Pastoring?

No matter whether a church meets in a park, in homes, or in a church-building, my feeling is that every church ought to be led by pastors, or aiming to eventually be led by pastors. Witnessing Christians can start a new group; so can an Evangelist, or Apostles - but no matter who starts it, my feeling is that the goal of every group should be to eventually see pastors appointed who can carry-on the responsibility of serving, feeding, teaching and leading the flock. The group will be unlikely to reach full maturity if it continues to be led by regular believers, an evangelist and perhaps even by an apostle. In the New Testament, I see that pastors were eventually appointed in each church, to take-on the responsibility for the flock. Each of us ought to desire to relate to God-called pastors, as closely as circumstances allow. Obviously it takes time in a new group before qualified pastors can become recognized. And imprisoned Christians meeting together in solitary confinement might not have the opportunity to relate naturally with pastors. So, it's not always possible. But if any group is deliberately avoiding the role of pastors - when circumstances don't necessitate it - then I think that group will have difficulty maturing fully. I've seen it happen over and over again. Someone feels the structured church is too restrictive. So he starts his own group. If he's not gifted and called by God into the office of pastor, or if no pastors are ever appointed, the group remains small and some groups eventually fizzle out completely. The group doesn't end-up achieving better results than the church they left. In contrast to that, the house-church movement in China has an ordained leadership. It even has denominational structure. Chinese culture knows little of operating outside of respect for leadership and structure. That's part of the reason why the house-church movement in China has been able to mature further than many house-churches that I've observed in Australia seem to have. I do know of one house-church movement in Queensland that seems to be succeeding, although I don't have enough information yet to say for sure. One thing I know: it has ordained leadership - good, strong, mature leadership - men in recognized ministry roles. Any group will only be as strong as its leadership - whether the group meets in parks, homes or church-buildings. It is God who has ordained that pastors should have a role in leading each local assembly. Any group which ignores that will lack something somewhere along the line. It's true that it is God, and not man, who calls someone to be a pastor. But the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Not everyone who sets-out to be a pastor was called by God to be one. When a man's call to shepherding is genuine, you can see it by just looking at the sheep, at his flock. The sheep will be healthy and the flock will mostly likely be growing in number too - because healthy mature sheep usually reproduce. It's important that we know our calling. Success will come easier if we function in our calling. If someone is running a home-group or a group that meets in a park or any sort of meeting in any sort of building, it pays for him to consider whether pastoring is really his calling. If he has a genuine calling to the office of pastor, then the growth of the flock both in health and in numbers will prove it - longterm. If pastoring isn't his calling, then he ought to want to encourage the group to relate appropriately to pastors - or, if God wills, he ought to have the goal of eventually seeing pastors appointed in and over the group. Everyone needs pastors. An outreach ministry may not necessarily be a church. A revival meeting is not necessary meant to become a new church. These events may be just meant to fuel the existing churches. It pays to know! I feel it's important for us not to be vague and indistinct about whether or not we are called to pastor or to start a new 'church'. If a person starts a new group, I feel it is helpful for him to know from the outset whether the group is meant to be a 'church' in its own right (in which case he ought to want the group to eventually be led by pastors), or whether the group is meant to just be part of an existing church (a pastoral arm of the church, or an evangelistic outreach of the church) - or whether the meeting is just meant to be a meeting that makes a spiritual contribution (brings revival and refreshing) to existing churches. If we get our own calling right, then what we do can benefit the body of Christ optimally. It's true that all believers can minister and shepherd - it's true that any gathering of two or three believers can be called 'church' in a sense - but it's not true that everyone is called and gifted by God to be a pastor - and it is not true that a group of believers can do just as well if they avoid the importance of having pastors. It's true that pastors can wrongly lord it over the flock. But if that is happening, it is important that a person responds to it appropriately rather than stepping outside of his own calling. It's true that pastors ought to have a heart to equip and release. But sometimes pastors know best when a person is ready. Equipping is part of the role of a minister. But Paul also used the clause "...OVER whom..." when he wrote: "...OVER WHOM the Holy Ghost has made you OVERSEERS..." speaking of pastors. It IS Scriptural to speak of pastors as being OVER the flock. Paul spoke of those who "...RULE well...". He also said, "...God hath placed in the church...GOVERNMENTS..." It's true that God, not man, chooses pastors. But it is not true that it isn't necessary for a man's calling to eventually become recognized by others, including by other leaders. Abuses of leadership can and do happen in both structured churches and house-churches. But that is a problem with the leader's maturity - not a problem with the office of "pastors" itself. If we respond to it within our calling, we will be part of the solution. If we react by stepping outside our calling, we may fail to reach our own full potential. If I'm called to be a nut that holds one of the bicycle's wheels on, I can be a gold-plated nut. Better for a nut to be the nut on the bicycle that it's meant to be, than for the nut to say to itself, "I don't like this bicycle - I'm going to detach myself and ride off down the street all by myself as if I'm a bicycle." I see some ministers who are called to bring revival and refreshing to existing churches in a city - but they are trying to start a new 'church'. Consequently, the impact and scope and focus of their revivalist ministry becomes limited. I see some evangelists who are so successful when they travel in evangelism - but they pastored a church, and it eventually folded. Then they quit traveling as well because they were discouraged. I've seen others who stayed in their church - and they ended-up contributing to their church, and even got to minister to the lost in their city and to other churches worldwide too. I've seen some who held revival meetings without starting a new church. They personally remained connected to their church. They encouraged the attendees of their revival meetings to belong to a church. It worked. Even other pastors liked them! I've seen others who were called to plant their own church - and it worked. They were meant to do it. No-one can call himself to be a pastor or to plant what is meant to become a new church. But he that is called of God. I don't say this to restrict anyone or to deny any good things being done by anyone. I say it only because I think an orange tree will be more appreciated by its owner if it focuses on producing sweeter oranges instead of on trying to produce bananas. My feelings on this could be wrong though. I welcome comment on it.