Church Leadership

What Happened to the Church Gathering?

/ pastorlynnmalone / Leave a comment

Questions About Participation, Preaching, Communion, and the One-Hour Worship Service

Fair warning: This post is longer than most. I’m supposed to be writing a blog, not a book. Even so, these four questions belong together, so I hope you will persevere to the end.

In my last post, I considered three questions about church leadership: the role of the senior pastor, denominational hierarchy, and professionalized ministry.

Today, I want to turn from who leads the church to what happens when the church gathers.

Four of my original eleven questions belong together:

  1. Is the church supposed to be a gathering of non-participants?
  2. When did church gatherings become sermon-centered?
  3. When did the church lose its weekly commitment to the Lord’s Supper?
  4. Were early church gatherings limited to one hour?

Once again, I am not standing outside the church criticizing what everyone else is doing. I have planned and led more worship services than I could possibly count. I have selected songs, prepared sermons, written liturgies, scheduled volunteers, administered Communion, and watched the clock—yes, that clock that hangs above the back door.

I have worried about whether the service flowed smoothly. I have shortened parts of the service when I knew my sermon would be long. I have felt the pressure to finish on time. I have also stood at the door after worship hoping people were pleased with what they experienced.

I am not questioning practices in which I have merely participated. I am questioning practices I have helped create and continue to perpetuate. That doesn’t necessarily make those practices wrong. It does mean I should be willing to examine them.

Is the Church Supposed to Be a Gathering of Non-Participants?

Most churches say they want people to participate. We invite people to sing, pray, give, serve, and respond to the sermon. Even so, most of what happens during a typical worship service is performed by a relatively small group of people.

The pastor preaches. The worship team sings. The musicians play. Designated people pray, read Scripture, make announcements, receive the offering, and serve Communion. Everyone else watches, listens, and participates when instructed.

There are practical reasons for that arrangement. A worship gathering needs order. Not everyone is gifted to preach, sing, teach, or lead publicly. Giving everyone an opportunity to say whatever is on their mind could produce something closer to chaos than worship.

Paul certainly valued order. When addressing the church in Corinth, he instructed them that everything should be done properly and in order. But the same passage also presents a picture of participation that feels unfamiliar to many of us:

“When you meet together, one will sing, another will teach, another will tell some special revelation God has given, one will speak in tongues, and another will interpret what is said. But everything that is done must strengthen all of you.” (1 Corinthians 14:26 NLT)

Whatever else we make of that passage, Paul seems to assume that different members of the congregation will contribute something when the church gathers.

That reflects his larger understanding of the church as a body. Every member has a function. Every member has received gifts from the Spirit. Every member has something to contribute to the health and mission of the whole. How, then, did the gathering of the church become an event in which most people are spectators?

Perhaps part of the answer is that our gatherings became larger. Participation that might occur naturally in a home becomes more difficult in a room filled with hundreds or thousands of people.

Perhaps another part of the answer is our desire for excellence and predictability. We want the music rehearsed, the transitions smooth, the message prepared, and the service completed on time. Spontaneous participation is difficult to plan, control, and fit into the order of worship.

Again, none of those concerns is necessarily wrong. Preparation can honor God and serve the congregation. Disorder does not automatically indicate the presence of the Holy Spirit. But has our desire for order gradually eliminated meaningful participation? Have we unintentionally taught people that their role in worship is to arrive, sit down, sing when invited, listen to the sermon, and go home?

Attending a worship service is not the same as participating in the body of Christ.

When Did Church Gatherings Become Sermon-Centered?

I need to tread carefully here. I am a preacher. Preaching has been central to my calling and ministry for more than thirty-five years. I believe in proclaiming the gospel. I believe Scripture should be read, taught, explained, and applied to our lives. This is not an argument against preaching. It is a question about the place preaching has come to occupy in our gatherings.

In many Protestant churches, the sermon is the defining feature of worship. Even the architecture of our sanctuaries communicates the significance of the sermon—we have “pulpit-centered” sanctuaries. Everything before the sermon prepares for it. Everything after the sermon responds to it. The length of the service is often determined by it. I have heard church members call everything leading up to the sermon “the preliminaries.” Worse, I’ve heard pastors call it that!

If the music is exceptional but the sermon is poor, people may say the service was disappointing. If the pastor is absent, attendance sometimes declines because people prefer to wait until “the preacher” returns.

I know because I have helped create that expectation. I have promoted worship by telling people what I would be preaching. I have encouraged church members to invite their friends to hear a particular sermon. I have sometimes acted as though the congregation gathered primarily to hear what I had to say. Preaching matters, but was the sermon intended to carry so much of the weight of the church’s life?

The earliest Christians devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching. Teaching clearly mattered. But they also devoted themselves to fellowship, sharing meals—including the Lord’s Supper—and prayer. The church gathered to hear the Word, but it also gathered to pray, eat, share, encourage, discern, testify, give, and care for one another. Somewhere along the way, many of those elements moved toward the margins while the sermon moved to the center.

Prayer was shortened. Testimony became unpredictable and occasionally uncomfortable. Conversation was moved to a Sunday school class or small group. Shared discernment was assigned to a committee or leadership board. The Lord’s Supper became an occasional addition to the regular service. The sermon remained.

Perhaps that happened because a sermon is efficient. One person can prepare during the week and speak to the whole congregation at once. It is easier to control than open participation. It fits neatly within the allotted time.

It also reinforces the centrality of the pastor. The pastor studies. The pastor hears from God. The pastor explains what the Bible means. The congregation receives what the pastor has prepared. That arrangement may produce informed listeners. But does it necessarily form mature disciples?

People can listen to thousands of sermons without learning to read Scripture for themselves, pray with one another, discern the Spirit’s direction, articulate their faith, or participate in Christ’s mission. The question is not whether we should preach. The question is whether we have asked preaching to do what the entire body of Christ was intended to do.

When Did the Church Lose Its Weekly Commitment to the Lord’s Supper?

This question may expose the imbalance more clearly than any of the others. The earliest Christians gathered regularly around the Table. Acts tells us that they devoted themselves to the breaking of bread. Acts 20 describes believers gathering on the first day of the week to break bread. Paul’s instructions to the Corinthians suggest that the Lord’s Supper was a normal part of their life together—even if they were observing it badly enough to require correction.

The evidence may not allow us to establish that every congregation celebrated Communion every week in precisely the same way. Still, the Table appears to have occupied a far more central place in the early church than it does in many churches today.

How did we arrive at a pattern in which the sermon is offered every week while the Lord’s Supper is offered once a month, once a quarter, or even (heaven help us!) once a year?

I grew up in a tradition that celebrated Communion quarterly. Later, monthly Communion became more common. In some churches, even monthly Communion can feel like an interruption to the regular order of worship—something that makes the service run long.

Think about what that communicates. We make room every week for the preacher’s words but only occasionally for the bread and the cup. At the Table, the focus shifts away from the preacher. We remember Christ’s death. We receive the signs of His grace. We confess our need. We gather not as customers evaluating a religious presentation but as sinners who come with empty hands.

Communion also reminds us that Christianity is not merely a private relationship between Jesus and me. We do not receive the bread and cup alone. We come to a shared Table as the body of Christ. Rich and poor come to the same Table. Young and old come to the same Table. Republicans and Democrats come to the same Table. Those who agree and those who struggle to understand one another come to the same Table. We receive the same grace because we share the same need.

Perhaps that is part of what we lost when the sermon became weekly and the Meal became occasional. The sermon can be evaluated individually: What did I learn? Did I enjoy it? Did it speak to me? The Table confronts us with a different reality. Christ gave Himself for us, and in Christ we belong to one another.

I am not suggesting that weekly Communion would automatically renew the church. We can participate in the Lord’s Supper thoughtlessly just as easily as we can listen to a sermon thoughtlessly. But perhaps the frequency of our practices reveals something about our priorities. What does it say when we consider thirty minutes of preaching essential but ten minutes at the Lord’s Table optional?

Were Early Church Gatherings Limited to One Hour?

Let me say immediately that longer services are not necessarily more spiritual. I have attended long worship services that were deeply meaningful. I have also attended long worship services that only felt long. A three-hour service can be every bit as lifeless as a one-hour service.

The issue is not simply how long we gather. The issue is why one hour has become the expected limit in so many churches.

We print the times on signs, websites, and social media. Worship begins at 10:30 and should end around 11:30. If the service goes fifteen minutes long, people begin looking at their watches. Parents become concerned about children. Restaurant plans are affected. Volunteers in the nursery wonder if they have been forgotten. I even had an uncle who was a member of one of my churches whose watch alarm went off promptly at noon every Sunday. Such a nice reminder for the preacher. And, from a family member, too…

Some of those concerns are legitimate. Time matters. People have responsibilities. Children have limits. Respecting people’s time can be an expression of hospitality. But our anxiety about time may reveal something deeper.

We routinely spend several hours at ball games, concerts, movies, festivals, and other activities we value. We arrive early. We stay late. We do not resent overtime when the experience matters to us. Yet an additional fifteen minutes in worship can feel like an unreasonable demand. Why?

Perhaps it is because we approach worship as one appointment among many. We have given God His hour, and we expect the church to honor the arrangement. The one-hour expectation also shapes what can happen when we gather. There is time for a few songs, announcements, an offering, a prayer, and a sermon. There may not be time for people to share what God is doing in their lives. There may not be time for extended prayer, silence, conversation, testimony, or discernment. There may not even be time for Communion unless something else is shortened. The schedule favors the predictable. It rewards efficiency. It makes participation difficult.

Again, the answer is not necessarily to make every service longer. Perhaps the answer is to ask whether everything the church needs to do when it gathers can—or should—be compressed into a single hour.

Maybe some of what we expect from Sunday morning needs to happen in smaller gatherings where people can know one another, pray for one another, confess to one another, bear one another’s burdens, and contribute their gifts.

The deeper concern is not the length of the service. It is whether our gatherings are structured primarily around convenience or around the formation of a people. Perhaps the deeper problem is that we have made the Sunday worship service virtually synonymous with the gathering of the church—and then tried to compress everything the church is called to be into that single hour.

The Church Is Not an Audience

I am not calling for the elimination of sermons, worship teams, planned services, or established times. I am asking whether our gatherings are accomplishing what they were intended to accomplish. Are people merely attending, or are they participating? Are sermons equipping people to engage Scripture and follow Jesus, or are they creating a congregation dependent upon the preacher?

Does the Lord’s Table occupy a central place in our life together, or has it become an occasional addition to a sermon-centered service? Does our use of time reflect thoughtful stewardship, or does the sixty-minute limit reveal how little room we have made for worship in our lives?

Perhaps we need to recover gatherings in which more members of the body have something meaningful to contribute. Perhaps we need more room for prayer, testimony, conversation, silence, discernment, and response. Perhaps we need to come to the Lord’s Table more frequently and remember that Christ—not the preacher—is the center of our gathering.

Not every congregation will answer these questions in the same way. A church of thirty people will gather differently from a church of three thousand. A congregation meeting in a home will have possibilities that a congregation meeting in a large sanctuary may not have.

The New Testament gives us principles without handing us a complete order of worship. That gives us freedom, but it also gives us responsibility. We are free to develop forms appropriate to our time, place, and circumstances. But we are responsible for asking what those forms are producing.

Perhaps the problem is not that we have sermons, planned worship, or an established order of service. Perhaps the problem is that the order has become so fixed, the sermon so dominant, and participation so limited that most people can attend church for years without ever believing they have anything meaningful to contribute to the gathered body. The church is not an audience. It is a body.

When the body gathers, every member may not speak, sing, preach, or lead. But every member should understand that they have been given grace, gifts, and responsibility for the good of the whole.

Once again, I have generated more questions than answers. Then again, I’m not the perfect pastor.

That doesn’t keep me from trying—or from asking more questions.

Until next time, keep looking up…

Who Leads the Church?

/ pastorlynnmalone / Leave a comment

Questions About Senior Pastors, Denominational Hierarchy, and Professional Ministry

In my last post, I shared eleven questions I have been asking myself about the contemporary church. Today, I want to dig deeper into three of them:

  1. Is the senior pastor a truly biblical role?
  2. Is denominational hierarchy a biblical concept?
  3. Is professionalized ministry the biblical model?

These questions belong together because they all concern leadership—who leads the church, how that leadership is structured, and what leaders are supposed to do.

Once again, I need to acknowledge my complicity. I have been a senior pastor. I have been a district superintendent. I have worked for a denomination. I have received my living from the gospel for most of my adult life. I have not merely participated in these systems. I have benefited from them.

That doesn’t necessarily make the systems wrong. It does mean that I am not casting aspersions. I am questioning structures in which I have spent more than thirty-five years of my life.

Is the Senior Pastor a Truly Biblical Role?

The New Testament certainly recognizes leaders in the church. It speaks of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, teachers, elders, overseers, and deacons.

What I have trouble finding is anything that looks quite like the modern senior pastor.

In many churches, the senior pastor is the primary preacher, chief executive, vision-caster, staff supervisor, fundraiser, institutional manager, public face, and central spiritual authority. That is a lot to place on one person. I know. I have been that person (and I still am).

I have also helped create churches in which too much revolved around me. I was the primary preacher. I was expected to cast the vision. I was the one people called when they needed prayer, counsel, a hospital visit, a decision, or an answer.

Some of that came with the calling. Some of it came with the structure. Some of it probably came from my own need to feel important. That last one is difficult to admit.

The New Testament seems to picture leadership as more shared. Elders are generally spoken of in the plural. Spiritual gifts are distributed throughout the body. Every member has a function. No part can say to another, “I don’t need you.”

Does that mean having a senior pastor is inherently unbiblical? I’m not prepared to say that. But I am prepared to ask what happens when so much authority, visibility, and responsibility become concentrated in one person.

The pastor begins to carry expectations no human can fulfill. Preach well. Lead decisively. Counsel wisely. Visit faithfully. Manage effectively. Grow the church. Resolve conflict. Be available. Keep everyone happy. When the church grows, the pastor receives too much credit. When it declines, the pastor receives too much blame.

The congregation can also become dependent upon the pastor. The pastor prays. The pastor teaches. The pastor visits. The pastor evangelizes. The pastor hears from God and tells everyone else where the church is going. That may create an efficient institution, but does it create a healthy body?

Perhaps the problem is not that churches have senior pastors. Perhaps the problem is that the senior pastor has become the center of gravity around which the congregation revolves. Christ—not the pastor—is the head of the church.

Is Denominational Hierarchy a Biblical Concept?

This question gets even more personal because I have seen denominational connection at its best, and at its worst.

Denominations can provide accountability, theological identity, shared resources, clergy standards, mission partnerships, and opportunities that individual congregations could never provide on their own. I have benefited from all of those things.

And accountability matters to me. When I left one denomination I joined another for that very reason. I suppose that’s why this question causes so much cognitive dissonance for me.

The New Testament church was not simply a loose collection of congregations with no connection or responsibility to one another. Churches shared resources. Leaders traveled among them. The apostles provided instruction and correction. Acts 15 describes leaders gathering to address an issue affecting the wider church.

Connection is biblical. Accountability is biblical. Shared discernment is biblical. But is everything our denominational systems have become biblical?

Boards create agencies. Agencies create offices. Offices develop policies. Policies require administrators. Administrators require budgets. Before long, a structure created to support ministry requires enormous energy simply to support itself.

I understand why many of those structures developed. Heck, I helped administer some of them. They were usually created to solve real problems or accomplish something worthwhile. But every institution eventually develops an instinct for self-preservation.

When does connection become control? When does accountability become bureaucracy? When does theological oversight become institutional gatekeeping? When does preserving the denomination become more important than serving its congregations and advancing the mission?

Denominational structures are not necessarily wrong because we cannot find them outlined in the New Testament. Neither are they sacred simply because we inherited them. They are tools. Tools should be evaluated by whether they still serve their intended purpose.

The local church does not exist to maintain the denomination. The denomination exists to help the church follow Christ and participate in His mission. When that order becomes reversed, something has gone wrong.

The problem? Those on the inside don’t always see the issue. They see themselves as “helping” the church and “fulfilling” the mission. I know because I was one who saw it that way.

Is Professionalized Ministry the Biblical Model?

Let me be clear: Scripture provides for the financial support of those who devote themselves to preaching and teaching.

I am grateful for the churches that have supported my family and me through the years. Their generosity allowed me to devote time and attention to ministry that I could not have given otherwise.

The problem is not that we pay pastors. The problem is that ministry can gradually become something performed primarily by the people who are paid to do it.

We call pastors “ministers,” which can subtly imply that everyone else is something other than a minister. We hire staff to teach, visit, disciple, organize, lead worship, conduct outreach, and administer the church. Eventually, the pastor and staff perform the ministry while everyone else attends, gives, and occasionally volunteers.

Pastors become religious service providers. Church members become their customers. Members expect the professionals to provide good preaching, meaningful worship, pastoral care, children’s ministry, student ministry, and opportunities for the family. If one church does not provide what they want, they can usually find another one that does.

That arrangement may keep the institution operating, but is it the biblical vision of the body of Christ?

Paul wrote that Christ gave apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers “to equip God’s people to do his work and build up the church.” The leaders are not given to do all the ministry for God’s people. They are given to equip God’s people for ministry. There is a significant difference.

Perhaps the measure of a pastor’s ministry is not how much the pastor personally accomplishes. Perhaps it is how effectively the pastor helps people become more like Christ and participate in His mission.

A church can have excellent preaching, polished worship, strong programs, and a large staff while its members remain mostly passive. They can be well served without ever being equipped to serve.

Professional ministry should not relieve the saints of ministry. It should prepare the saints for ministry.

Giving Ministry Away

I am not calling for churches to eliminate senior pastors, dismantle denominations, or stop paying ministry leaders. I am asking whether our structures are accomplishing what they were intended to accomplish.

Does the pastor help people depend more deeply upon Christ, or does the congregation become increasingly dependent upon the pastor? Does the denomination strengthen local churches for mission, or do local churches increasingly exist to maintain the denomination? Does professional ministry equip God’s people to do the work of ministry, or does it quietly teach them to leave ministry to the professionals?

Perhaps faithful Christian leadership can be measured, at least in part, by how willingly it gives ministry away.

Jesus did not gather disciples merely to watch Him work. He taught them, formed them, corrected them, empowered them, and sent them. He gave them real responsibility and invited them to participate in His mission.

The church will always need leaders. But it needs leaders who understand that the goal is not to build ministry around themselves. The goal is to equip the whole body to become more like Christ for the sake of others.

Once again, it appears that my questions only lead to more questions—questions for which I really don’t have answers. I suppose that’s another reason I’m not the perfect pastor.

But that doesn’t keep me from trying…or asking more questions.

Until next time, keep looking up…

11 Questions I’m Asking Myself About the Contemporary Church

/ pastorlynnmalone / 1 Comment

Examining the Church We Have and the Church Jesus Intended

I have spent most of my adult life serving the institutional church and I’ve spent much of the past week sitting in institutional meetings. The week was encouraging and uplifting, but it also prompted me to reflect on the “institutional” church as it exists today.

Here is what I’ve been thinking about all week…

For more than thirty-five years, I have preached sermons, led worship services, administered programs, attended meetings, developed budgets, supervised staff, and participated in denominational structures. I have served as a senior pastor. I have served as a district superintendent. I have not only participated in the denominational system; for a season, I worked for the denomination. Even now, I remain an ordained elder serving as the pastor of a local church.

I say all that because I don’t want anyone to misunderstand what follows. I am not standing outside the institutional church throwing rocks at it. I am standing firmly inside it. I have given most of my life to it. I love the church, and I continue to believe the local church can be one of the most beautiful expressions of the body of Christ in the world. But I also know that I have been complicit in fostering some of the very issues I am beginning to question.

I have helped create worship services in which most people watched while a few people participated. I have stood behind the pulpit as the central personality in the room. I have encouraged people to invite their friends to “come hear the preacher.” I have supported budgets that devoted significant resources to staff, buildings, programs, and institutional maintenance. I have participated in denominational systems that sometimes appeared more concerned with preserving the institution than advancing the mission.

I have measured attendance, counted giving, promoted programs, celebrated growth, and worried when the numbers went in the wrong direction. I have sometimes treated a full room as evidence of spiritual success without asking whether the people in that room were actually being formed into the image of Christ.

I am not confessing that everything I have done was wrong. Much of it was done prayerfully, faithfully, and with good intentions. Some of those practices have borne genuine fruit. But good intentions do not place our practices beyond examination.

Neither does the fact that a particular practice is not found explicitly in the Bible make it inherently wrong. The New Testament does not give us a complete operations manual for the twenty-first-century church. It does not tell us what time to gather, how many songs to sing, whether to use a pulpit, how to organize the church office, or what kind of building to occupy. We have freedom to develop structures and practices suited to our time and place.

The question is whether those structures still serve the purposes of the church—or whether the church has gradually begun serving the structures.

A practice does not become biblical simply because churches have done it for a long time. Neither is it necessarily faithful because it attracts a crowd, produces measurable results, or appears successful. Every practice must be examined in light of the character of Jesus Christ, the teaching of Scripture, and the mission Jesus entrusted to His church. That examination has led me to begin asking some uncomfortable questions.

1. Is the senior pastor a truly biblical role?

The New Testament speaks of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, teachers, elders, overseers, and deacons. It certainly recognizes spiritual leadership and entrusts some people with particular responsibilities. But do we find anything resembling the modern senior pastor—the primary preacher, chief executive, public face, institutional leader, and often central personality of the congregation?

The role may not be inherently wrong, but what happens when so much authority, visibility, and responsibility become concentrated in one person?

2. Is the church supposed to be a gathering of non-participants?

Paul describes the church as a body in which every member has a function. He also pictures gatherings in which different members contribute to the life of the community.

How, then, did church become a gathering in which a relatively small number of people perform while everyone else watches? Have we unintentionally taught people that attending church is the same as participating in the body of Christ?

3. Are multisite campuses about growing God’s Kingdom—or the senior pastor’s kingdom?

I know this question sounds pointed, and I do not presume to judge the motives of every pastor or congregation using a multisite model. Heck, I even tried it myself once (to no avail). Multisite churches may reach people who would otherwise remain disconnected from Christian community.

Still, we should be willing to ask why one pastor’s preaching must be broadcast into multiple locations. Are we multiplying churches and leaders, or extending the reach of a particular personality and brand?

4. How biblical is it for more than half of a church’s giving to support buildings, maintenance, upkeep, and staff?

Buildings and staff can serve the mission of the church. Pastors who devote themselves to ministry may rightly receive financial support, and congregations need places in which to gather.

But when much of the church’s financial life is devoted to sustaining its own operations, we should at least ask what remains for mission, mercy, generosity, and ministry beyond ourselves. At what point does maintaining the institution become the institution’s primary mission?

5. When did church gatherings become sermon-centered?

I am a preacher, and I believe preaching matters. The proclamation and teaching of God’s Word have always been central to the church’s life. I’ve often told my congregations that they pay me to be their pastor. I preach for free!

But is a thirty-minute sermon delivered by one person supposed to become the defining feature of Christian worship? How did the sermon come to dominate the gathering while prayer, testimony, conversation, shared discernment, and the Lord’s Supper moved toward the margins?

6. When did the church lose its weekly commitment to the Lord’s Supper?

The earliest Christians appear to have gathered regularly around the table. The breaking of bread was not an occasional addition to worship. It was central to their life together.

How did many Protestant churches move from the Table every week to once a month, once a quarter, or even less frequently? What did we lose when the sermon became weekly but the Meal became optional?

7. Is denominational hierarchy a biblical concept?

Denominations can provide accountability, connection, shared resources, theological identity, and a means of accomplishing ministry that no single congregation could undertake alone. I have benefited from those structures and have worked within them.

But how closely do our layers of boards, agencies, executives, superintendents, bishops, conferences, and administrative offices resemble the leadership structures of the New Testament? When does connection become control? When does accountability become bureaucracy? When does the institution begin protecting itself?

8. Is professionalized ministry the biblical model?

Scripture recognizes that those who preach the gospel may receive their living from the gospel. There is nothing inherently unbiblical about paying pastors or other ministry leaders.

But have we created a system in which the work of ministry is largely outsourced to professionals? Have pastors become religious service providers while church members become their clients? Has professional ministry equipped the saints for ministry—or relieved the saints of ministry?

9. How did we develop such a consumer mentality concerning church?

People shop for churches based on music, preaching, children’s ministries, facilities, style, convenience, and personal preference. Churches respond by marketing programs and attempting to provide increasingly attractive religious experiences.

How did following Jesus become another consumer choice? And how much has the church itself contributed to that mentality by treating people as customers whose preferences must be satisfied?

10. Were early church gatherings limited to one hour?

There is nothing inherently spiritual about a longer gathering. A three-hour service can be every bit as lifeless as a one-hour service.

Still, why has an hour become the accepted limit for worship in so many churches? Why do we become anxious when the service runs long? What does that reveal about the place worship occupies in our lives—and about the kind of experience our gatherings have become?

11. Why is the modern church so afraid of church discipline?

Jesus and the New Testament writers took sin, accountability, restoration, and the holiness of the Christian community seriously. Church discipline was not intended to be cruel, controlling, or punitive. Its goal was truth, repentance, reconciliation, and restoration.

Yet many churches avoid it almost entirely. Are we afraid people will leave? Are we afraid of conflict? Have abuses of authority made us unwilling to exercise any authority? Or have we become so consumer-oriented that we no longer believe the church has the right—or responsibility—to call its members to a life of holiness?

I’m Asking, Not Accusing

I do not have settled answers to all these questions. If I had the answers, I probably would not be writing this series. Or, more likely, I would have already written a book and gone on the speaking circuit.

I am also aware that it is much easier to identify problems than to propose faithful alternatives. Institutional structures developed for reasons. Many of them solved real problems, supported valuable ministries, and helped the church carry the gospel across generations and cultures. Tearing down structures without understanding what they hold together is neither wise nor faithful.

Nor do I believe the solution is simply to reproduce the first-century church. The early church existed in a particular historical and cultural setting. It had problems of its own—many of which are preserved for us in the New Testament. My goal is not to romanticize the past. My goal is to examine the present.

I want to consider what Scripture establishes, what freedom Scripture allows, what benefits our contemporary practices provide, and what unintended distortions they may have produced. I want to distinguish between what is biblically commanded, what is biblically permissible, and what we have simply come to assume.

Most of all, I want to ask whether the church we have built is forming people into the image of Jesus for the sake of others.

I love the church too much not to ask. And because I am part of the church I am questioning, these are not questions I am asking about “them.”

They are questions I am asking about us.

They are questions I am asking about me.

So, I invite you, over the next two weeks, to reflect on these eleven questions with me. In addition to my regular Tuesday posts, I will add two Friday posts to unpack these questions a little more deeply.

I would love your feedback, too. Comment below with any questions these questions raise for you, or feel free to dispute my assumptions. I certainly could be wrong and I invite your correction. Let me hear from you.

Please join me on the journey.

Until next time, keep looking up…

Keeping the Main Thing the Main Thing….

/ pastorlynnmalone / Leave a comment

Why the Church Doesn’t Have a Mission Problem—It Has a Measurement Problem

The Question We Don’t Want to Ask

There’s a question that has followed me for years—through different churches, roles, and seasons of ministry:

Why is it that we have more churches, more resources, more teaching, and more access to Scripture than ever before… and yet it often feels like we are producing fewer fully devoted disciples of Jesus?

I’m not interested in criticizing the Church. I love the Church. I’ve given my life to it. I still believe, as Bill Hybels once said, “The local church is the hope of the world.”

But honesty matters.

Somewhere along the way, we’ve gotten very good at doing church without always becoming the kind of people Jesus called us to be.

We’ve built systems.
We’ve created environments.
We’ve filled calendars.
We’ve learned how to gather a crowd.

But if we step back and ask the harder question—

Are we actually making disciples who are being transformed into the image of Christ?

—that answer gets uncomfortable.

The Real Problem Isn’t the Model

For a while, I thought the issue might be the structure.

Maybe we needed a new model.
Simplify things. Rethink everything. Start over.

There’s some value in that kind of thinking—but I’ve come to see something deeper:

The problem isn’t the model.
The problem is what we’re measuring.

We’ve been measuring:

  • Attendance instead of transformation
  • Activity instead of obedience
  • Participation instead of surrender

And when you measure the wrong things, you produce the wrong results.

So let me say it plainly:

We don’t have a mission problem. We have a measurement problem.

And that leads to this:

We don’t need a new model—we need new life within the one we already have.

My Confession

Before I go any further, I need to start with me.

For years, the driving question of my ministry was simple:

How do I grow the church?

I told myself it was about the Kingdom…
But if I’m honest, it often looked like:

  • More people in the pews
  • More dollars in the plate
  • Bigger buildings

Those became my measuring rods.

By those standards, I felt successful.

But after 35 years in ministry, I’ve come to a different conclusion:

Success is no longer my goal. Faithfulness is.

The problem is—those old metrics don’t disappear easily. They still whisper. They still shape how we think.

And that’s why we have to ask a better question.

The Question That Changes Everything

Not:
“How do we grow the church?”

But:
“How do we make disciples of Jesus Christ?”

That’s not a new idea. It’s the mission Jesus gave us in The Gospel of Matthew 28:19–20.

We print it.
We preach it.
We claim it.

But here’s the tension:

If disciple-making is the mission… why are we measuring everything but that?

The Measurement Problem

Here’s the challenge:
Real discipleship is hard to measure.

We’ve tried substitutes:

  • Small group attendance
  • Bible study completion
  • Mission trip participation

Those measure activity.

They don’t necessarily measure transformation.

And transformation is the goal.

Dallas Willard pushed this further. He suggested we should be asking questions like:

  • How are we handling anger?
  • Where is cynicism showing up?
  • Are we growing in honesty?
  • Are we gaining freedom from sin?

That’s not abstract theology.
That’s everyday discipleship.

And it starts with us.

You Can’t Lead Where You’re Not Going

If leaders aren’t being transformed, congregations won’t be either.

Which means we have to ask hard questions:

  • Where is sin still shaping me?
  • Where am I resisting obedience?
  • Where is Jesus calling me to change?

And we can’t answer those alone.

That kind of transformation requires honest, accountable community—the kind John Wesley built through small “bands” where people told the truth about their lives.

Without that, we settle for:

The Problem with “Greenhouse Christians”

I once read about a tree-growing contest.

One man brought a flawless oak tree—perfect shape, lush leaves, grown in a controlled greenhouse.

Another brought a smaller, rougher tree—crooked trunk, scarred leaves, clearly weathered by storms.

On appearance alone, the greenhouse tree won.

But when the roots were examined, everything changed.

  • The greenhouse tree had shallow roots
  • The other had deep, resilient roots

When storms came, one snapped.

The other stood.

And I can’t help but wonder:

Have we been growing greenhouse Christians?

Comfortable.
Impressive.
Active.

But shallow.

Because real discipleship doesn’t happen in controlled environments.

It happens in:

  • Struggle
  • Obedience
  • Community
  • Surrender

That kind of growth is slower. Messier. Less impressive on paper.

But it lasts.

Three Shifts That Change Everything

If we’re serious about making disciples, we don’t need something flashy.

We need something faithful.

1. Personal Transformation (Start With Yourself)

Before we measure anything else, we start here:

  • Where is God changing me?
  • Where do I need to obey?

Not guilt-driven—but Spirit-led.

2. Deeper Community (Not Just Bigger Crowds)

We don’t just need more people in a room.

We need smaller spaces where people are:

  • Known
  • Honest
  • Accountable

Real transformation requires real relationships.

3. Practiced Obedience (Not Just More Information)

Jesus didn’t say:

“Teach them everything I commanded.”

He said:

“Teach them to obey everything I commanded.”

That’s the shift:

  • From knowing → to doing
  • From agreement → to obedience

Because information fills our heads…

But obedience shapes our lives.

This Isn’t Comfortable—And That’s the Point

I’ll be honest.

Part of me would rather:

  • Build something impressive
  • Launch great programs
  • Watch visible growth

I know how to do that.

But this?

Calling people to transformation…
Creating accountable community…
Measuring obedience…

That’s harder.

And if I’m honest—it scares me a little.

But every time I drift that direction, I’m reminded:

Faithfulness—not success—is the goal.

The Question That Remains

At the end of the day, this isn’t about strategy.

It’s about identity.

What kind of disciples are we becoming?

Because that will determine what kind of church we become.

So here’s the question I’ll leave you with:

Where is Jesus asking you to move from knowing… to doing?

Not someday.

Not theoretically.

But right now.

Because if we keep the main thing the main thing…

He will build something that actually lasts.

Final Thought

We don’t need a new model.

We need new life.

And that begins—with us.

If this resonates with you—if you’re tired of surface-level faith and hungry for real transformation—I’d love to hear from you. Let’s walk this road together.

Until next time, keep looking up…

Five Shifts Hurting the Church…

/ pastorlynnmalone / Leave a comment

I’ve been doing ministry as a calling for over 35 years now. That doesn’t make me an expert, but it does make me one who has seen a lot. One of the things I’ve seen a lot of is change…and not all of it for the better.

I try mostly to be positive in my blog posts. Unfortunately, that positivity doesn’t always come through because my cynical nature manages to bleed through. I write this post to share a little of the wisdom I’ve picked up over the 35 years of ministry. 

It was coming back into an “official” ministry role (after a brief time away) that I began to notice some subtle shifts in the Church. The shifts were happening before I left full time ministry, but I think I may have been blind to them, and I may have played a role in fostering some of those shifts (I probably did, truth be known). This blog post is my attempt to unpack those shifts, and to say that I believe they are hurting the church. 

So, let’s call this blog post Five Shifts that are Hurting the Church. I won’t belabor them, but I do mention them as a means of starting the conversation with church leaders (if there are any who read my blog) to call us all back to faithfulness in our leadership and our discipleship. Perhaps I offer them as a prophetic word, not sounding an alarm, but simply speaking as one who was deeply engaged, stepped away and returned to notice the shifts.

Brokenness or Sin

The first shift hurting the Church is the Church talks more about “brokenness” than it does about sin. I can’t honestly tell you how many times I’ve personally used the words “broken” and “brokenness” in my sermons when I could have (should have) used the word sin.

Yes, we’re all broken in some manner or another. But, we are also all sinners. When we focus on the brokenness of our humanity, we might too easily overlook the sinfulness of our humanity, and if we overlook the sinfulness of our humanity we might miss the Savior who gave Himself for us. And, if we miss the Savior we miss everything.

See, when something is broken, the most likelihood is that it didn’t break itself. Take a vase, for instance. Vases don’t just jump off shelves and break themselves. The brokenness is the result of something that happened to it. The vase carries no guilt.

In the same way, by constantly referring to ourselves as broken, we fail to acknowledge our own complicity in anything that is wrong with us. Our brokenness, more times than not, is the result of our own sinful choices. There are times when we are broken through no fault of our own. Still, we are guilty.

Here’s why it matters: If I’m simply broken, then I need a therapist or a doctor to mend the brokenness. That might be one reason the philosophy of Moral Therapeutic Deism (MTD) has gained a foothold in the Church. What is that? Basically, God becomes my therapist and the cross becomes a self-help tool.

God exists to help me fix my problems so that I can feel happy about my life and myself. Being a nice person is the only requirement of faith and being good gets one into heaven. The need for repentance is non-existent. We just need the self-help section from the local bookstore. It is a very self-centered religion, but it fits oh, so nicely in American culture.

This is more than a subtle shift in language. It is a total shift in our theology. We are sinners. Sinners need a Savior and the Gospel reminds us that Jesus died for our sins so that we might be reconciled to God through His blood. That’s not to say we don’t all need a little therapy from time to time (I’ve been to therapy myself), but the root problem underlying all the “brokenness” of humanity is sin. The Church must name it and call sinners to repentance so that we might discover the only cure for what really ails us. Let me say it again—sinners need a Savior!

Self-Improvement or Self-Denial

The second shift hurting the Church is we talk too much about self-improvement and not enough about self-denial. Jesus said, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me” (Mark 8:34). When we come to church seeking self-improvement, we still have self as the focus. Our gathering as the body of Christ puts Him at the center. We are there to worship Him.

We want to come to church to learn how to be a better spouse, or a better parent, or a better whatever. When Christ is at the center, we’ll be better. Basic discipleship begins with self-denial. Jesus doesn’t want a better version of ourselves. He wants a crucified version of ourselves. Self-improvement refines the self. Self-denial replaces the self. Improvement makes us better, but the cross—well, that makes us new.

Comfort or Conviction

The third shift hurting the Church is we’ve chosen comfort over conviction. We live in a culture where comfort is king. We want to be comfortable, and by comfortable, I mean comfortable in our beliefs. We want to come to church to have our beliefs and our behavior affirmed, not challenged. 

And, we in the church have, too often, been willing to oblige. We have, too often, embraced the philosophy that the only thing we can’t tolerate is intolerance. We don’t want to come across as “toxic” because if someone feels convicted, they might feel judged and go to another church down the street. Our problem might be that we don’t understand what conviction is. Conviction isn’t judgement. Conviction is invitation—an invitation to holiness.

Christianity without conviction cannot produce holy people, and a holy people is what we’re called to be. Holy literally means “set apart,” and we are to be set apart from the world. We are not called to reflect the world’s values, but rather the values that are embodied in Jesus Christ and recorded in the pages of the Bible. 

Comfort does not call us to holiness. Comfort keeps us chained to brokenness. Conviction breaks the chains. Sin kills us. Conviction calls us out of our sin. Conviction leads us to repentance. Conviction claims us for the holy life to which we’ve been called. Conviction clarifies the values and behaviors that set us apart from the world.

Atmosphere or Formation

The fourth shift hurting the Church is we chose atmosphere over formation. In our effort to be sensitive to those outside the Church, we made Christianity a commodity to be consumed rather than a lifestyle to be embraced. I’ve confessed my own complicity in this shift in other places.

In my own defense, we had the best of intentions. We used evangelism as the reason. It was an attempt to reach the un-churched so that they would feel “comfortable” hearing the Gospel. What we accomplished was to communicate a false understanding of the purpose of the Church. In this shift we created consumer Christians instead of forming faithful disciples. Atmosphere creates consumers. Worship shapes disciples.

Worship is at the heart of spiritual formation. When the focus is atmosphere, people experience church but are never formed by it. We gather to worship a Holy God as the center and focus. We gather, not to feel good, but to be in the presence of God. Sometimes we feel good because we have been in His presence, but we should leave with a sense of awe and wonder because we have been in His presence.

Worship that is faithful to scripture is God-centered and moves us away from ourselves and reminds us that God is God and we are not. It is meant to remind us of His omnipotence, His omniscience and His omnipresence. In worship, we bring an offering to God, not to receive something from Him. Worship is not entertainment. Worship is formation.

Belonging or Believing

The fifth shift hurting the Church is that we prioritized belonging over believing. We all want to “belong” somewhere. That is human nature. But, when the Church believes, unbelievers encounter Christ in their belonging. We can belong for twenty years and never believe. Belonging provides a comfortable entryway, but believing (transformation) is the goal.

Again, in our defense, we want to practice hospitality. Hospitality is a Christian virtue, and unbelievers should feel welcomed and loved in church. But, our intent is ultimately to love them into a relationship with Jesus Christ, not simply to want them to feel welcomed. 

We can belong to the Rotary Club and the Book Club. We join those clubs because we support their goals and want to participate in the projects that support those goals. We have a common aim in our belonging. Do we belong to those clubs before we understand their purpose? Sometimes, yes, but we soon embrace the goals of the club or we move on.

Why do we expect less in the church? The church is more than a group of warm and open people. It is the community of saints in the world. The believing church functions as a witness to the truth of Jesus Christ when its members are united in that truth. If we simply belong regardless of our belief, the witness of Christ and the church is weakened.

     The Church, as biblically defined, is a supernatural body of believers. Belonging can lead to belief, but when belonging becomes the priority, belief takes a backseat, and the Church ceases to fulfill its purpose in the world—which is to make disciples of Jesus Christ. Discipleship happens through spiritual formation, and Christians are formed through the Church. Belonging matters. Belief is essential.     

These five shifts have influenced the way the Church engaged in ministry over the last 35 years. I’ve written these shifts down as a guide to my own faithfulness in leading the body of Christ. They will also serve as a means of holding my congregation accountable to the purpose for which we’ve been called.

There is much for which we must repent. We, as the Church, must return to faithful discipleship that is rooted in our understanding of our purpose. I spent a lot of years in ministry desiring to be successful. My only desire now is to spend the rest of my years being faithful.

Until next time, keep looking up…

The Empty Pulpit…

/ pastorlynnmalone / Leave a comment

I had another conversation this week with a member whose church was going through conflict. The member spoke of conflict the congregation was having with the pastor and about conflict the congregation is having within itself on the future direction of the congregation.

The conflict centered around a looming vote by the congregation on remaining independent or aligning with a denomination. The member stated, “If we stay independent, we’ll lose 3/4 of the congregation and if we align with the denomination, we’ll lose 1/4 of the congregation and the pastor.”

Where the church member I had the conversation with came down in the conflict is immaterial. Either way, the congregation is headed toward a split and that’s rarely a good thing, especially in a small church.

First, it sounds like the decision is already made. I mean, if that member thinks 3/4 of the congregation will leave if it chooses to remain independent, the likelihood of a vote to remain independent is between slim and none (if everyone shows up to vote, anyway). That only means there will be another small church whose pulpit will be empty.

Of course, the congregation is counting on affiliating with a new denomination to help with the pastoral search. Yes, it will help, but methinks the congregation is not being very realistic. The denomination cannot send what it does not have.

An Empty Pipeline

The ministerial pipeline is not full enough to provide pastoral leadership to all the congregations that are searching. There are not enough people entering vocational ministry to fill the gaps.

Seminary attendance is declining. Yes, people are still attending seminary, but fewer and fewer are doing so to fill a pulpit. Seriously? Why would they? An entry level salary for a full-time clergy is between $35,000 – 45,000 a year. That’s at a good church! It doesn’t make financial sense for a person to invest $70,000 in a seminary education for that entry level salary.

I graduated from seminary with $28,000 in debt (from undergrad and grad school). It took us ten years to pay off that debt on what were basically entry level wages. School tuitions have skyrocketed since I was in seminary. If I were a young(er) person contemplating a ministry calling, I’d be hard pressed to consider seminary.

One interesting thing that is happening is that of those who are attending seminary, 40% of them are not doing so to fill the pulpit. They’re looking at other ways of serving in ministry through non-profits or other specialized ministries.

I heard the story of one seminary graduate who applied for an open youth pastor position at a church who was offered $42,000/year with no benefits. When she asked for more money so she could afford to pay her student loans and still manage living expenses, the board got offended. The candidate eventually took a position as a school counselor making $55,000/year with full benefits.

More money and she still gets to engage with youth on a daily basis. She also has most weekends off, and the school doesn’t expect her to work 60 hours a week.

I know of another congregation that wanted its pastor to lead Sunday worship, mid-week Bible study, teach a Sunday school class, visit the shut-ins and attend monthly business meetings (where they would have no vote), and all for the hefty sum of $18,000/year. By my estimation, that’s about 40 hours/week between preparation and presentation. That doesn’t calculate drive time if the pastor doesn’t actually live in the community he/she serves.

Yes, I’m saying congregations (generally) expect too much for what they’re willing to pay. And, don’t come at me with the “Ministry shouldn’t be about money” retort. You’re right. It shouldn’t be, and for most clergy it isn’t. But, it is about being able to feed a family and meet basic living expenses.

I know the examples I offered are only anecdotal but they do reflect the reality of vocational ministry in the contemporary church. Local congregations who pay living wages are far more likely to attract viable candidates for their empty pulpits. Unfortunately, most congregations can’t (or won’t) afford full-time clergy going forward.

Like the congregation in the conversation I had this week, either way their congregation is going to be diminished. They will lose members. That means less money. Good luck finding that pastor willing to move across the state (or the country) to pastor a small congregation that has suffered deep conflict. That’s a special calling indeed.

Signs of Hope

Lest you think I’m being overly grim, I do want to offer what I see as two opportunities on the horizon (obstacles are only opportunities, right?).

First, is the shift to bivocational ministry. Yes, it’s what I’m doing. Honestly, I’m finding much more fulfillment as a bivocational pastor than I ever did in full-time ministry. That’s not a knock on full-time ministry. If you’re called to full-time ministry, go for it! I’m just saying there is a freedom in ministry when one’s livelihood isn’t dependent on the congregation.

Bivocational ministry will open doors to congregations to fill their empty pulpits. Of course, it means those congregations will have to adjust their expectations of what pastoral leadership looks like. Congregations can’t expect full-time ministry on part-time pay. It’s selfish and immoral. There, I said it. Deal with it.

Bivocational ministry also means denominations will have to adjust its “qualifications” for ministry credentials, seeing bivocational pastors as equals to “Elders in full-connection” (to use my current denomination’s terminology–my former one, too). Denominations will be seeing more bivocational clergy and fewer full-time clergy if current trends continue. Denominations must level that playing field going forward.

Bivocational clergy are not any less called than vocational clergy. The only difference is the way in which we are living out God’s call. And, I’m not thoroughly convinced that bivocational ministry isn’t closer to the biblical model. I’m thinking about Paul here who supported his ministry by making tents and Peter who went back to fishing after the resurrection.

The future looks much brighter for congregations who are willing to embrace the opportunities bivocational ministry affords them.

Second, is the opportunity for congregations to raise up their own pastoral leadership. Now this…this…is biblical in the strictest sense. For small congregations, the reality is that their next pastoral leader is sitting in the pew right now. I’m reminded of what the Apostle Paul wrote to the Ephesian church:

11 So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, 12 to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ. (Ephesians 4:11-13 NIV)

Also, read Romans 12 and 1 Corinthians 12 where Paul reminds the local churches of the gifts of the Spirit and Peter, who reminds the local congregation of the priesthood of all believers in 1 Peter 2, and Jesus, Himself in Revelation calls the church a kingdom of priests. We are all ministers of the Gospel meant to live out our spiritual gifts in the body of Christ in the local congregation.

Small congregations must embrace the blessing of the ones sitting in their own pews. The church model of the past with paid ministry staff lulled most congregations to sleep, and made them willing to “pay” the professional to do ministry. That model is no longer sustainable. Here’s your chance to fill your empty pulpit internally and thus fulfill the first century image for the local congregation.

I know I’ve chewed this same dirt in blogs before, but the conversations I keep having keep me coming back to these realities.

I’m absolutely convinced the future for the Church/church is bright and secure. It’s just that the future I see isn’t going to look very much like the recent past. I think that’s a good thing. I also believe the Holy Spirit is in it.

Until next time, keep looking up…

A Methodist Firing…

/ pastorlynnmalone / 1 Comment

Don’t Fire Your Preacher the Wrong Way

Well, it happened. I knew it would eventually. What happened? A Methodist preacher got fired. We’re not accustomed to that.

See? What used to happen before the big “split” in the United Methodist Church was a pastor got “moved” whenever a congregation wanted a change in pastoral leadership. Every year, the Staff-Parish Relations Committee would meet to do an evaluation of the pastor.

Generally, at the end of the evaluation, there were two options: move, or stay. If the Committee (congregation) wanted the pastor to return, they checked stay. If they wanted to “fire” the pastor, they checked move. That’s the simplified version, but basically the process.

Pastors filled out an evaluation, too. It was basically the same process in reverse. It was a means of communicating to the denominational higher ups whether the pastor wanted to stay at the congregation, move to a new one, or was open to either prospect (meaning “I’d take a better appointment”).

Well, for those Methodist pastors (including myself) who left the United Methodist Church, times have changed. Especially for those pastors serving congregations who remained independent. We can get fired–just like our colleagues in most Baptist denominations (and a few others).

I had a friend and former colleague who “resigned” from his congregation recently. He was “asked” to resign (which is code for “resign or we’re going to take a vote and fire you”). Mind you, this was not a pastor who had only served the congregation for a short time and it just didn’t work out. The pastor had served them for over a decade, so he wasn’t an unknown quantity.

I don’t know all the specifics of the separation (and I don’t want to know), and no, I’m not going to name names or point fingers. This isn’t a blog about that. This is a blog about this brave new world many Methodists are living in, and is offered as an encouragement for independent Methodist congregations to act in Christian ways when they feel like it’s time for a change in pastoral leadership.

I’m not saying this congregation acted in an un-Christian way, though from some conversations I’ve had with folks in the congregation I’ve surmised it was not handled in a healthy way for either the pastor/family or the congregation. This is not about that. It is about being faithful in the inevitable event that a pastoral change is necessary.

As I’ve reflected on and prayed about my friend’s situation, I’ve hit upon some advice I’d like to share with Methodist congregations as they live in their new reality.

Be Transparent

First, be transparent (or as transparent as the situation allows). When a pastor “resigns” or is unexpectedly fired from his/her position, it raises a lot of questions for the congregation. Those questions, when they go unanswered or unaddressed, can easily give fuel to gossip in the congregation. That gossip can also easily damage the pastor’s reputation.

Can you hear the gossip now? “Oh, what did he/she do?”

“He must have stolen money!”

“There must have been a moral failure.”

“Who did he/she offend?”

Transparency quells the gossip–well, mostly. Gossips are going to gossip, but leadership owes the congregation and the pastor the truth.

If leadership wants to fire the pastor, own it. Don’t put the onus on the pastor as if it was his/her decision. And, don’t put in place any non-disclosure agreements (unless the law necessitates it). Don’t say to the pastor, “We’ll pay you a severance if you don’t say anything to anyone.” That’s just more fuel on the fire.

Be Generous

Speaking of severance, that brings me to the second point I want to make: Be generous to the pastor and the pastor’s family, regardless of the circumstances of the separation. Three to six months of salary should be offered to the departing pastor.

Why? Well, consider everything the pastor loses when he/she loses their position. First, they (generally) lose their home. If the church owns a parsonage, the pastor and family have to move. They may even have to purchase a new home.

Even if they already own their own home, the likelihood is they will need to sell it and move to a new community because full-time ministry positions don’t grow on trees. Seriously, how many opportunities for vocational Methodist ministers exist in your town? That’s what I figured.

It will take a minimum of three to six months for the pastor to find a new position, move to a new community and settle in new environs. Congregations need to consider this when choosing to fire a pastor. If the congregation (or congregational leadership) made the decision to transition to new leadership, count the cost and own it–every stinking bit of it. It’s the Christian thing to do.

Secondly, the pastor and his/her family loses their friendship network. Most of a clergy’s friendship network is within the congregation. In one fell swoop, those relationships are gone. They also lose their church family, too. The children (if there are any) lose their schools and their friends. The spouse also has to find a new job.

Think about this: You’re a teacher and you lose your position. You still have your friendship network. You still have your church home. You (most likely) still have your home. For the pastor and his/her family? All three are gone in one decision by a church board or congregation.

Every congregation initiating a move should graciously provide counseling as part of a severance package and job search assistance to the pastor/family. I’m reminded of what the Apostle John wrote in 1 John 3: 17–“If someone has enough money to live well and sees a brother or sister in need but shows no compassion—how can God’s love be in that person?“

Be generous, my friends. It’s the Christian thing to do!

Be Patient

Perhaps I should have started with this advice–be patient. What do I mean by patient? Well, unless the leadership has worked with the pastor through a remediation plan before they ever come to a “firing” decision, well, you’ve already done it wrong.

When problems arise (and they will), the first step should be for the person designated by the church by-laws (Discipline) to sit down with the pastor to provide a clear explanation of the issues at hand. There should always be a process in place to work with the pastor to address any issues the congregation may be facing.

That process may include counseling, continuing education or even arbitration, and there must be (let me stress MUST) a process to continually re-evaluate the situation. It’s simply a matter of justice, folks.

Don’t blind-side your pastor with a list of complaints (especially anonymous ones) and then say, “We think it’s time for a change.” That is the most unjust thing that can ever happen. If your congregation’s “firing” happens like that, well, your congregation has deeper issues that a new pastor isn’t going to change.

Sit down. Develop a plan. Work the plan…for a minimum of twelve months. Communication is key. Conflict avoidance only heightens the conflict. Working through a remediation plan is the most gracious and healing way to deal with issues involving pastoral leadership.

Granted, there will be some pastors who don’t respond well to remediation. Believe me. When I was a District Superintendent, I encountered some of those pastors. I’ll share with you what I recently shared with my congregation: Don’t let someone else’s misbehavior be an excuse for your misbehavior.

Honestly, if a pastor isn’t open to working through and responding positively to a process of conflict resolution, he/she will make the decision to initiate a transition. Most pastors don’t want to move. Most pastors are serving their congregations in a self-sacrificial way. Congregations need to repay that sacrifice with transparency, generosity and patience.

A Word to Pastors

Let me just say a brief word to pastors who may be reading this–this advice works in reverse, too. Don’t blind-side your congregation with the news that you quit! It’s not fair to them. Seriously, if you feel the Holy Spirit’s nudging to a new season of ministry, sit down with your congregation’s leadership and be transparent. Give plenty of notice. Hey? The congregation (leadership) may even be helpful in the discernment process.

If we, as pastors, want congregations to be fair with us, we must be fair with them. After all, pastors don’t grow on trees. Leaving on short-notice brings harm to the congregation and thus, to the Body of Christ. Don’t be one of those pastors.

Just Do the Right Thing

Let me reiterate: All this advice is absent moral failure on the pastors part. The moral failure of a pastoral leader opens up a whole other can of worms. Talk about harm to a congregation and to the Body of Christ! There’s nothing that does more damage to the life and health of a congregation than a moral failure of its leader. That’s for another blog…or not!

Let me just say to congregations, don’t be one of those congregations that changes the locks to the church when the pastor is on vacation (it really happened). Trust me. That makes you like the Church of Laodicea (Revelation 3: 14 – 22). Jesus just wants to vomit you out of His mouth.

Just do the right thing. It honors Christ. It builds up the body of believers. It gives a good witness to the world.

Besides, for both pastors and congregations, the grass is rarely greener. Pastoral leadership is rarely the reason for dying congregations, and difficult congregations are rarely the reason for bad pastoral leadership.

Also, keep this in mind, congregations–pastors are in short supply. Pastors, keep this in mind–good pastoral appointments are in short supply. Especially in this new Methodist environment. It’s a new world we’re living in. Let’s navigate it with transparency, generosity and patience. We’ll all be better off in the end.

Until next time, keep looking up…

Am I Doing it All Wrong?

/ pastorlynnmalone / 2 Comments

I haven’t written for a couple of weeks. I’ve either been busy or lazy (or a bit of both), so the words getting on the page have been slow to come. The respite from writing has given me time to think, though, and that can be a dangerous thing.

What have I been thinking about? I’ve been thinking about my role as a “pastor.” Actually, not my particular role as pastor, but the “pastor” model of the church of church leadership.

I was a “pastor” vocationally for 28 years. I’ve been a “pastor” bi-vocationally off and on since 2019. That gives me a total of 34 years experience, so maybe I have some insight into the role. Then again, maybe not.

Let me preface this blog with the statement that I think most pastors do a fantastic job and fill their role with integrity, character, diligence and faithfulness. The question I’m about to posit isn’t a reflection on anyone’s service in ministry, nor is it a reflection on God’s calling on anyone’s life. After all, ministry has been my calling since the age of 27 (perhaps longer, but I was deaf to the call), so the question has shaken me to my core.

Pastor vs. Pastor-Model

What is it that has shaken me to my core? Drum roll, please! Is the “pastor” model of leadership as we know it even a biblical concept?

What has prompted the question in this season of my life? Well, I “pastor” a small local church. They call me pastor and I call myself their pastor, but what I really am is their Sunday preacher. I don’t mind being their Sunday preacher. They need a Sunday preacher and I like to preach, so it seems to be a good fit. The folks are wonderful, faithful people who love Jesus, and I’m blessed to be their Sunday preacher, but, they need a pastor, too (or someone who fills the role that is traditionally called the “pastor”)

Perhaps they don’t need a “pastor” as traditionally defined. What they need is leadership. And, here might be a good place to clarify that I’m not really talking about the “pastor,” but more the “pastor model” that the Church has developed through the years. Yes, the “pastor” is a biblical calling:

11 Now these are the gifts Christ gave to the church: the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, and the PASTORS (emphasis mine) and teachers. 12 Their responsibility is to equip God’s people to do his work and build up the church, the body of Christ. (Ephesians 4:11-12 NLT)

As certain as I am that “pastor” is biblical, I’m not equally certain that the “pastor model” of church leadership is biblical. The Apostle Paul, in writing to the Ephesians, certainly seems to indicate that there is some sort of plurality of leadership in the body of Christ (the local church), not one person who is the “pastor,” or the “senior pastor,” or the “founding pastor” who makes all the decisions in the church, or does most of the leadership work in the congregation.

Actually, Paul makes the case that the local church is to be led by “overseers” and “deacons” who would shepherd (pastor?) the church:

3 Here is a trustworthy saying: Whoever aspires to be an overseer desires a noble task…, and

8 In the same way, deacons are to be worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain…

(1 Timothy 3: 1, 8 NIV)

Likewise, in Titus 1, Paul instructed Titus to appoint “elders” who would serve as “overseers” of the local congregation:

5 The reason I left you in Crete was that you might put in order what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you. 6 An elder must be blameless, faithful to his wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. 7 Since an overseer manages God’s household, he must be blameless—not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. (Titus 1:5-7 NIV)

I think the Bible is relatively clear that there is to be a plurality of leadership in the local congregation, with each one fulfilling the gifts given to the Church by Christ Himself. It is Jesus Christ who is the head of the Church/church. The plurality of leaders sit under His headship/Lordship. He is the One to whom we look for guidance. He is the One whom we follow.

Priesthood of All Believers

I also don’t see any biblical evidence for the distinction between clergy and laity in that plurality of leadership. Actually, I don’t see any distinction between clergy and laity at all. Sure, there were priests in the Old Testament, but I distinctly recall the passage in Matthew’s Gospel when Jesus breathed his last breath on the cross and “the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom” (Matthew 27: 51 NIV). Since the death of Jesus, anyone (I repeat-anyone!) could enter the holiest of places. The separation no longer exists.

Likewise, the Apostle Peter affirms that fact:

4 As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by humans but chosen by God and precious to him— 5 you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. (1 Peter 2: 4-5 NIV)

This would be an excellent place to talk about men and women in leadership, and qualifications for elders, overseers and deacons, but I’m not perplexed by those questions, so I won’t chase those rabbits. I’m perplexed by the whole “pastor model” of church leadership, and I just wonder (as one who tries to live biblically) if I’ve been doing it wrong all these years?

I may not have been doing it wrong, but I certainly don’t believe I’ve been doing it biblically. I’ve been doing it the way I’ve been trained to do it, so it’s not necessarily the “wrong” way, it’s just not the biblical way. There’s nothing sinful about the way the pastor model has been/is being done, it’s just got me wondering if the pastor model has run its course and it’s time to get back to doing it the biblical way.

Perhaps all I’m doing is trying to justify my own inability to lead the congregation in a healthy, effective way these days. That, or the Lord is prompting me to dig more deeply into His calling upon my life and how He wants me to live that out. I pray it’s the latter. I fear it’s the former.

I suppose time will tell, but today is Sunday, and the folks need a Sunday preacher. So, until the Lord (or the congregation) tells me different, I’ll go be a Sunday preacher. That’s all I know to do right now. If you’ve got any clarity for me, please leave a comment below. I’d love to hear it.

Until next time, keep looking up…

Don’t Be Insane…

/ pastorlynnmalone / Leave a comment

You know the definition of insanity, right? Insanity is doing the same things over and over and expecting a different result. The definition has been attributed to Albert Einstein. No one really knows if Einstein said it, but regardless, it is still true.

I bring up insanity only as a follow-up to my previous blog (here) dealing with the pastoral supply shortage in the church world (particularly among Methodists). Many congregations are searching for pastors and they are doing so with a mentality that is either dying or already dead.

Many congregations want a pastor like the pastors from the “good old days”–one who visits the sick, comforts the grieving, preaches good sermons, leads great bible studies, attends all the church functions, opens and closes the church on Sunday, etc. Many congregations are looking for a pastor “Who can meet our needs.” They are looking for Pastor Fetch.

If you’re a congregation that is searching for a leader, and you’re looking for a Pastor Fetch, you’re being insane. The reason for your insanity is because you’re trying to do ministry in a world that no longer exists. The world (the culture) has changed and your congregation is not changing with it. My counsel to you is “Don’t be insane!”

The 21st century and the dawn of the Information Age (call it the rise of the internet), along with the introduction of social media, has changed the landscape for EVERYTHING in our world. The church, as per usual, is one of the last institutions to adapt to that changing landscape (although the Covid pandemic did speed up the process for some). The tectonic shifts in culture have rendered the “old” models of ministry (and ministers) dead, or at the very least, on life support.

The “Old” Models

What are the “old” models of ministry I’m referencing? First, there is what I will call the “priest” model. This model has the leader who has been “trained” in all the rites of the faith tradition, and has the credentials to prove it. This person “stands apart” from the lay persons in the congregation and is the go-between for God and the people.

Another model of “old” ministry is that of “chaplain.” Yes, this model has the congregational leader as a “shepherd” of souls. You need a “pastor” with counseling skills and psychological insight who can visit the sick and care for the needy.

Another “old” model of ministry is that of “preacher-teacher.” The leader has to be trained in Greek and Hebrew in order to interpret the ancient texts. This leader is the resident scholar and theologian, and the sermon is the centerpiece of this model of ministry. An entire industry of theological education grew up to support this model of ministry, and the reality is that industry depends on the survival of this model for its continuation.

A more recent “old” model of ministry is that of “CEO-Manager.” This model has a leader who manages budgets, recruits and manages people for tasks, develops programs for ministry, gains new “customers” (converts) and casts vision for the congregation. This model is pretty much a singular reason we have so many “megachurches” these days.

None of these models has been ineffective. None of these models are necessarily un-biblical (with the exception of the CEO-Manager model). Unfortunately, each of these models have been rolled into the job description for one person, thus the leader who became “Pastor Fetch.”

A “Pre-Christian” World

The parallels between the first and twenty-first centuries is striking. I guess we might say is “there is nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9). The parallels include globalism, religious pluralism along with a new focus on “spirituality” (people are “spiritual but not religious), and the collapse of institutions (including religious institution) are but a few of the most obvious ones.

The re-emergence of a pre-Christian world (culture) necessitates a new model of leadership in the church. It is called the “Apostolic” leadership model, and it harkens back to the days of the first apostles. I believe God is calling congregations and Christian leaders to re-learn and re-engage in this model of ministry to be effective in this new “old” world.

The “Apostolic” Model of Leadership

So, what does it mean to engage in this new “Apostolic” leadership model? First, this model is “missional.” The congregation (and its leaders) must be on mission–the Great Commission.

19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age” (Matthew 28: 19-20 NIV).

Evangelism and sharing the Gospel must be at the heart of every congregation. We must be prepared to tell the story of Jesus to a world that increasingly has not heard the Word, and we must do it with creativity–taking the church to the street, or the amusement park, or the ball park, or the concert venue–well, you get the point. One congregation actually leases an amusement park once a year and invites the community free of charge to come as a means of promoting the Gospel.

Next, the new “old” model is “kingdom focused.” To be kingdom focused means that we believe Jesus’ kingdom does not fit the model of this world, and that it actually extends past the walls of church building programming. This does not mean we are pursuing political power, but are looking for collegial relationships that are community based and community focused. It is not about “how do we get people to come to our church,” but more about, “how do we take church to the people.”

Thirdly, the new “old” model is “team-oriented.” Pastor Fetch cannot and will not do it all in the apostolic model. Jesus had a team of twelve (probably more) that he taught and commissioned to begin the work of ministry. The Apostle Paul had Barnabas, Silas, Timothy and Luke as helpers for the work of ministry. A team orientation to ministry assists in bringing ALL the necessary skills to the work, and it promotes accountability among leadership in a much more spiritual way.

As part of this team orientation, ministry leaders will be focused on developing disciples who exhibit and practice the “five-fold ministry gifts” found in Ephesians 4.

11 So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, 12 to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature,attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ (Ephesians 4: 11-13 NIV).

Ministry leadership is about developing others to fulfill the calling of the mission. Congregations seeking pastoral leadership need to be looking for persons who can lead them in learning to the do the ministry instead of leaders who do the ministry for them.

The Leader a Congregation is Looking For

In this cultural age, every congregation should be looking for a pastor who is evangelistic, meaning their primary desire should be to see others come to Jesus. The primary desire of your new pastor should not be to meet your spiritual needs, but rather should be concerned with inviting others into a saving relationship with Jesus Christ.

Another characteristic that should be high on a congregation’s list of qualifications is a person who is interested in community engagement, a person who has demonstrated the ability to engage in building relationships across congregations, businesses and other non-profits in the communities they’ve served.

A final characteristic I would be looking for if I were looking for a pastor is a team-building mentality. Is the person capable and has he/she demonstrated the capacity to surround him/herself with other leaders and allow them to share the work of ministry. Has this person delegated responsibility to others, and has this person taught and trained others how to use their giftedness for ministry?

Those are not necessarily qualities that have been high on your list for previous pastors, but if a congregation goes looking for a pastor like their previous pastors, then they’ll likely get exactly what they’ve gotten in past, and that will only lead to a continuing decline in the congregation. But, I say, “Hey, if you want what you’ve always had, then by all means, go for it. You’ll get what you’ve always gotten, and that’s just insane.”

But, then again, what do I know? I’ve been out of vocational ministry for five years. I don’t know much of anything. I’ve just been observing from the sidelines. One can learn a lot, though, when observing from the sidelines.

Until next time, keep looking up…