If the conditions that prevail in many assemblies were true in most evangelical churches, the pastor would have been shown the door. No improvement in public preaching? No souls saved? No baptisms? Needy Christians not being visited? No discipleship for new believers? He’d be long gone and the new candidate would be informed that serious change was expected.
Now the reason we don’t believe in having a contractual agreement with a professional shepherd is not simply because we don’t see it in Scripture. We also don’t see Sunday Schools, hymn books, Bible study courses, gospel tracts, and a long list of other things in the Bible either—all of which we have found useful in their place (and not anti-biblical).
The reason we historically rejected the practice of a man being paid to do the major share of the public work in the local church was this: we believed the model in Scripture of all rising to their full measure of gift and ministry was by far the better way. And by better way, we not only meant more biblical; we meant more beneficial, more fruitful, more efficient, more glorifying to God. We believed it brought out the full potential of all exercised believers; it enriched the church with a whole spectrum of gifts rather than specializing in one; it gave real and strategic opportunities for ministry to those who would never have a chance in a ministerial system.
What happened? Why is there often, as in the Bethlehem of Elimelech’s day, a famine in “the house of bread”? Why are families like Elimelech’s going to sojourn somewhere else? I will hurry to say that Elimelech’s plan was a bad one and his family was lost to the place of God’s favor as a result. The better plan was to follow Boaz, submit to God’s chastening, and prosper.
1. A prideful attitude that changed “God’s way is better than man’s way” to “our way is better than theirs”: Then it was a short step to the next set of assumptions: “All so-called blessing in denominational churches is just a mirage.” “Whatever else we don’t have, we have the Lord in our midst.” “The smallness of our gatherings isn’t something to be concerned about—it’s proof of our high spiritual state. We’re the little flock. The crowd’s always wrong, you know.” Such attitudes (and a passel more like them) led to the remarkable situation where lack of blessing equalled evidence of blessing; and where evident blessing was therefore seen as suspect, a work of man.
2. When confronted with the high cost of overseeing, many in elder’s positions were unwilling to pay up. Toil in the Word to feed the saints while others take the Lazyboy-and-TV approach to evening hours? “No, I’m not the teacher type.” Make difficult visits to lives cracking apart under the strain? “I’ve never been confrontational.” Spend hours discipling young believers? “The assembly’s doing just fine. The ones that left weren’t happy anyway.” Am I overstating the case?
3. Mediocrity was taken to be normative: It is time to repent and reject this unbiblical model. It is little help to the flock if shepherds have blueprints of ideal sheepfolds or aerial photos of rich grassland. In most cases, we “know these things.” But the happiness comes in doing them (Jn. 13:17). So what is the way forward? Do we feel incompetent? The Lord is standing by to help. We must spread our busyness and barrenness out at the cross and allow Him to radically change the landscape of our lives so they become as the Creator intended, not as the world has eroded them. “Return unto Me, and I will return unto you, saith the Lord of hosts” (Mal. 3:7).