in running a business and climbing a ladder of success. She’s been mistreated by abusive shepherds (most well meaning, but misguided by tradition, peers, etc.) and thus her heart has grown cold and calloused to anyone that might touch it.
What we need today are leaders who know God intimately and can guide them into the heart-based reality of being loved by God - absolutely, unwaveringly, passionately - in our journey toward full maturity.
These are only random, unorganized threads of conviction. I hope to reorganize this into a better form eventually. Perhaps even write a series on it.
March 21st, 2007 at 8:03 pm
I just finished Alister McGrath’s “The Twilight of Atheism” and he highlights the fact thta the church in many ways actually supported the rise of atheism when it lost the ability to capture the imagination of the people. His argument has really gotten me thinking in different directions and before reading him I would have likely dismissed the “poet gardener” or “fosterer of imagination” metaphors without too much thought. But now I think these ideas capture, in part, what the church needs to be doing.
I know you’re very sensitive to issues of oppression, but why is a power imbalance in the church inherently bad? People come to church because they’re looking for something (someOne) and its natural for them to look to someone to else to help them along in that pursuit. We do it naturally in our everyday relationships, looking to those who are more experienced, wiser or whom we trust to help us out with problems. Why should the church be any different? Yes, there is the possibility of abuse and unhealthy power imbalances, but if that power is voluntary bestowed by the community on a leader or leaders, why is that bad?
March 21st, 2007 at 10:49 pm
Shaman? I’d like to hear more about that…
March 21st, 2007 at 11:42 pm
I like Midwife for a metaphor…They help things get born, but they themselves can not do the work for you.
March 22nd, 2007 at 1:11 am
I like Rabbi…connects with Jesus; links teacher with a peripatetic component by which I mean not movement around the stage and pulpit, but walking among the people and with the people; includes community as a value
March 22nd, 2007 at 12:01 pm
When you say Pastor, I think you are talking about the guy/gal who is probably paid to be the representative.
My pastor, for this season, is the very pastoral, leading, guiding, firm-holy-hand, full of word and grace Christian counselor who is walking me through healing from a divorce.
On the other hand, the paid guy who heads the congregation I worship with is not very pastoral, though we call him Pastor Bill because much of the rest of the town would be confused if we called him Seer/Prophet and Church Planter Bill.
So are we saying what is a Pastor, or what is the dude/dudette up front who we call Pastor because that is what we are supposed to call it?
From my walk, the Pastor is leading me through wilderness places to green pastures and still waters, because he has been lead there before, and is willing to take a bunch of us.
March 23rd, 2007 at 5:14 pm
I’m guessing that most of the attendees at the meeting and most of the responses here are from pastors or pastors in training. While it might be nice to figure out what you think your role is/will be, a lot is determined by the expectations of the people you will serve (presuming serving them is your mental model, which isn’t true of all religious leaders, by any means).
The word pastor derives from shepherd, so you have to at least start there. It can morph into “trusted counselor” or, at the other extreme “obnoxious dictator” (after all, Hitler could be viewed as the shepherd of Germany in the thirties - the rest of the country certainly behaved like sheep…)
I think Dave Gray’s comments allude to that when he says that “Pastor Bill” isn’t actually very pastoral. He probably doesn’t have those kinds of trusted counselor gifts, but his congregation expects him to, even if those talents are never demonstrated. This disconnect between the expectations of a congregation and the gifts of the “pastor” can lead to some pretty major conflicts. And, in my experience, congregations are rarely self-aware enough to be clear and honest in expressing what they want in a pastor. So beware that minefield.
These issues don’t arise in quite the same way for the church planter - they can self-select their congregation to exclude any dissonant opinions. Which is dangerous in it’s own way, because then you get a church full of yes-sheep. At the extreme, you have to watch out for the Kool-Aid.
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:17 pm
Soul-Friend, Mystic-Curate
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:55 pm
Hmm…I think that I would challenge the pastor’s very existence as we see it now.
Dahn-dahn-dahn! No, don’t stone me; I know that many of your (including Mr. Cleaveland) are ministers and ministers in training and so the natural place to jump into the conversation is “what kind of pastor”? But what if we could take a step back and question the whole “pastor-as-singular-institution” thing.
For those who have been hurt, frustrated, or bored by Bible-thumpers let me apologize for first appealing to Holy Writ. I do not do so to wield a weapon, only to tap into the peculiar genius of this ancient wisdom (I will move from Scripture into theology, spirituality, and practical life). It seems that (in our English translations at least) pastors are only mentioned once, in Ephesians 5, and there they are mentioned in plural form (along with prophets, apostles, teachers, and evangelists–what charismatic Christians call the “five-fold ministry”) and as existing in a transient state: “to equip the saints for the work of ministry.”
It seems to me that the majority strains of Christendom have taken what occupied a marginal role in the first century (and that’s putting it generously) and given it center stage, thus (I’m afraid) largely inventing its content.
Instead, early Christianities (which were admittedly polyform–I’ll give you that) seemed to embrace a much more generous approach to their identity as church–church as family, church as body, church as open, participatory community. Paul encouraged every member in churches he planted to sing, encourage, teach, prophecy–in short, everything. There was nothing left for a central manager to do–not even for Paul. He (and guys he apprenticed, like Titus, Secundus, and Timothy) would go into town, share the Jesus Story, watch a community be created, and leave. It might be two weeks (as in Thessoloniki) or three years (as in Ephesus), but these guys would always leave.
Today’s Church seems to have co-dependency problems, though some of my personal bright lights throughout church history (Waldensians, Anabaptists, Quakers) seemed to thrive–for certain periods, at least–without codified “pastors.” They took seriously the idea of the Spirit teaching them collectively and depositing in them the mind of Christ; I think of it as a mutually responsible and supportive “New Covenant anarchist community.” (For an excellent scholarly study of how the radical NT practice of the “priesthood of all believers” evolved into a “special priesthood” mimicking Hebraic and Greco-Roman priesthoods leading up to the peace of Constantine, check out The Priesthood of Some Believers by Colin Bulley, from Paternoster/Wipf & Stock)
This isn’t just some fanciful theory, either. I’ve lived for the better part of the past nine years in house church community life–first in Atlanta, now in Raleigh. Its not been idyllic–hell no!–but it has been real. And I’ll take reality any day.
Please don’t misunderstand me: I’m not waving some “death to institutionalized churches” flag; I’m not saying that the way I practice church is the One, Legitimate path. I have many pastor friends, and dig all kinds of faith communities. I only wish that more people–especially those who are passionate about the Way of Jesus and communities of faith, hope, and love in our postmodern context–would consider re-imagining church along the lines of a more radical programme of change, even if its one that would ultimately render them “one of us” so much that they might be anonymous.
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:07 pm
Oops! What kind of a bible-thumper am I? I meant to cite some chapter-and-verse that has resourced our community in meaningful ways. Here goes:
“…Be filled with the Spirit: speaking to one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, singing and making music to the Lord in your heart, giving thanks always for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, submitting to one another in the fear of Christ.”
(Paul’s circuit letter, commonly known as “Ephesians,” 5:18b-21)
This implies mutual submission to everyone in the church community, and not just “chorale singing” but a rather interactive form of singing and speaking to one another. A parallel statement, written to the church in Colossae (see Colossians 3:16—the other 3:16!), includes teaching in this mix:
“Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly; teach and admonish one another in all wisdom; and with gratitude in your hearts sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs to God.”
One other passage that comes to mind is Paul’s first letter to Corinth, where he spends some time (culminating in chapter 14) talking to them about the cacophonous misuse of open, participatory gatherings for the showing-off of spiritual gifts. His conclusion, though, is not to issue a moratorium on every- member functioning (delegating it to some kind of Christian priest), but instead he encourages them to function with love and edification being the goal:
“What should be done then, my friends? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up.” (I Corinthians 14:26)
So again, bringing it from theory and back to reality, I think that there were a lot of different types and gift-mixes found in New Testament church communities. But they were largely informal gatherings to edify and encourage each other in reflecting the common life of the Spirit–their eucharists were full, celebratory meals (with “remembrance,” I suspect, that mirrors more the “presence remembrance” of contemplative prayer than a funeral dirge) and their sharing was egalitarian–women and men, slave and free, with not a specialized priest in sight.
This doesn’t mean that I think spiritual/theological education isn’t valuable (I think it needs a desperate overhaul and morphing to be along the lines of monastic/apprenticeship models, but I still want to get into Duke), or that you brothers and sisters interacting here aren’t really called by God into ministry.
I’m only asking…what is “ministry”…and why do you get to do it in a “regular paycheck” way whereas Larry the plumber and Shondra the waitress don’t? I’m not talking about an artificial, P.C. “flattening” of every community member, ignoring the fact that some can speak more coherently for over 10 minutes at a time than others. I guess I’m inviting ministerial candidates to reimagine their roles–in some of the ways discussed at the cohort, no doubt–but taking the idea of a “fellow journeyer” even more literally, not even seeing yourselves as any different than the others in your gatherings. This would involve a “day job,” among other things.
I hope I don’t sound “snarky” or disrespectful. I got lotsa preacher friends, and most of them have hearts of gold. I just want to open this conversation up a little…thoughts? Reactions?
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:55 pm
So honestly.
Aren’t you emergent folk at least a LITTLE pissed of about the following…
The Megachurches are now taking most of your ideas, dumbing them down a bit and packaging it for mass consumption…and done better and more effectively & with more cash.
Example: Emergent folks with no churches, but an internet connection have been talking about social justice, Africa, etc. but NOBODY did jack becuause Emergent-esque folks were don’t have the resources or the influence & some are still living in the basement of their mama’s house because they’re paying for seminary.
Enter Rick Warren (Nemesis of many Emergent folks) and HE gets it done, starts talking about it, sets up P.E.A.C.E.
Blogging. This year, it seems that all the megachurch pastors have started blogging. Examples
http://www.perrynoble.com/
http://swerve.lifechurch.tv/
Even Ed Young is blogging.
THE MEGACHURCHES HAVE TAKEN ALL YOUR TOOLS, DUDE! And guess what- they have packaged them better, marketed them better, and people are buying it.
Sorta reminds me of Nashville. All the broke songwriters that are writing the music from their soul don’t get jack. It’s only once the song gets sung by Tim McGraw & packaged by the record company that everybody hears the song & starts to sing it. And guess whose song it ends up being…
Emergents=Songwriters
Megachurch Pastors=Tim McGraw
That sucks dude
March 24th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
Wrong question, as Mike mentioned above. I think the question arises out of ‘church-as-usual’ rather than on what is emerging. Maybe better asked: what are the roles of the pastors in each group? There will be those who are theologians who are not pastors. There will be those who are gifted leaders who are not pastors. There will be those who are gifted ‘pastors’ who are not ordained, not charismatic leaders, not administrators, nor are theologians. Each group/congregation will probably be gifted with a number of folks who are ‘pastors’. These folks are probably compassionate shepherds and may not be anything like a typical western ‘leader’.
March 24th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
How about the pastor as “priest”? As priest the pastor intercedes for the people, brings the grace of God to them, lifts them up to God. The priest represents neither the authority of a self appointed tyrant, nor of simply a “fellow traveler,” but the servant-authority of Jesus. The priest does not represent Jesus by virtue of her/his charismatic personality or moral character, but by virtue of his/her ordination by the whole church to serve in that function. Thus, the priest simultaneously represents Jesus and the people. She/He is a fellow traveler because he/she is human, but as the person chosen by God and confirmed by the church, she has been endowed with the authority of Jesus.
Many times I have seen emergent pastors refuse to serve communion to their church because they didn’t want the “authority” such a role would give them. Thus, the church simply got up from their seats and ripped chunks of bread from a loaf while some “inspirational” music played in the background. There was very little feeling of communion because everybody was doing their own thing. Had there been a person at the front of the church to play the role of Jesus, we would have realized that we are all one body because we have one Lord who offers his body.