In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton writes about the position of President, and in Federalist Paper 70 he raises the issue of Energy in the Executive. The fledgling union was struggling to put together a form of government that recognized the strength of a single Executive without the abuses of the monarchy from which they were extricating themselves. Hence an article on the very idea of a necessary energetic executive in the running of the government. In his article Hamilton speaks of the ingredients that lend to good energy in the Executive office:
“A feeble Executive implies a feeble execution of the government. A feeble execution is but another phrase for a bad execution; and a government ill executed, whatever it may be in theory, must be, in practice, a bad government.
“Taking it for granted, therefore, that all men of sense will agree in the necessity of an energetic Executive, it will only remain to inquire, what are the ingredients which constitute this energy? How far can they be combined with those other ingredients which constitute safety in the republican sense? And how far does this combination characterize the plan which has been reported by the convention?
“The ingredients which constitute energy in the Executive are, first, unity; secondly, duration; thirdly, an adequate provision for its support; fourthly, competent powers.”
Our new President is especially in need of the substantive ingredients constituting energy. Elections are about the presentation and perception of “energy”. We are sold on a prospective candidates potential energy, and then the test of office demonstrates whether that “energy” is real or contrived. Barak Obama faces a challenge as large as any of our previous presidents, our hope is that he proves himself energetic.
Interestingly enough, there is a correspondence between the office of President and the office of Pastor, and the need for an “energetic Pastor”. The same four characteristics are necessary for a pastor to provide energy to his office, and to energize the mission of the church.
Unity refers to a capacity to make singular the direction of an institution. Hamilton was concerned with the distinction of King and President. The question became can we remove the tyranny that typically accompanies a singular executive, that is the king. The challenge became, can we maintain unity in the executive with a team? The answer was negative. As a result, the idea of President as a singular executive, Truman’s the buck stops here, was affirmed in Federalist 70.
So in churches, a common element contributing to health is a singular, powerful pastor figure. In the pastorate, even more so than in the Presidency, unity is a necessary component. Church affiliation is voluntary. Church allegiance is transitory. Church support is negotiable, and a method of voting. To attract and keep people, the pastor must walk the fine line of exercising authority and leadership while maintaining and integrating the necessary plurality of leadership that is prescribed in the Scripture.
One of the keys to unity is the clarity of the plan and direction (clear vision and mission) that is framed from a Biblical perspective. Unity in the church, and hence unity that flows from the pastor, is a unity that is derived from and submissive to the true head, that is Christ. This must define the leaders self-perception. If he is selfish and arrogant he can still be strong and unify a group, but it is not the purpose of the church simply to have strong organizations. It is the purpose of the church to embody Christ. When the pastor embodies Christ personally, professionally and directionally he imparts that strong presence to the body, who in fact resonate with all the above as a result of their organic resonance with Christ, hence the pastor.
The unity desired in the body is a special unity. It is derived from the Spirit, and submitted to by the body. Hence the competency (see below) of the pastor becomes a key factor in achieving Biblical, Christ-centered and derived unity.
It goes without saying (doesn’t it?) that in order to achieve Godly results, duration is a necessary component. Life change may begin with a big bang, a dramatic birthing and beginning, but its growth is elongated. Our microwave culture mitigates against duration. We want it now, and we encourage surface and apparent change. The words “persevere” and “suffer long” are not popular modern Christian terms.
As far as the executive is concerned, duration becomes the appraisal of fitness for ministry. It is easy to preach one sermon, teach a series, give people my best for a year. It is a whole different matter to endure before a congregation. When a group of people can watch you raise your family in their midst, they learn more than any parenting series you could teach. The church is about life together (thanks Dietrich), and living together takes time. We need more pastors, and more people to stick around and stay put. Sure, it points out my weaknesses, but presents just more opportunity to point to the true leader.
I have discovered that the church government is not American government. Church leadership is not about checks and balances, or competing entities striving to get their own way or wield power. Church leadership is about support. Church leadership is the stage upon which the church learns how to treat “one another”. All the one another passages of Scripture are to be played out by the leadership of any church to display what it means to live with one another, to forbear with one another, to encourage one another, to be at peace with one another, to serve one another.
An energetic executive cultivates an atmosphere of support. He does that by first being a strong support. The daily work of the pastor is where support is cultivated. There are some old fashioned pastoring techniques that should be revisited here to achieve the requisite support necessary to build the church. Ultimately, people give to churches monetarily because they support the pastor. They support the pastor because he first supported them.
Uh-oh. Is the term “Competent Pastor” an oxymoron? Is there a corollary to the phrase, “those who can’t do, teach” for the ministry?
There is a requisite humility required to pastor. I often ask the question “who am I?” when reflecting on my role as a pastor. It is truly a humbling vocation. With the humility there must be a confidence without which no executive can exert energy. This confidence must reflect an accurate assessment of competency.
The pastor must be competent in the following areas:
- Spiritual health, growth
- The Scriptures
- The mind
I am sure there are many more. But these seem like the critical areas to me. Too many pastors are incompetent. This incompetence covers the gamut from big to small churches. We often ascribe competence to church size, another accommodation to culture. Pastoral competence (sometimes) has nothing to do with church size. Many small church pastors are incompetent, and some large church pastors display incompetence in the above areas. They probably have a rare competence that leads to the large church experience, but are woefully incompetent in many Biblical pastoral ways.
So there it is guys, for those of you who are pastors/elders in churches, what do you think of the list?