Andy Stanley and theological madness
Okay, I know. The title above is sort of provocative! Perhaps it is, but I read something this week that got me thinking. First, let me say that I like Andy Stanley. I think he is very creative and a true servant of God. However, sometimes, pastors can say things and I wish they would clarify them or at least think about the ramifications of such statments.
Let me explain. In Leadership Journal Stanley was asked whether or not we should stop speaking about pastors as "shepherds." Here's what he said:
"Absolutely. That word needs to go away. Jesus talked about shepherds because there was one over there in a pasture he could point to. But to bring in that imagery today and say, “Pastor, you’re the shepherd of the flock,” no. I never seen a flock. I’ve never spent five minutes with a shepherd. It was culturally relevant in the time of Jesus, but it’s not culturally relevant any more. Nothing works in our culture with that model except this sense of the gentle, pastoral care. Obviously that is a facet of church ministry, but that’s not leadership."
Let me just simply say that I think Stanley misses the point. Should we throw out all theological jargon because it may not seem culturally relevant? Or are we to try to explain and illustrate these words? Again, I think he is missing the point and the richness of the metaphor. I like Stanley, I just think that sometimes theological richness and depth are explained away by trying to be culturally relevant.
Sure Jesus spoke about shepherds because they were common in his day. But this doesn't mean we shouldn't continue to speak as pastors as "shepherds" today. The "shepherd" motif can be easily applied in our 21st century world and the imagery is simple: a caring shepherd watching out and protecting the sheep. I don't think there is one monolithic type of pastor (for we all have different personalities and gifts), but the imagery is rich and meaningful if we will strive to understand why Jesus used it and what the ramifications of that metaphor are.
posted by John @ 12:32 PM
7 Comments:
From a non-Pastorial point of view, I believe those who are in the congregation listening like the imagery of the pastor as shepherd as well. We go to church weekly to be reenergized and taught by one who has committed himself to caring for the fold, which is the church he pastors. Just as little sheep need to learn from the shepherd the paths the flock will follow, people need a shepherd to guide them down the roads they will travel.
The English word pastor is translated 'pastor' in most mediterranian languages. We need to drop the usage of Pastor as a title if what A. Stanley says makes sense.
A rose by any other name?
Any word can be "culturally relevant" by practicing good communication. I mean, after all what is a "Starbucks" an "Amazon" or a "blog"? These are just words we have poured meaning into--word that have been "branded".
If people can figure out what is the "HOV lane", use an "iPod" to get a "podcast", or order a "Triple-drip-double-tall-extra-hot-carmel-macchiato" (whatever than means)--they can handle the task of figuring out what the word "pastor" means without ever getting even within 1,000,000 miles of a sheep pen.
Not only that, but if they ever get around to reading the Bible before, during or after church (and I hope that's what church members do. All churches, ones that change the name of the office of pastor and ones that don't) they will see all kinds of agricultural analogies. They might as well get used to it.
Changing the name "Pastor" to "Narrartor" or "Guy who's talking for 30 minutes on Sunday" or whatever won't guarantee relevant ministry.
Any pastor that ministers to needs in the lives of their flock will be consider relevant by the--err..sheep. I like the idea that ministry needs to be relevant to culture--who can be against that? But the argument against the word "pastor" is as week as an argument that only people who are called "pastor" are "pastoring".
Andy Stanley must think people are stupid!
I think I agree with all that is said here, including A. Stanley.
Maybe we should get ride of the "title" altogether. Meaning all titles within the church. Maybe it should be more organic (an overused term, yes, but the best one at present).
I've met people, followers of Christ, who tend to skip the Sunday morning gig in order to be good neighbors. they have more or less been designated as the "caretakers" of the neighborhood. People actully come to them for advice, comfort, entertainment, etc. I strongly believe that is what the church is form into. Small "tribes", so to speak.
Titles seem to take away, at least within the church circle. a pastor can mean so many things nowadays. Some very positive but sometimes very negative.
So, I guess I would agree with Stanley more, but maybe take it a step further. Redefine the word church. Maybe call it a club, that what it seems to mirror more than anything.
Anonymous,
Stanley's not arguing for a less institutional church here...but for a more institutional structure. He sees pastors as being CEO's, especially of mega churches like his. I don't have a problem with the CEO model, but I wouldn't throw out the term "shephered." In fact, I think the term better explains and justifies your model than Stanley's. However, ultimately I think there are many types or kinds of "tribes." Some are big, some are small.
John B.
For a long time I have had a problem with the conflict between the personalities I see called a "pastor" and the concept of "shepherd" - my problem is not with shepherd, but with pastor. To "shepherd" and to "pastor" (ad, by the way, pastor is a derivative of "pastural" and is a literal translation of the latin 'shepherd') are to me highly analagous - but to me, a CEO is not necessarily a pastor. In fact, a CEO is far more likely to be an apostle.
It is also important to realise that there is no "title" of pastor/shepherd in the scriptures, simply the instruction to the action of "care for my sheep". Perhaps if we more accurately referred to our 'pastors' according to their real titles (apostle, teacher) we would have less issues?
From another perspective, I am being wholly challenged at present by Andrew Murray's work on Humility, as being empty of myself and full of Christ. As we look around even at our pastors, and in fact the Church body as a whole, how many of those we would label "leaders", "shepherds" and "pastors" can be said to display the humility of Christ? And can we picture a CEO, or even leader being humble? Certainly for me, the connotation of pastor is of a person with a great deal more humility that CEO. It may all be semantics, but our words do count. (Obviously :) or this discussion wouldn't be happening :))
Cate
Post a Comment
<< Home