...here’s one practical reflection to conclude. In many of the ministries I’ve been involved in over the years, an outworking of the Baxter principle has been for every church member to have the initials of an elder/overseer next to their name on the church roll. And it was the responsibility of that ministry leader to ‘take heed’ for that person—to know them, to know their struggles and issues, to be praying for them, to be taking active steps to ‘move them to the right’ (through a mix of their own personal conversation/meeting with them, and through their involvement in the various ministries of the church).
This is brilliant - people need to know that they are known, loved, and cared for.
Thinking more about the role of the Senior Pastor/Minister, I recognise that as churches grow it might be difficult for the Senior Pastor to "know" everyone but as the "shepherd knows his sheep" it is wonderfully uplifting for each person in the congregation/church if they feel that they are known and loved.
Thanks John. And yes, as things grow this only works if the pastoring is collegial/plural. I don’t at all mean that the Senior Pastor needs to ‘take heed’ of every individual — I don’t see how that is possible or desirable. Paul was addressing the Epheisans elders (plural) after all!
I'd want to agree that to "take heed" of every individual as Baxter has in mind is beyond the scope of the Senior Minister/Pastor, agreeing to some degree that it is not possible nor desirable.
But at the same time, I'd want to push back on your comment about possible or desirable, saying that I am firmly convinced that it is possible and it is desirable for a Senior Minister/Pastor to "know" certain things about all, or at least almost all of his congregation.
I think we can and should know things like their names, their husband or wife (if married), what service they attend, if they belong to a small group, the ministry they are involved in, their children or at least the number of children they have, their work situation, even some of their interests, the team they support, even some of the issues they deal with, both pleasant and hard, that is, to some degree we know and are involved and engaged with their day to day life.
We can do this through normal conversation on Sundays and at other times through showing genuine interest and concern for one another.
While I agree that I will not have the same degree of involvement and connection with every person, or the same degree of involvement and connection that other members of my team should and will have, people need to know that you love them and that you are concerned for them and interested in them.
I have seen too many ministers withdraw into their study or have their favourites around them or simply not make the effort or the time to speak to others outside of their circle.
I'm not talking about visiting everybody or phoning everybody but people can smell a lack of concern.
I think it was Col Marshall who at some time spoke about how Jesus worked with the 3, the 12, the 70, and the crowd, and how he always had time for the one.
I know this requires wisdom but it is sad when we see ministers just work with the 3 or the 12.
At Glenmore Park, Karen and I were able to "get to know" pretty much the whole church (500+) by things like, for example, over several weekends in the year we would invite groups of people from all our 4 congregations to our home for lunch or dinner. These were fabulous times and created such brilliant opportunities for us to build and grow connections with others.
Anyhow, that is enough for now, I am just fearful if the bar is set low, we will not rise to the challenge of working to hard to know the people God has given us responsibility for.
Thanks John. Yes I agree entirely -- saying that 'everybody needs somebody' (to take heed of them) and that this will have to be a shared responsibility, esp as the congregation gets larger, shouldn't be a recipe for withdrawn CEO-style senior pastors! Well said. T
...here’s one practical reflection to conclude. In many of the ministries I’ve been involved in over the years, an outworking of the Baxter principle has been for every church member to have the initials of an elder/overseer next to their name on the church roll. And it was the responsibility of that ministry leader to ‘take heed’ for that person—to know them, to know their struggles and issues, to be praying for them, to be taking active steps to ‘move them to the right’ (through a mix of their own personal conversation/meeting with them, and through their involvement in the various ministries of the church).
This is brilliant - people need to know that they are known, loved, and cared for.
Thinking more about the role of the Senior Pastor/Minister, I recognise that as churches grow it might be difficult for the Senior Pastor to "know" everyone but as the "shepherd knows his sheep" it is wonderfully uplifting for each person in the congregation/church if they feel that they are known and loved.
Thanks John. And yes, as things grow this only works if the pastoring is collegial/plural. I don’t at all mean that the Senior Pastor needs to ‘take heed’ of every individual — I don’t see how that is possible or desirable. Paul was addressing the Epheisans elders (plural) after all!
Hi Tony
I'd want to agree that to "take heed" of every individual as Baxter has in mind is beyond the scope of the Senior Minister/Pastor, agreeing to some degree that it is not possible nor desirable.
But at the same time, I'd want to push back on your comment about possible or desirable, saying that I am firmly convinced that it is possible and it is desirable for a Senior Minister/Pastor to "know" certain things about all, or at least almost all of his congregation.
I think we can and should know things like their names, their husband or wife (if married), what service they attend, if they belong to a small group, the ministry they are involved in, their children or at least the number of children they have, their work situation, even some of their interests, the team they support, even some of the issues they deal with, both pleasant and hard, that is, to some degree we know and are involved and engaged with their day to day life.
We can do this through normal conversation on Sundays and at other times through showing genuine interest and concern for one another.
While I agree that I will not have the same degree of involvement and connection with every person, or the same degree of involvement and connection that other members of my team should and will have, people need to know that you love them and that you are concerned for them and interested in them.
I have seen too many ministers withdraw into their study or have their favourites around them or simply not make the effort or the time to speak to others outside of their circle.
I'm not talking about visiting everybody or phoning everybody but people can smell a lack of concern.
I think it was Col Marshall who at some time spoke about how Jesus worked with the 3, the 12, the 70, and the crowd, and how he always had time for the one.
I know this requires wisdom but it is sad when we see ministers just work with the 3 or the 12.
At Glenmore Park, Karen and I were able to "get to know" pretty much the whole church (500+) by things like, for example, over several weekends in the year we would invite groups of people from all our 4 congregations to our home for lunch or dinner. These were fabulous times and created such brilliant opportunities for us to build and grow connections with others.
Anyhow, that is enough for now, I am just fearful if the bar is set low, we will not rise to the challenge of working to hard to know the people God has given us responsibility for.
Thanks John. Yes I agree entirely -- saying that 'everybody needs somebody' (to take heed of them) and that this will have to be a shared responsibility, esp as the congregation gets larger, shouldn't be a recipe for withdrawn CEO-style senior pastors! Well said. T
PS
Me again 😁
Just adding that the Senior Minister thinking and acting in this way also drives and models relational evangelism