Pastors or Hirelings?

[AlexDTX]

In reading John chapter 10 along with commentaries by Albert Barnes and Adam Clarke, a thought occurred to me in the passages on the Good Shepherd (John 10:11-14) about the reasons for caring for the flock.

Let's look at the verses with the relevant commentaries.

Joh 10:11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
Joh 10:12 But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep.​

Regarding the hireling, Albert Barnes said:

As he does not own the sheep, and guards them merely for pay, rather than risk his life he would leave the flock to the ravages of wild beasts. The word translated “hireling” is often employed in a good sense; but here it denotes one who is unfaithful to his trust; and especially those ministers who preach only for support, and who are unwilling to encounter any danger or to practice any self-denial for the welfare of the church of God.​

Adam Clarke said:

A hireling priest, who has never been the instrument of bringing souls to God [emphasis mine], will not abide with them in the time of danger or persecution.​

Continuing with the verse:

Joh 10:13 The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep.
Joh 10:14 I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.​

Adam Clarke further said:

I know, τα εμα, them that are mine: I know their hearts, their wishes, their purposes, their circumstances;

They know me as their father, protector, and Savior;​

I had always read this passage strictly in the sense of Jesus dying on the cross for us, not in the sense of ministers in the Church. And Clarke's last statement most certainly first applies to Jesus. However, both agree that ministers should have the same Christ like view of the flock.

So here is what caught my eye. When Clarke says, "who has never been the instrument of bringing souls to God" it reminded me of Paul telling Corinth that there is a difference between instructors and fathers.

1Co 4:15 For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.​

These were people that Paul led to the Lord. He saw them as his own children in the faith.

In today's ministry, most who have the office of pastors had not led any in the congregation to Christ. They are more like hirelings than pastors. I am not saying it is necessary to lead people to Christ to be their pastor, but they should have the same interest in each member of the congregation that they not only know them, but each person has a personal relationship with the pastor.

In my 30 years of being in churches of various denominations, only a handful were pastors, and the rest were hireling. And that is not to say I was a church hopper that jumped from church to church. I always stayed several years in a congregation before I had changed because of the lack of pastoral care. In fact, the main pastor in my life was not in the office of the pastor, but is a missionary.

What do you all think?

 

[Albion]

In today's ministry, most who have the office of pastors had not led any in the congregation to Christ. They are more like hirelings than pastors. I am not saying it is necessary to lead people to Christ to be their pastor, but they should have the same interest in each member of the congregation that they not only know them, but each person has a personal relationship with the pastor.

In my 30 years of being in churches of various denominations, only a handful were pastors, and the rest were hireling. And that is not to say I was a church hopper that jumped from church to church. I always stayed several years in a congregation before I had changed because of the lack of pastoral care. In fact, the main pastor in my life was not in the office of the pastor, but is a missionary.

What do you all think?

First, you are describing an evangelist--like Paul--not a pastor of a congregation. The latter will do his best to lead people to Christ but his primary responsibility is, as the word (pastor) itself says, to guide the flock, instructing them in the word of God, administering the sacraments, conducting public worship, etc.

Second, changing congregations every "several years," and for no real doctrinal reason, probably does qualify as "church-hopping."

 

[AlexDTX]

First, you are describing an evangelist--like Paul--not a pastor of a congregation. The latter will do his best to lead people to Christ but his primary responsibility is, as the word (pastor) itself says, to guide the flock, instructing them in the word of God, administering the sacraments, conducting public worship, etc.

Second, changing congregations every "several years," and for no real doctrinal reason, probably does qualify as "church-hopping."

Well, Albion. I disagree in all your points.

First, a pastor, a good shepherd is described by Jesus about himself, but by extension, those in pastoral ministry. Gifts come in combination. Paul was an evangelist and a pastor. He established each congregation so they could be self sustaining, then delegated pastoral care to others.

An evangelist, is not necessarily a pastor, of course. I was led to Christ by an evangelist who had no pastoral giftings.

Second, if you think being in a church is solely based upon doctrine, you are mistaken. Church is a community and the pastor of the community should be as Jesus in caring for the people. Those in the office of pastor who do not care for the congregation are hirelings. We have changed congregations because of the lack of pastoral care. I can get doctrine out of a book. Community life does not come from a book.

My point of thread is to show what Christ said as the standard for pastoral ministry. Genuinely caring for the flock means being involved with their lives. When true pastoral care is given, the flock loves their pastor in truth.

 

[Albion]

Paul was an evangelist and a pastor. He established each congregation so they could be self sustaining, then delegated pastoral care to others.

In other words, Paul did NOT pastor those congregations. Indeed, we remember that he said he wasn't sent to baptize people.

Second, if you think being in a church is solely based upon doctrine, you are mistaken.

I didn't say that at all. In fact, I mentioned at least three other functions of the local assembly.

Those in the office of pastor who do not care for the congregation are hirelings.

Okay, but there you are differentiating between a good pastor and someone who ought not to be a pastor. You are not distinguishing between a pastor and an evangelist or missionary.

We have changed congregations because of the lack of pastoral care.

Yes, and sometimes that is necessary. However, it looked to me that you were almost proud of having switched churches often and after only a short stay at the previous one.

My point of thread is to show what Christ said as the standard for pastoral ministry. Genuinely caring for the flock means being involved with their lives.

Well, of course, this is true. If that was the purpose, it's to be regretted that you didn't confine your comments to that subject.

But we all know that it is easy to misunderstand the exact point that the other person is making when it's in print and not the spoken word.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Priests and pastors have huge responsibilities and are only human beings. I remember in my old Lutheran church where we had two pastors, they joked that between their strengths and weaknesses, together they made one adequate pastor. Depending on the denomination, pastors are assigned or selected for a particular congregation on what is needed at the time. Generally, when a new pastor is placed, the congregation will lose about 10% of its parishioners simply due to personality conflicts. Hopefully, the parish will grow back in size again. I've been on selection committees and its a heck of a responsibility trying to work with the denomination to get the most appropriate person.

 

[AlexDTX]

Priests and pastors have huge responsibilities and are only human beings. I remember in my old Lutheran church where we had two pastors, they joked that between their strengths and weaknesses, together they made one adequate pastor. Depending on the denomination, pastors are assigned or selected for a particular congregation on what is needed at the time. Generally, when a new pastor is placed, the congregation will lose about 10% of its parishioners simply due to personality conflicts. Hopefully, the parish will grow back in size again. I've been on selection committees and its a heck of a responsibility trying to work with the denomination to get the most appropriate person.

It is a huge responsibility. Which makes me believe that no pastor should care for a congregation larger than he can know individually.

One may say that when a congregation is large, a pastor should then delegate responsibility to associate pastors under them. And this, of course, is what is done. However, the further up the "chain of command" a pastor goes in oversight, the farther removed that person is from actual care of the flock.

Satanic and worldly encroaches on the body of Christ comes through overly large systems. Overseers who are higher up the ladder, become pastors of pastors, not the flock. All systems have an inherent sense of self preservation, where the overseers protect the pastors under their care at the expense of the flock. Just look at all the cover-ups of sexual abuse of children and women in the Catholic and Protestant systems. I don't know the Greek Orthodox system, but I do know systems, so I will not be surprised to see cover ups there, too.

 

[AlexDTX]

Okay, but there you are differentiating between a good pastor and someone who ought not to be a pastor.

That is the point of my thread. Those pastors who ought not to be pastors are hirelings.

However, it looked to me that you were almost proud of having switched churches often and after only a short stay at the previous one.

No, the reason I added that statement is to support my experience in finding true pastors. I have a pastor of 20 years, of which I alluded to, who is a missionary.

If that was the purpose, it's to be regretted that you didn't confine your comments to that subject.

As I said, I was offering my thoughts on the commentary of Barnes and Clarke. And as I replied to the middle quote, my comment on different congregations, was for experiential corroboration.

 

[topher694]

In today's ministry, most who have the office of pastors had not led any in the congregation to Christ. They are more like hirelings than pastors. I am not saying it is necessary to lead people to Christ to be their pastor, but they should have the same interest in each member of the congregation that they not only know them, but each person has a personal relationship with the pastor

OK, so, this is not an attack on you, it truly isn't. But I've seen so much of this, and it gets... Tiresome. No matter how many churches one has attended, how can anyone say "most pastors" do this or do that. Especially when it is a criticism that goes contrary to their calling? None of us have a broad enough experience to claim anything like that, especially in a critical manner (we are all on the same team).

As for the specific context. At my church I focus heavily on training the congregation to lead others to Christ. So if one of them goes out and does so outside of church, does that count for me as a pastor?

I totally get and acknowledge that the hirelings mindset happens, no doubt. But most pastors I know (even ones I don't see eye to eye with) truly love people. The problem arises here: in this example the sheep actually belong to the shepherd, right? The shepherd is tasked with protecting them. Which means he can't let them go wherever they want and do whatever they wish... Again, for their protection. Yet, what often happens today is the sheep push back and toss accusations (often control and spiritual "abuse") at the shepherd for trying to do his job? So, how then should he respond?

See, I've found that sometimes sheep put the shepherds in very difficult situations then turn around and use the shepherds response against him to claim they are wrong or even unqualified. Point is things aren't always as they seem and the enemy is always going to try to discredit the shepherds, so we must always be mindful when we hear criticism.

 

[bekkilyn]

Sheep are idealistic...the reality is more like cats.

 

[AlexDTX]

No matter how many churches one has attended, how can anyone say "most pastors" do this or do that.

Point taken. I usually try to avoid broad strokes. Some or many would be a better choice of wordsl

As for the specific context. At my church I focus heavily on training the congregation to lead others to Christ. So if one of them goes out and does so outside of church, does that count for me as a pastor?

Yes and no. Kudos for training others to share the Gospel. But the point I made about pastors is knowing the flock individually. And I think many pastors do love the people, but the time to get to know people in a larger congregation makes it impractical.

in this example the sheep actually belong to the shepherd, right? The shepherd is tasked with protecting them.

No. Saints do not belong to you. We belong to Jesus. He bought us with his blood. And all of us have seasons of life. When a saint puts himself under your wing it is for a season, however long the Lord determines.

Point is things aren't always as they seem and the enemy is always going to try to discredit the shepherds, so we must always be mindful when we hear criticism.

I understand. Yes, the enemy is always trying to discredit the Shepherds, but some shepherds do that job themselves.

The point of my musings is that there are pastors who have the gift of pastoring evidenced by their personal involvement with the individuals in the congregation, and there are pastors who have the office without the pastoral gift, who more like hirelings.

Also, those with the gift will take little offense to a general inquiry, but the hirelings will take greater offense.

 

[bekkilyn]

I believe part of the issue is that "pastors" aren't just pastors. They are pastors AND preachers AND teachers AND housekeepers AND administrators AND youth directors AND music directors AND prayer warriors AND special event coordinators AND counselors AND.....

A "pastor" isn't always going to have pastoral care as his or her strongest gift, and if they do, then they are probably getting complaints that they aren't spending enough time on the other things expected of them.

 

[Paidiske]

I believe part of the issue is that "pastors" aren't just pastors. They are pastors AND preachers AND teachers AND housekeepers AND administrators AND youth directors AND music directors AND prayer warriors AND special event coordinators AND counselors AND.....

A "pastor" isn't always going to have pastoral care as his or her strongest gift, and if they do, then they are probably getting complaints that they aren't spending enough time on the other things expected of them.

This!

I would say my gifts are as pastor and teacher, and when I have the ability to focus on those things, I do them well. But when you're the one staff person in a small church, you have to try to squeeze pastoral visits in around all the administration and everything else that's just expected of you because you're there, so it becomes your job by default.

I would also say that in every church, there are some people who don't want that personal relationship with you. Perhaps they don't want it with anyone, perhaps they have it with someone else, perhaps they just don't like you personally for some reason, whatever... there are always some people that, no matter how often you approach them, and how hard you try, will keep their defences up and not let you be a pastor to them. And in the end, that's their choice, and it's fine; but I find it really irritating when the minister gets blamed for that, even after trying.

In my observation, larger churches with more staff to share the work actually do better, and are able to draw on the gifts/talents/strengths of more people, rather than expecting one person to do everything and care for everyone.

 

[AlexDTX]

I believe part of the issue is that "pastors" aren't just pastors. They are pastors AND preachers AND teachers AND housekeepers AND administrators AND youth directors AND music directors AND prayer warriors AND special event coordinators AND counselors AND.....

A "pastor" isn't always going to have pastoral care as his or her strongest gift, and if they do, then they are probably getting complaints that they aren't spending enough time on the other things expected of them.

I agree with you. But you are speaking in terms of the office, and I am speaking in terms of the gift. Yes, there are pastors who are truly pastors saddled with all those other responsibilities in the office, too. And it takes the gift of administration to effectively delegate responsibilities to others. In such a case, it is incumbent upon the administrator to come alongside the pastor and help.

But the OP is not about the office per se, but the difference between pastors and hirelings. The office makes it easier for hirelings to step into the role of pastor for which they are not gifted.

 

[Paidiske]

But the OP is not about the office per se, but the difference between pastors and hirelings. The office makes it easier for hirelings to step into the role of pastor for which they are not gifted.

I'm not sure about that. Having a defined office makes it easier to put in place a process for screening, training, and - should it become necessary - removal of someone from the role, rather than people just kind of making it up as they go along, and there being no way to deal with them if it all goes sour.

 

[bekkilyn]

I agree with you. But you are speaking in terms of the office, and I am speaking in terms of the gift. Yes, there are pastors who are truly pastors saddled with all those other responsibilities in the office, too. And it takes the gift of administration to effectively delegate responsibilities to others. In such a case, it is incumbent upon the administrator to come alongside the pastor and help.

But the OP is not about the office per se, but the difference between pastors and hirelings. The office makes it easier for hirelings to step into the role of pastor for which they are not gifted.

Where exactly is this happening though? Are you talking about hospital chaplains? Most churches don't really have all of these roles divided up between multiple people to have the luxury of a dedicated person in each role, so most people have no choice to be in some roles where they aren't gifted so that they can be in other roles where they have very strong gifts.

 

[topher694]

Yes and no. Kudos for training others to share the Gospel. But the point I made about pastors is knowing the flock individually. And I think many pastors do love the people, but the time to get to know people in a larger congregation makes it impractical.

So here is where I think people often miss it in so many areas. It's not one or the other. It's both. Jesus said to go make disciples. Jesus made the first disciples. How did he do that? Through relationship. He had relationship with them, then sent them out to do the same with others. BOTH need to be working together to spread the Gospel.

No. Saints do not belong to you. We belong to Jesus. He bought us with his blood. And all of us have seasons of life. When a saint puts himself under your wing it is for a season, however long the Lord determines.

Not really my point. My point is a pastor who does have a heart for his sheep and relationship with them will feel a form of "ownership" over them. Not in a controlling "do what say" type of way, but a, I care for them and feel responsibility for them type of way. This is a good thing. Yet is often used against them.

I understand. Yes, the enemy is always trying to discredit the Shepherds, but some shepherds do that job themselves.

Without a doubt.

The point of my musings is that there are pastors who have the gift of pastoring evidenced by their personal involvement with the individuals in the congregation, and there are pastors who have the office without the pastoral gift, who more like hirelings.

Also, those with the gift will take little offense to a general inquiry, but the hirelings will take greater offense.

Yes. This is also very true, but there is another side to that coin: A true pastor will take greater exception (I don't like to use the word offense here) to anything that could potentially threaten the sheep he has relationship with (as he should), even if those creating the danger only see it as a "general inquiry". If he takes action, this is where the "blame game" starts.

 

[AlexDTX]

I'm not sure about that. Having a defined office makes it easier to put in place a process for screening, training, and - should it become necessary - removal of someone from the role, rather than people just kind of making it up as they go along, and there being no way to deal with them if it all goes sour.

I understand your pov. However, it is the world's approach to a spiritual matter. Perhaps, the way of the world can be a back up, but this is something that needs to be discerned spiritually. While I was criticized as a "church hopper" I made changes because I sought the sense of the Lord regarding leadership.

In one congregation, the pastor was a genuinely gifted pastor who made the effort to get to know his congregation. However, we eventually left because, despite his truly being a pastor, he had a Reuben personality that, as the Bible says, was as unstable as water.

 

[AlexDTX]

Where exactly is this happening though? Are you talking about hospital chaplains? Most churches don't really have all of these roles divided up between multiple people to have the luxury of a dedicated person in each role, so most people have no choice to be in some roles where they aren't gifted so that they can be in other roles where they have very strong gifts.

Actually, they do. The point is for congregation members to be equipped so the congregation meets the needs in the congregation. Consider Ephesians 4. Most tend to stop at verses 11 & 12.

Eph 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
Eph 4:12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
​

Without consider the purpose:

Eph 4:16 From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.​

In other words, so all contribute to the gathering. Corinth understood this, though they were immature.

1Co_14:26 How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.​

All are to participate in gathering together. Singing songs as a group is not really body ministry.

 

[AlexDTX]

So here is where I think people often miss it in so many areas. It's not one or the other. It's both. Jesus said to go make disciples. Jesus made the first disciples. How did he do that? Through relationship. He had relationship with them, then sent them out to do the same with others. BOTH need to be working together to spread the Gospel.

This was my point in the OP. Paul led people to Christ and he also acted as a pastor until they matured in Christ to know how to be led by the Spirit themselves, then he delegated responsibility to mature believers so he could move on. Paul had a vested interest in every member. He had relationships. We are in agreement.

My point is a pastor who does have a heart for his sheep and relationship with them will feel a form of "ownership" over them. Not in a controlling "do what say" type of way, but a, I care for them and feel responsibility for them type of way. This is a good thing. Yet is often used against them.

I understood that, which is why I chose the words "less offended" But "ownership" is a bad choice of words. A parental sense is better because "good parents," in the body of Christ, help their children become mature and responsible so they can leave and further the kingdom of God.

A true pastor will take greater exception (I don't like to use the word offense here) to anything that could potentially threaten the sheep he has relationship with (as he should), even if those creating the danger only see it as a "general inquiry".

And naturally, we defend those we love. And a good pastor loves both the Lord, the Kingdom of God, and the body of Christ.

Christopher (I assume that is your since my cousin's name is Topher), I can tell you are a good pastor who will lay down your life for the kingdom.

 

[bekkilyn]

Actually, they do. The point is for congregation members to be equipped so the congregation meets the needs in the congregation. Consider Ephesians 4. Most tend to stop at verses 11 & 12.

Eph 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
Eph 4:12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
​

Without consider the purpose:

Eph 4:16 From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.​

In other words, so all contribute to the gathering. Corinth understood this, though they were immature.

1Co_14:26 How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.​

All are to participate in gathering together. Singing songs as a group is not really body ministry.

That's more the ideal. The reality in most churches though, considering that the vast majority of churches are very small rural congregations, it just doesn't work that way. Even many lay people end up having multiple roles, some of which may or may not be suited for them, because the role is required to be filled by someone.

Then on top of that issue, you have the issue where a large majority of church members believe that they have no responsibilities to do any of those things, that their primary function is to attend church each Sunday and maybe put something in the collection plate.

It's something has has frustrated many pastors for many years now.