Sola or Plura Pastora 3 (by T)

Plura Pastora 3 –

For this part of our discussion, I want to talk about what the practice of sola pastora does to our ecclesiology, especially among us low church folks.  I want to introduce the topic by reproducing a comment that came in from a pastor, Mike, at the close of the last post in this series, along a couple other comments.  But here’s the deal.  I think Mike and Rick are being extraordinarily honest about things that many, many pastors think.  I think many “successful” pastors think this way and feel good about themselves and many less “successful” pastors think this same way and get depressed.  And many congregants help pastors in each camp along the path in either direction.  So this needs more attention.  HOWEVER, any comments that come off as judgmental or snide or attacking toward Mike or Rick will be deleted.  Think bigger than any of us individually on this topic.

As you read and discuss, think about these questions: How have sola and/or plura pastora practices have shaped our initial and ongoing commitments to churches? Is it okay for a speaker’s persona to be the reason to commit to a given body? To stay committed? Is Mike’s assessment of his church true of most (low) churches?  If so, is that a problem?  How can we address it?  Do low churches, even old ones with mature believers, live and die by the head pastor’s persona as it is expressed in the pulpit?  Can it be different? How?  Do the unchurched that happen to visit on Sunday really and continually present a church with such a great a need for a speaker’s skill that sharing the pulpit with others is too risky?  Does the congregation’s desire or insistence on a certain speaker or certain level of eloquence preclude in-house multiplication of pastor-teachers?  Is there an alternative protestant ecclesiology with more depth and breadth than pastoral skill in sermons?  Is that the best “glue” we can get for our local bodies?  Can a deeper ecclesiology be meaningfully expressed in word and deed, even on Sunday?  Is a quality sermon, however defined, the only “mark” left of a legit protestant church?

Here are the comments (Mike starts by responding to the questions of that post concerning the reasons for sola or plura approaches in teaching):

What a great question. And I don’t think you’ll like my answer. I know I don’t particularly care for it. But it’s honest.

I am on a staff of four pastors. I am the primary teacher because I am far and away the best public speaker. I am not exaggerating or bragging when I say that the majority of the people are part of our fellowship because they like my speaking ability. [. . .]

What can be done about that?

And an earlier comment from Rick:

“What are the reasons you’ve heard to have one person do the vast bulk of the teaching, week in and week out?”

It is usually the effectiveness of a given speaker that people are drawn to (rightly or wrongly). When that speaker is not present, attendance goes down. For churches seeking to reach the “unchurched”, and since they find the “unchurched” largely drawn due to the effectiveness of that speaker, it is challenging and risky to provide too much time to other speakers.

My response to Mike:

. . . [I]f it’s true that “the majority of the people are (remain?) part of [y]our fellowship because they like [your] speaking ability” then, I don’t know how else to say it except that you’ve got a serious set of issues to address with the people in your church. (Patiently and kindly, but seriously.) It’s fine to have such preferences as perks that we like or dislike about our local fellowship or a given Sunday service, like the way I like my wife’s hair, or even her whole face and appearance, but our sense of calling and connection and commitment to a given church needs to run much deeper than anyone’s eloquence. Protestant ecclesiology runs pretty thin these days even in the best churches, but that’s just way too thin to be an ecclesiology at all. Your teaching is there to support something bigger, not be the something bigger. If your teaching is not building that something bigger, then it is failing. (“The goal of our instruction is love . . .”)  . . . [.]