The pastoral care trap
Our traditional notion of pastoral care is kryptonite to authentic church revitalization. I realize how provocative that statement is. It stirs instant hyper-alertness. When I am consulting with churches about revitalizing, this inconvenient truth, once grasped, is the most concerning for them. These churches are nervously evaluating whether they have the chutzpah to give up their myriad personal preferences and traditions, whenever necessary, to be hotly missional. That’s the second greatest threat. But the greatest threat is our desperate clinging to pastoral care.
“Our traditional notion of pastoral care is kryptonite to authentic church revitalization.”
Some well up with righteous indignation when I say this. Pastors reject it because it imperils their self-esteem as a pastor. Church people are afraid of it because it sounds like less attention is afforded them. Both perceive correctly. By a traditional notion of pastoral care, I mean that the pastor or pastoral staff are responsible to care for and meet the needs of every church member. It means that pastors are supposed to visit the sick, care for the dying, and counsel and disciple the members of their congregations. It means always being available by phone or office visit. It means that if someone has a complaint, the pastor hops to. It means that the pastoral staff gives close attention to each church member, remembers all the birthdays and anniversaries, and is directly responsible for their individual spiritual growth. This is traditional pastoral care. And it’s not biblical or healthy for either pastor or parishioner. Worse, it ensures that the church cannot revitalize or be on mission.
“By a traditional notion of pastoral care, I mean that the pastor or pastoral staff are responsible to care for and meet the needs of every church member.”
Why? How can I make such a bold claim? In the New Testament, pastors are not depicted as being tasked with anything remotely like this level of caregiving (cf. especially Acts 15 and the pastoral epistles). I’m not alleging that they never care for church members in any of these ways—only that it’s relatively unusual when they do. Their duties are much more related to preaching, teaching, praying, and to corporate-level leading and discipleship. In fact, it is this focus of pastoral responsibilities that occasioned the first need for deacons in Acts 6. The traditional notion of pastoral care is not biblical.
Nor is it healthy. For one thing, it directly contributes to everybody’s idea that the pastor is that important. Of course, this feels very good to the pastor too. It makes me, as a pastor, feel needed, central, wanted, and indispensable. For another, it teaches all the wrong things to church people. It teaches them that they need the pastor. Of course, it’s a little true that church people need their pastor, but it doesn’t really shout “maturity”, does it? More like “codependency.” One of my favorite definitions of leadership, consistent with Scripture, is someone who is constantly working himself out of a job. Hebrews and Peter indicate that our church people, proportionate to their spiritual maturity, should be able to cut up their own meat. John says point blank, “You do not need anyone to teach you” (1 John 2:27). My job as a pastor is to equip, not dote (Ephesians 4).
“One of my favorite definitions of leadership, consistent with Scripture, is someone who is constantly working himself out of a job. Hebrews and Peter indicate that our church people, proportionate to their spiritual maturity, should be able to cut up their own meat.”
Furthermore, it is ridiculous practically. Jethro shook Moses to his senses on this point. A traditional notion of pastoral care is why pastors overwork, neglect their own family, ignore self-care, and never have the bandwidth to lead the corporate ecclesial ship—arguably their first duty and the point at which they actually are indispensable.
“A traditional notion of pastoral care is why pastors overwork, neglect their own family, ignore self-care, and never have the bandwidth to lead the corporate ecclesial ship—arguably their first duty and the point at which they actually are indispensable.”
But why does the traditional notion ensure that the church cannot revitalize? Because in actual practice, the pastor and church people may never submit to making it secondary to the church’s most fundamental mission, that of hurrying the Day of God by bringing as many as possible to repentance (1 Peter 3).
In the new Top Gun, the success of the attack mission on a nuclear facility is wholly dependent upon a Miracle #1 and a Miracle #2 occurring. It’s like that in authentic church revitalization too. Miracle #1 is pushing the duties of traditional pastoral care down to the members themselves. Miracle #2 is obsessing over outward mission as the church's priority. If you want your church to be revitalized, are you ready to ask God for miracles?
Shawn Keener is the author of Nimble Church and offers consulting through Authentic Church Revitalization.
