In last month’s Evangelicals Now, I wrote an article that started with the Oasis reunion and ended by arguing that many of the calls directed toward apparently lazy modern pastors might really lie in a sense of nostalgia and a lack of social connectedness. You can read the full article here. This month, Evangelicals Now carried a not entirely unexpected response that took umbrage. You can read that article here (paywall). Rather than have a back and forth in Evangelicals Now, I thought I would write up my own thoughts on that article here. So, here they are!
In an article insisting that nostalgia wasn’t behind the recent comments about lazy pastors, I found it ironic that it opened – and was even underlined by the given headline – with an illustration I first heard some 30 years ago! I suspect it wasn’t a fresh illustration when I heard it then either. As a general rule, if you are going to insist that nostalgia is nothing to do with the matter, recycling decades old illustrations to make a point might, to some less charitable readers, come across as undermining your case.
Setting that aside, what point was being made? That we need to decide on our priorities, fit them in first and then work everything else around them. So far, so uncontentious. The article claims that those firing off broadsides about the ‘go-easy-on-myself-culture’ and ‘lazy pastors’ are not just hankering after old models of ministry because of nostalgia, but are seeking to ‘encourage a commitment to New Testament principles of ministry’. Which, of course, would be all well and good. Except, the article fails to explain where the New Testament makes a priority out of a certain number of services on a Sunday, what those services look like specifically and particular models of visitation (to name but a few key points that have been pushed in these discussions).
Indeed, the article quickly brushes over the fact that many of the new things that have crept into the ordinary workload of the modern pastor are ‘important, and in some cases obligatory’ and yet, nevertheless, effectively dismisses these obligations as not fundamentally part of the New Testament priority for the church and therefore ought not to take up our time. But that word ‘obligatory’ does carry a certain weight, doesn’t it? Much as I’m sure many pastor would love those things not to be obligatory, the reality is that they are and if we want to function as a church we are necessarily wedded to doing them whether we like it or not.
But let’s say – as I’m sure we can all agree – these things are not our ultimate priority. They may be important, they may even be obligatory, but they are not the fundamental essence of the work pastors should be doing. They aren’t the ‘big stones’. Or, at least, not the biggest stones. The point doesn’t help because these things are important, are obligatory and do, therefore, need doing! We can say they aren’t the priority all we like, I’m sure most of us agree many of these things aren’t our ultimate or highest priorities, but if we’re still obligated to do them, and they need doing, all we’re saying – which is what all these feckless, lazy, go-easy-on-myself pastors have been saying all along – is that we must do these thing on top of our ultimate priorities which necessarily means our workload has vastly increased! What is more, these necessary obligations didn’t exist during the pastorates of those sniping that the current crop of ministers are just being lazy.
The article goes on to make a few more missteps. It rightly notes (quoting me directly), ‘as Steve contends, there is “nothing in the Bible [that] demands morning and evening services, Sunday Schools or particular forms of visitation’. That being the case, we ought simply to draw a line under any discussion that insists such forms necessarily are New Testament priorities. We can agree here that they aren’t. But no sooner than this is said, the article goes on: ‘where there is a loss of appetite for these things in congregations, and diminished passion for them among pastors (2 Tim 4:2), that’s hardly a sign of spiritual health and vitality!’ Apart from being an extra-biblical comment with no specific biblical support, this is simply wrong. A desire for less meetings that take the same form is not necessarily a sign of spiritual illness. A sign of depleting spiritual health would be if people had no appetite for the Word or God’s people. This is not quite the same measure as expecting people to turn out to three services on a Sunday, for example.
A more biblical comment might have been that it is a sign of poor spiritual health if our people have diminishing interest in the Word and little desire to meet with God’s people. But, again, we have to hear what these feckless, go-easy-on-myself pastors are actually saying. Their contention is not that people aren’t interested in the Word or desire to engage with God’s people less frequently. They engage with the Word in all sorts of different ways, in different formats, perhaps more than ever and with the church throughout the week on top of Sunday. What they’re arguing is that fewer people find two services, of essentially the same format, on a Sunday a particularly helpful way to engage with the Word. They’re also arguing that the various means of engaging with the Word throughout the week, or perhaps in other ways on a Sunday, require a level of preparation that makes the old models hard to sustain. We have to distinguish between diminishing love for Christ, his Word and his people and rejection of old formats and models, which the Bible doesn’t mandate, that are no longer fit for purpose in the modern world we inhabit.
Further to that, some of these hideously lazy pastors, who are evidently just out for an easy life, are arguing that there were some deficiencies with the old models in and of themselves. Some, in the pages of Evangelicals Now, have written to point out that the stories of burnout and the self-harm done to pastors powering on with unsustainable models have been heard, heeded and acted upon. But – even if we think them a bit limp and wet for saying so – many have noted the old models didn’t seem to create the mature believers some believe they did. Many pastors enter their churches and wonder just what has been taught, and how effective it has been, given that seasoned believers often do not have the maturity, theological insight and wisdom one might expect of a church lifer reared on double-Sunday services and regular midweek teaching. Many are concluding the old models were not very effective and, not only are they inadequate for the modern world, were not entirely adequate altogether. This all seems rightly and appropriately in line with the article when it claims, ‘of course, every generation has to consider how best to impact its generation for Christ with the the good news of the Biblical gospel – and this requires constant innovative thinking and fresh ways of working.’ It is just a shame that the article then goes on to undermine that claim.
The article repeatedly refers to ‘New Testament priorities’ and insists pastors should conform to them. A point that isn’t in dispute. The real question is, what exactly are the New Testament priorities for pastors? The article argues, ‘For a pastor/minister/teaching elder, I suggest that the priority is not to be found in safeguarding, administration or fundraising, important and valid as these matters are. Pastor – get somebody else to do these things!’ I agree these things are not necessarily our ultimate priority as pastors, but again the article fails to account for the reality of modern ministry in most churches. What pastor wouldn’t love a team of people to oversee all safeguarding, administration and fundraising? Sometimes, we happily can get people to do one or other of these things. But the reality for many pastors is simply that they can’t find people with the requisite skills and abilities to do them. They must be done and there may be nobody else! These things may not be our highest priority, but they are a priority and they must be done adequately by somebody. It is all well and good insisting that we get somebody else to do it, but simply wishing there is somebody else there to do it doesn’t make it so!
But even where I agree with the article – our primary calling is to shepherd the people under our care and do so primarily through the teaching of the Word – we still have to contend with two other things.
First, there are other explicit priorities on pastors (cf. 2 Tim 4:5). We can’t just say ‘my priority is to preach the Word’ without any reference to the other pastoral priorities mandated in scripture. Nor can we say these things with no reference for how the world works now and the increasing time that a pastor must spend in the community doing the work of an evangelist before he might get any people, or be given the time of day, to let him preach the Word.
Second, we cannot ignore the fact that ‘preach the Word’ does not say, imply or come close to specifically meaning ‘preach three times a week’ or ‘hold a morning and evening service’. A pastor preaching once on a Sunday is preaching the Word. A pastor preaching 30 times in the week is similarly preaching the Word. A pastor preaching once on a Sunday and then holding a series of bible studies throughout the week is preaching the Word. The call is to preach the Word. That is what we must do. But we ought not to insist the Bible says more than it actually says. It ill-behoves the credibility of those who land hard on the importance of teaching the Word when they insist the Bible demands things that it simply doesn’t!
It is true, per Acts 6, if other things are crowding out the priority of the Word then we need to be careful. But there is a difference between recognising different models suit a new day and different modes of preaching and teaching may well be more helpful. Preaching to empty rooms is not really fulfilling the mandate to ‘preach the Word’ nor is it very effective at accomplishing anything much at all.
Even if we concede that diminishing interest in multiple services of the same format on a Sunday is necessarily a sign of ill spiritual health (and, as above, I don’t concede that), we simply have to contend with the reality that perhaps we are living through a time of great spiritual ill-health that warrants different approaches to ministry in order to rectify it. Continuing with three services per week simply because we must preach the Word is both stubborn and foolish in the face of what would be required if we are to actually do anything to resolve the underlying problem. Perhaps, if we concede these things, though we will necessary preach the Word as we do it, the more important call on us is to do the work of an Evangelist in the community over holding yet more poorly attended services. It is this sort of attitude that saw many old, traditional churches slide into serious decline and continue to hold dead, poorly attended evening services on the grounds of ‘being faithful’. It was not a credible approach to a world where gospel services at 6pm had long since failed to accomplish anything of gospel worth.
But back to those lazy, feckless pastors. I am unclear whether I count as one of those or not. I don’t believe in the two formal services and one midweek copycat service model. Nevertheless, my church has an hour long theological bible study before the service, an hour and half to two hour main service and midweek bible study groups too. We also have men and women’s bible studies on top of these things. We also spend quite a bit of time together on Sundays and midweek, building fellowship, as well as doing a lot of stuff in the community, reading the Word with people and trying to bring them to faith. I, on top of all those things, have to do a large chunk of the admin, be involved with safeguarding and a host of other things because it needs doing. Does arguing for different models – particularly when the Bible doesn’t mandate them – mean I am feckless and lazy or not? Does this sound like we are shunning the biblical call to prioritise the teaching of the Word and the doing the work of an evangelist?
Some of these “lesser priorities” are even means of our wider call to shepherd the flock. Safeguarding, as well as being obligatory, is a means of keeping the flock safe. It seems to me that any good pastor will care at least a bit about doing that well. Live streaming may be a means of caring and shepherding – through the preaching of the Word – for those who want to desperately be with us but are unable due to old age or ill health. Again, these would all seem to be means of accomplishing specifically what the Bible asks of us: to shepherd the flock and prioritise the Word. Of course, these things aren’t mandated means in scripture. It would be foolish and wrong to insist everybody must do them. But the idea that they can’t possibly be part of the priority of the Word seems to me to be wilfully obtuse.
In the end, I argued that many of the claims about current pastors and argument for old models that aren’t mandated in scripture was a result of nostalgia. Every argument we ever hear for them always boil down to: ‘things were better in my day’ which is itself just a flying in the face of Ecclesiastes 7:10. My argument was that these are not really biblical complaints – which, as far as I can see, is beyond question – so much as social ones (which you can question if you like). But if you don’t have specifically biblical grounds for why you want to revive the old models, what have you got if not just plain old nostalgia?