Twitter Updates

As we are opening ourselves up to call I wanted to re-post this position paper about my own personal philosophy of ministry. It’s a bit wordy but there’s some snippets of clarity in there.

“It should be stated at the outset the problems with the designation of my ministry; I follow the lead of Andrew Purves’ thinking here in Reconstructing Pastoral Theology, and take quite seriously this idea of crucifying my ministry.[1]… as such this is a repudiation of “my” ministry as a self-advancing scheme. I endeavor to reflect deeper on the privilege and the mystery of the participatio Christi as much as the imitatio Christi; on the efficacy of Christ’s work as the foundation for my work.

Nonetheless, the designation “my” ministry is still necessary, for it is after all what defines the scope of my doing and my vocational assessment… Therefore I will attempt to outline the character of my pastoral ministry firstly, followed by a reflection upon how I envision myself in ministry. Next I consider theological foundations (and convictions) for my pastoral ministry. I conclude with an evaluation of my strengths and weaknesses as a minister. The first half of this paper will be a self-assessment (character and vision) and the second half will detail the assessment of others (strengths and weaknesses). The lynchpin in the center will be a theological assessment of my ministry.

THE CHARACTER OF MY PASTORAL MINISTRY

... several main characters and qualities have begun to emerge in this reconstructive process:

Kerygmatic proclamation has thus far been a defining mark of my labors, and a channeling of all of my theologizing and pastoral care and activities as a minister. It is somehow through the act of preaching that I make sense of the entire pastoral vocation.

Communion among common folk. … it is here that I learned that there is no ideal core group; all parishioners are ornery in a sense, and if I persist in looking for the ideal centered set, that idealized vision of community will forever elude me.[2]

Pietistic emphasis marks my ministry. I am not one to split theological hairs. What I must know is this: do I love, know, and experience Christ in his power? Am I leading my congregation likewise? Therefore I value ecumenism over doctrinaire confessionalism.

THE VISION OF MY PASTORAL MINISTRY

I am of the firm belief that one cannot “visioneer” without pastoring first. My foray into church planting has taught me that people may be attracted to ideals but will fall away if they do not love and trust their pastor. In any new congregation that I am called to, I am determined and resolved to enter in quietly, without the propagation of my ideals and agenda. I might even begin my first year with an orderly visitation of every family in the church, with the purpose of acclimating myself to them, while also gathering invaluable data and understanding of who these people are. In my limited experience, I have discovered that no less than a year is required for people to begin to really trust one as a pastor. Only then can we press agenda.

Establishing rhythms at the outset is very important, particularly if I am ministering in an urban context.[3] I envision my time spent in thirds: one-third in Scripture preparation, preaching, and teaching; one-third in pastoral care, visitation, and counseling; and one-third in church management, leadership, and team meetings. A community Rule of Life is a concept I have been drawn to, as it is sometimes difficult to capture the pietistic ethos in the week-in, week-out pace of a church; I envision a bounded set monastic community within centered set church structure.[4]

And above all, I would see my ministry as neighborhood-based, adopting the parish model. I see myself weaving in and out of the church and local culture, adopting asset-based approaches to community development. I would pastor the city alongside my congregation.[5]

THEOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS FOR MY PASTORAL MINISTRY

My fore-stated preference for ecumenism over doctrinaire confessionalism does not preclude a solid base of theological conviction for ministry. Rather it simply conveys that I am willing to break bread with the broad swath of those who consider themselves “evangelicals”.[6] In practice however, I am theologically Reformed, and my approach to pastoral ministry is influenced by this tradition, summed up by the Puritan tri-emphasis on ruin, redemption, and regeneration.[7] The impact this philosophy has on my homiletics follows Baxter’s maxim, “First light, then heat”, and a studied simplicity that wastes no breath on vain oratorical flourishing.

Ruin does not necessarily translate into pulpit polemic. Neither does it heal the wound lightly, speaking peace where there is indeed none. Such a perspective does not give in too easily to the secular-psychological paradigm which has so pervasively infiltrated pastoral theology.

Redemption in the Reformed tradition is the propitiation and substitutionary atonement of Christ on our behalf. While this might preclude Paul Tillich’s existentialist view towards redemption, I still see value in his perspective. Redemption cannot be merely intellectual assent.

Regeneration is the evidence largely looked-for in the individual. The Spirit is our guide, impetus, cause, motivation, and power for Christian living, and I lay heavy emphasis on pneumatology in Christian formation. This does not necessarily entail charismaticism, although I benefit from and am open to that tradition as well…

STRENGTHS OF MY PASTORAL MINISTRY

The following was noted in a church planting assessment report regarding my preaching: “You are a clear and effective communicator. Your preaching is compelling and inspiring.”…

I am aware myself, and have had it confirmed to me by my wife, of my iconoclastic tendencies…

I must include a note about my wife as pastoral ministry is a family calling. From her years in Youth With A Mission (where we first met), Ashley has often been called “a pioneer”, and since then has almost exclusively worked in pioneering situations, in no small part due to marriage to me… As to whether we are “successful” in our pioneering, I can only say that we have gained invaluable experience that will contribute greatly to any future ministry we will be a part of…

WEAKNESSES OF MY PASTORAL MINISTRY

…”P.S.” has told me that his first impression of me is that I am not a process-oriented person. Having said that, he has not discouraged me from further ministry. It has been quite the opposite; he has encouraged us to plant again, with this critique in mind. It confirms my aversion towards administrative detail; skills I have nonetheless acquired out of necessity. This precision re-tuning of trajectory has taught me to be a little more wary of ideals and more concerned with realistic process, what the church planting department of my denomination calls “a well-conceived plan.”[8] Since then the dominant metaphor in my mind describing how to rightly approach church planting again is all the difference between a “step-by-step slam dunk” and a “Hail Mary half-court throw-up shot”…

---

[1] Andrew Purves’ main thesis lies around the idea of union with Christ as the basis and outpouring of pastoral ministry. Andrew Purves, Reconstructing Pastoral Theology (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2004).

[2] I believe this is Bonhoeffer’s emphasis in saying: “The man who fashions a visionary ideal of community demands that it be realized by God, by others, and by himself.” Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Life Together: The Classic Exploration of Faith in Community (Harper and Row, 1954), 27-28. The “centered set” ethos comes from: Darrell Guder, Ed., Missional Church: A Vision for the Sending of the Church in North America (Eerdmans, 1998), 201-220.

[3] Numerous years spent living and working in New York City have taught me that while vibrant, urban centres are also demanding and thus, draining places. If I am not watching my rhythms carefully, I am prone to depression.

[4] I refer again to Guder in the bounded set – centered set distinction. I am also influenced by the use of a “ROL” (Rule of Life) in the context of a church structure through the example of New Life Fellowship in Elmhurst, New York. See: Pete Scazzero, “Rule of Life,” Emotionally Healthy Spirituality, http://www.emotionallyhealthy.org/resources/ruleoflife.asp.

[5] On “asset-based” development, see: Alison Mathie, “From Clients to Citizens: Asset-Based Community Development as a Strategy For Community-Driven Development,” Occasional Papers (January 2002), http://www.mystfx.ca/institutes/coady/text/about_publications_occasional_citizens.html. Also: John Mcknight, The Careless Society (Basic Books, 1995).

[6] David Bebbington offers the standard definition of evangelicalism which also defines the boundaries of what I consider “ecumenical”: conversionism, activism, biblicism, and crucicentrism. David Bebbington, The Dominance of Evangelicalism: The Age of Spurgeon and Moody (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2005), 22-23.

[7] J.I. Packer expounds this theology of the Puritan minister. J.I. Packer, A Quest for Godliness: The Puritan Vision of the Christian Life (Illinois: Crossway, 1990), 74.

[8] “Well-Conceived Projects,” The Evangelical Covenant Church, http://www.covchurch.org/cge/church-planting/our-church-planting-system2/well-conceived-projects.