Why Sunday Sermons Are Necessary But Not Sufficient

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dr. Bob Gonzales

Puritan Board Junior
Is the traditional ministry model of "pastor as service-providing clergyman" an adequate paradigm to meet the exigencies of Great Commission work in 21st century America? More importantly, is this model fully biblical? While noting some of its strengths, Colin Marshall and Tony Payne think this ministry model tends to feed an unhealthy "consumerism," isn't sufficient to produce mature and active disciples, and fails, in certain areas, to reflect the New Testament paradigm of healthy church ministry. In my latest post, I provide an excerpt from a chapter in their book The Trellis and the Vine where they contrast two prevalent models--"the pastor as service-providing clergyman" and "the pastor as CEO"--with what they see as a better way, namely, "the pastor as trainer."

Why Sunday Sermons Are Necessary But Not Sufficient: from The Trellis and the Vine
 
Is the 'traditional ministry model' that which is described in LBC 26?

Paragraph 8. A particular church, gathered and completely organized according to the mind of Christ, consists of officers and members; and the officers appointed by Christ to be chosen and set apart by the church (so called and gathered), for the peculiar administration of ordinances, and execution of power or duty, which he intrusts them with, or calls them to, to be continued to the end of the world, are bishops or elders, and deacons.

Paragraph 11. Although it be incumbent on the bishops or pastors of the churches, to be instant in preaching the word, by way of office, yet the work of preaching the word is not so peculiarly confined to them but that others also gifted and fitted by the Holy Spirit for it, and approved and called by the church, may and ought to perform it.

Or is it the more prevalent Chuck Smith model of pastor as 'Moses'?
 
Ken,

I'm not familiar with Church Smith's ministry model.

I don't think the authors' of The Trellis and the Vine would disagree with (1) the legitimacy and necessity of the office of pastor-teacher or (2) the legitimacy of certain men not ordained occasionally ministering the Word in corporate worship, which, I believe, are the points of church polity affirmed in the confessional statements you cited.

I think they have in mind a ministry model or philosophy that denies or marginalizes the involvement of laypeople in facets of corporate worship and Great Commission work and the responsibility of the pastor in equipping the saints to engage in such facets of ministry as are appropriate to the latter's level of maturity, gift, and opportunity.
 
The 'traditional' model = "a ministry model or philosophy that denies or marginalizes the involvement of laypeople"? I am sure there are churches out there that do that, but I don't know if the term 'traditional' is a good descriptor. From my experience the 'traditional' model is one in which every Tom, Dick and Mary is given a directorship of some kind of 'ministry'. (There was a church in my area which used to have a Director of ATV Ministry)
 
I agree that it is rarely helpful to use the term "traditional." Whose tradition? However, laying the name aside, I further agree that the model described is not optimal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top