The Evolution of Church Meeting Spaces and Some Evaluations and Exhortations
One of my geeky hobbies is going to thrift stores to discover new books. Well, I recently uncovered a gem. Jeanne Halgren Kilde’s book, Sacred Power, Sacred Space, has been fascinating.
(As always, we should read, like we eat chicken. Mindful of the bones. There are some things I disagree with, of course, but there have been a lot of insights.)
I’ve had a growing awareness of the impact of spaces, especially connected to religion. I, however, had not read a book that outlines the evolution of sacred spaces. So I had not fully realized the impact that those spaces have on the structure and theology of the church. I am now more convinced than ever. Spaces, seating arrangements, and the design of spaces have an unarticulated impact beyond what is acknowledged or realized.
Religious Spaces Communicate
As I have said elsewhere, “The medium is the message.” This phrase emphasizes that the communication channel plays a significant role in shaping how a message is perceived and understood. This concept was popularized by media theorist Marshall McLuhan, who argued that the medium by which the message is delivered influences our perceptions, thoughts, and social structures more profoundly than the information it conveys.
The medium isn’t just a neutral container for information; it actively shapes the message and its impact. McLuhan argued that the medium’s effects are more significant than the specific content it transmits. The medium by which something is communicated is not neutral. The medium itself has an impact beyond the specific content it conveys.
Likewise, religious spaces communicate and reinforce practical theology. This is very rarely realized and hardly ever articulated, but it’s true. “Religious spaces… do far more than simply provide the setting within which ritual takes place. They contribute in important ways to the very meaning of ritual practices and to the shape and content of religious systems themselves.”[1]
Like it or not, “Church spaces foster certain relationships and encourage certain behaviors.”[2] Buildings provide “information about the beliefs and practices of a religious group.”[3] The spaces which churches occupy are not unimportant. They are carriers of practical theology, even if unarticulated. Buildings are not benign. Even the change from pews to individual chairs has an impact.
From Simplicity to Fantastic Structures: The Wonder of the Building and Hamstringing of the Body
How and why did the church go from gathering in homes to cathedrals? And what was the impact on the church body?
An Explanation of “Hamstringing”
The hamstring consists of five tendons in the back of a person’s knee. To be hamstrung means to sustain an injury or severing of one or more of those tendons. This severely restricts effectiveness. And this, of course, is not the design of the knee. A tendon is small and may not seem very significant. But it is. If it is hindered, your movement will be constrained.
Churches before Constantine and cathedrals were much more domestic and organic. It was supple and oriented towards movement, quickly spreading from house to house. Now it is much more formal and institutional, and more motionless. This shift has also limited the interactions, relationships, and roles of the people within the church body. In this way, I believe Christ’s body has been crippled in some ways. A seemingly small change can have a big impact, especially over time.
Homes
Christians first gathered in homes, in part, because that is where they had to gather. But I believe it was strategic, too. Of course, even in the New Testament, we see other locations too; outdoors, synagogues, and the Hall of Tyrannus come to mind.[4] But it was certainly the early church’s practice to meet in homes.
Over time, homes were even remodeled or built for the purpose of hosting the church.[5] Eventually, however, structures were made known as domus ecclesiae, which means “house of the church” or “house of the assembly.” These buildings were similar to other houses but were more restricted to the purpose of hosting the gathering of the church. When people were there, they were insulated from “the intrusions of everyday concerns and thoughts.”[6]
Thus, in these early church buildings, we have a slight shift towards a sacred/secular divide. However, that’s not all. There was also a shift towards institutionalization and a clergy/laity divide.[7] In addition, there was a move from shared meals to a more ritualistic eucharistic meal, a move from more fellowship to more formal. These relational meals were crucial to the formation, theology, and beliefs of the early church.[8]
The shift from more of a domestic space associated with household operations and a certain level of informality to a formal ecclesiastical space over a period of at least a century, not surprisingly, had certain social ramifications.[9] Sadly, “Christian space began to function to delineate and maintain distinctions of power and influence among Christians.”[10]
The early church went from gathering around a table as Jesus did with His disciples (and soon to be disciples), to listening to someone stand on some type of stage. These were some of the changes that were taking place before Constantine and the Edict of Milan.
The shift that was beginning to happen for some from the basic equality of all the gathered believers in Christian fellowship around a shared meal,[11] to the hierarchical rules and spatial separation is a considerable one.[12] But the changes were about to get a lot more drastic.
After Constantine
Constantine launched “a building program of immense proportions. Though the exact number of churches Constantine had a hand in creating is unknown, he was involved in the construction of many of the most influential of their day.”[13] It, however, is important to realize that “The churches of Constantine transformed not only Christian architecture but Christianity itself.”[14]
The changes in where the church gathered “reflected and contributed to significant transformations in social power among Christians, helping to establish and maintain distinctions of rank.”[15]
“The purpose of the new Christian buildings was not simply to house worship rituals but to demonstrate the power of the emperor and of Christianity—in other words, these buildings were informed by clear social, political, and religious agendas. Constantine’s churches were symbols of both religious and imperial power.”[16]
The wonder of beautiful cathedrals, in many ways, hamstrung Christ’s body. People went to church to receive blessing. God was mediated not simply through Jesus the Savior, but rather through specific ecclesiastical structures. The transformative power of God went from operating every day and everywhere, to at a specific place and time. And the sacred/secular divide was fully entrenched. Instead of the priesthood of all believers, there was a formal priestly class who were available mainly in the building.[17] Eventually, instead of the good news of Jesus being in the common tongue, as it first was (Koine Greek), it was in Latin.
Reformation was needed. It did eventually come. I think reformation is still needed. As Francis Asbury said, “At the Reformation, the reformers only beat off part of the rubbish.”
Proposal for the Future
It is certainly true that people find profound spiritual meanings in specific places, such as buildings and landscapes.[18] But what if the Lord calls us to set apart our homes and whole neighborhoods as sacred? What if we are to carry the beautiful light of God’s presence wherever we go?
Jesus didn’t go to the Temple to commune with God. But we often see Him getting away to pray (Matt. 14:13; Mk. 1:35; 14:32; Lk. 5:15-16; 6:12-13). Jesus didn’t need a special building to connect with God, and we as Jesus’ disciples don’t need one either. Jesus is our Temple, and He has made God to dwell in us by His Spirit. We take God’s presence wherever we go (1 Cor. 3:16).
Scripture says we are to make everywhere and every moment holy. There should be no sacred/secular divide for Jesus’ saints. Whether we eat or drink or whatever we do, we are to do it all to the glory of God (1 Cor. 10:31). Our work is to be worship, our playing is to be praise.
We are to make every moment holy. I really appreciate the book, Every Moment Holy. It gives prayers for all types of occasions in order to acknowledge that every moment can be, and should be, set apart to the Lord. Of course, this is not to say that there are not more significant and special moments than others. The moment I held my firstborn child and the moment I first saw my bride-to-be walk down the aisle stick out in my mind as special. Gathering with the church is also different than driving by myself in my car. Driving to work is not profane, although its purpose is different than gathering with the church, but they should both honor God.
In the same way, buildings and locations are not inherently good or evil. But that is not to say that matter doesn’t matter. Material—whether block or beam, stone or steel—does matter. Material goods are good gifts from the good Creator. They must be stewarded well to God’s glory. When spaces are not set apart for God’s purposes, they can host evil. Conversely, when they are set apart for good, God brings blessing.
So, buildings to host the church are certainly not bad. But they are also not necessary, and when employed, questions must be asked about the possible implications, communications, and stewardship ramifications of the building.
Buildings are not inherently bad, but must be used to build up the body. We should be aware of the temptations and shaping influences of church spaces. Are they being used in alignment with the values of Jesus and the New Testament, or counter to those values? Is the building going to be leveraged for the building of the Kingdom and blessing of the local community, or be a money and time suck?
We also need to guard against the notion that church is something we go to. Church, biblical church, is something Christians are. It is true that the church gathers to be built up, but the church is just as much the church when it scatters to bless. Church buildings can be counterproductive to that point. “A lot of our language presents and reinforces the idea that church is an event… we talk about ‘going to church’ more often than we talk about ‘being’ the church.”[19]
What About the Beauty and Art of Cathedrals?
You might be asking, “What about the music, art, and architecture of the church? Where would the world be without the church?” I, however, don’t think that question is worded accurately. The church would have still been there all along without the unhealthy sacred/secular divide; there just wouldn’t have been that unbiblical divide.
People sometimes ask me, “Why is the world so dark?” I think it’s due in large part to the church—the light of the world—being hidden away in a building. The Church must continue to be involved in the arts and architecture, but not cloistered in a church building. The arts, whether music, paintings, or sculptures, are not for the church building; they are for the church to love and bless the world.
American Christians have a lot of money.[20] What if the church were a loving light and built community centers to bless their neighbors? What if more of the billions invested in buildings went to bless the world around us? We must leverage our lives and our living rooms for Jesus and His Kingdom. We certainly must leverage our resources and church buildings.
“If you build it they will come,” is less and less true. But even if people were to come, a building is not what transforms. The Body of Christ in love and aflame with the loving truth of Jesus is. Sitting down at a table with loving people who resemble Jesus will always be more transformative than an LED wall or even AC.
Conclusion
What if meeting in regular social and domestic spaces is significant and strategic? What if it normalizes living for the Lord all the time and helps sever the bifurcation of the secular and sacred? I propose we work toward congruence. Let’s work to kill the false dichotomy of the secular and sacred. Of course, buildings are not bad. But let’s leverage all our resources and lives for Christ’s Kingdom!
Jesus incarnated Himself. He entered the messy flesh-and-blood realities of the world and walked and talked with people. And Jesus said, “As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you” (Jn. 20:21). We, too, are called to lovingly enter into people’s world. When Christianity is disincarnate (instead of incarnate), it is disingenuous and incongruent. When Christian witness is in a building but not embodied, it is often stale and sterile.
I propose we move into a movement mindset. When Jesus walked the world, He didn’t hide away in the Temple. He was a walking, talking Temple, taking God to people. He went about eating and drinking. He made a movement of followers who shared the good news of Jesus where they worked, lived, and played. The Temple is on the move in the world, spreading love and light. Church is not dependent on a building; it is dependent on the Spirit. Yes, the church gathers to be built up, but it’s not dependent on a building for that.
Notes
[1] Jeanne Halgren Kilde, Sacred Power, Sacred Space: An Introduction to Christian Architecture and Worship, 3.
[2] Kilde, Sacred Power, Sacred Space: An Introduction to Christian Architecture and Worship, 200.
[3] Kilde, Sacred Power, Sacred Space, 201.
[4] It’s hard to say if those spaces were used for the church gathering where Christians purposely came together for teaching, prayer, singing, eating, and celebration and remembrance of Jesus through the meal He gave as a reminder, or were those spaces mainly used as contexts for evangelism? We do not know for sure.
[5] Ibid., 23.
[6] Ibid., 29. “As Christian meeting spaces shifted from homes to remodeled buildings to entirely new edifices, the investment needed to provide worship facilities increased dramatically. Only with the full recognition of Christianity by the empire in the fourth century would sufficient funds be available to create monumental Christian architecture” (Kilde, Sacred Power, Sacred Space, 31). Patronage also became a bigger and bigger thing…
[7] “The physical location of service leaders, elevated on a bema or tribunal at one end of a rectilinear room, rendered the distinctions visible and helped to maintain them” (Kilde, Sacred Power, Sacred Space, 27).
[8] Hal Taussig, In the Beginning was the Meal: Social Experimentation & Early Christian Identity, 181.
[9] Ibid., 31.
[10] Ibid., 26.
[11] “A primary way first-century ‘Christians’ spent time together was at meals!. There they made decisions together about their inner workings and their relationship to the broader world. Meals were the place where they taught and learned together and where they worshipped, prayed, and sang their songs together.” (Taussig, In the Beginning Was the Meal, 21).
[12] See Kilde, Sacred Power, Sacred Space, 30.
[13] Ibid., 39-40.
[14] Ibid., 40.
[15] Ibid., 32.
[16] Ibid., 40.
[17] It is no better today. “Paralysis of much Christian worship must be acknowledged. Protestant worship is in many places still devastatingly captive of clergy leadership’s incessant talking and domination. In many places, the pastor gives long prayers and sermons, almost completely eliminating the voices and expression of the worshippers themselves” (Taussig, In the Beginning was the Meal, 194).
[18] Jeanne Halgren Kilde, Sacred Power, Sacred Space, 9.
[19] Krish Kandiah, “Church As Family,” 68.
[20] A recent study “looked at 344,894 congregations, from 236 different religious denominations (217 of them Christian, and others ranging from Shinto to Tao to Zoroastrian). Collectively, those congregations count about half the American population as members. The average annual income for a congregation, the study said, is $242,910” (Julie Zauzmer, “Study: Religion contributes more to the U.S. economy than Facebook, Google and Apple combined” [September 15, 2016]). The study found that “Americans give $74.5 billion to their congregations per year.”
*Photo by Marvin Yoder
Should Pastors be Paid?
Should pastors be paid? What does Scripture say? It says worthy pastors are worthy of pay. Although, there are times when a ministry leader may strategically choose not to get paid.
Biblical Support for Pastoral Pay
Jesus said, “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (Lk. 10:7 cf. Matt. 10:10). John and Paul agree. John wrote, “You will do well to send them on their journey in a manner worthy of God… Therefore we ought to support people like these, that we may be fellow workers for the truth” (3 Jn. 6, 8).
Paul has a lot to say about the topic in his letters. He says,
- “Let the one who is taught the word share all good things with the one who teaches” (Gal. 6:6).
- “Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard without eating any of its fruit? Or who tends a flock without getting some of the milk?… If we have sown spiritual things among you, is it too much if we reap material things from you?… In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel” (1 Cor. 9:7,11,14).
- “The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching. For Scripture says, ‘Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,’ and ‘The worker deserves his wages.’” (1 Tim. 5:17-18)
- “You Philippians yourselves know that in the beginning of the gospel, when I left Macedonia, no church entered into partnership with me in giving and receiving, except you only. Even in Thessalonica you sent me help for my needs once and again… I have received full payment, and more. I am well supplied, having received from Epaphroditus the gifts you sent, a fragrant offering, a sacrifice acceptable and pleasing to God.” (Phil. 4:15-18).
It seems Paul wrote his letter to the Romans, in part, to raise support for his planned ministry in Spain (Rom. 15:20-29). Paul is about Christians supporting Christian work. He told Titus to send along his fellow workers, and he said, “See that they lack nothing” (Titus 3:13). “Every time the New Testament addresses financial support of church staff and missionaries, it underscores generosity.”[1]
Reasons to Abstain from Pastoral Pay
Paul said, “For we are not, like so many, peddlers of God’s word, but as men of sincerity, as commissioned by God, in the sight of God we speak in Christ” (2 Cor. 2:17). Pastors and all Christian workers, are never to be “peddlers of God’s word,” we are rather servants commissioned to obey our master. Sometimes it is wise to abstain from pay to make it clear that one is serving the Master and not mammon.
Paul clearly was not in ministry to get rich. He said this to the elders in Ephesus: “I coveted no one’s silver or gold or apparel. You yourselves know that these hands ministered to my necessities and to those who were with me” (Acts 20:33–34).
At times Paul worked as a tentmaker to support his own ministry. In each instance, he had a specific ministry objective in mind.[2] One of the reasons Paul sometimes didn’t take pay for his ministry was to set an example.
You yourselves know how you ought to imitate us, because we were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone’s bread without paying for it, but with toil and labor we worked night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you. It was not because we do not have that right, but to give you in ourselves an example to imitate (2 Thess. 3:7–9).
Jamie Dunlop who wrote a helpful book on Budgeting for a Healthy Church, rightly says:
In general, you should pay those who labor to provide teaching for your congregation. Of course, Paul himself sometimes went without the money he deserved (1 Cor. 9:12). But when he did so, his rationale was not one of financial frugality; it was because he didn’t want young congregations to be confused by his pay (1 Cor. 9:12; 1 Thess. 2:5-10). Even then, he pointed out that his not being paid was the exception, not the norm (1 Cor. 9:6-7). In fact, he even goes so far as to describe his support by one church in the planting of another as “robbing other churches” (2 Cor. 11:7-8). Necessary sometimes, but not ideal: normally, a church should support its own pastor.[3]
There were times the Apostle Paul decided not to take pay; instead, he decided it would be best to pay his own way for a season. There could be various reasons for this. In 1 Corinthians 9:12, Paul says he could choose to get paid for his ministry but decided not to make use of that right so as not to “put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ” (1 Cor. 9:12). It seems at another point he did receive financial support from others while he ministered to the Corinthians though (2 Cor. 11:7-9). So, there are a few different reasons why it might be appropriate for pastors and missionaries to abstain from support, at least for a season.
Potential Problems with Pastoral Pay
There are some potential dangers to paying pastors. Here are two from Jamie Dunlop: professionalization and consumerism.
Staff can infantilize the congregation by doing ministry instead of equipping the congregation to do ministry. In fact, the very existence of a staff position can communicate to the congregation that ‘real’ ministry belongs in the hands of trained professionals… Staff can customize ministry for the preferences and needs of specific segments of the congregation. That may encourage a congregation’s consumeristic tendencies, teaching them to value your church based on how well it meets their felt needs.[4]
Sometimes employing professional pastors is asking for problems. John Piper wrote Brothers, we are not professionals for a reason. Pastors sometimes know the seminary world and the passions of their professors, but not the struggles and problems of the people in their pews. They can read Greek but won’t speak in the language of their people. Pictures are posted on the church’s social of the pastor shaking hands but don’t ask him for a hand, he’s far too busy keeping the business of the church going.
Pastors also often tell their people to evangelize but they themselves may not have really talked with an unchurched person in months (or had the opportunity to do so). Pastors can be distant, aloof, and hard to reach. These are some of the potential problems of a “professional pastoral class.” I am not saying it is always that way but it is wise of us to be aware of the downsides of pastoral pay.
Reasons I’m Currently Abstaining from Pastoral Pay
Ministry is not, nor should it ever be, about money. We all, like the Apostle Paul, should seek to authentically love Jesus and others regardless of pay. Of course, pay is not bad. It can be a great blessing. But, here are the reasons I’m currently choosing to be a “tentmaker.”
Setting an Example
The Apostle Paul cared about setting an example for people to follow too. He told the Ephesian elders, “In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive’” (Acts 20:35). And in 1 Corinthians 11:1, Paul says, “Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.”
I’m calling people to imitate me; be relational, evangelistic, and minister to others. I want to practice what I’m preaching. I want to prove that it is feasible to be a faithful Christian witness where we work, live, and play without being “a professional Christian.” I want to replicate myself in others and not every leader will be able to be paid for their labor.
I’m currently able to work a “secular job” and (at least somewhat) keep up with “equipping the saints for the work of the ministry.” One of the reasons I can (at least somewhat) keep up with ministry besides the flexibility of my job, my awesome wife, and the support of my family (my mom and father-and-mother-in-law!), is that I’m not the only minister. The New Testament teaches the “priesthood of all believers” and says every part of the body of believers is gifted. When the pastor has a “secular job” it means the body must function as a body. It shouldn’t and it can’t just fall on the pastor. Everyone must pull weight and minister (This is definitely a point in favor of a plurality of pastoral leadership too). In this way, I believe bi-vocational ministry facilitates body-vocational ministry.
Stewardship and Simplicity
I trust God has plans for the micro-church movement we’re working on, and that’s what we’re working towards. We want to see God save people out of the harvest who will reach their community where they are. Our ministry model at this point does not require a pastor to get paid so we believe it is good stewardship to invest that money in the future and in mission work.
We want to be prepared to move when opportunities come. More and more church buildings will close. Down the road, I envision our church buying a building to support the local community as well as serve as a stream of revenue (eg., remote working space, coffee shop, venue). We want to facilitate local ministries and invest in training the next generation to reach people where they work, live, and play. My not taking any income at this point is an investment in the future. It also serves to prove the feasibility of the micro-church movement. As Christians, we can and must be able to be the church, even without a paid pastor and even without a budget.
God’s word is not bound; it’s not bound by a building or a budget. Sometimes we try to restrict the Spirit to specific borders but He is pretty good about breaking our preconceived notions. We also believe in simplicity because simplicity helps us focus on Jesus, ensures people are doing the real-life ministry they are called to, and best facilitates multiplication. No need for salaried pastor positions in the micro-church movement allows for easy replication.
Other Reflections Regarding Pastoral Pay
When is a pastor/missionary worthy of pay?
Paul answers that question. For example, he says, “The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching” (1 Tim. 5:17). Some pastors collect a healthy salary but spend their time behind a desk surfing the web and writing or reading about archaic unconnected theological drivel.[5] They’re not shepherding the sheep, equipping the saints, reaching the lost. They’re disconnected from their people and their problems. They’re a hireling (Jn. 10:12).
Others don’t take their job seriously because they don’t take God seriously. Still others pastor as a point of pride. They, as Jesus says, “like the recognition in the marketplace” like the Pharisees (Lk. 11:43). A “worker” like that is not worthy of his wages. I would argue that worker should take seriously what the Lord Jesus has called them to do because Jesus will call His pastors to account (Heb. 13:17).
The pastor who I think is worthy of pay can honestly say something like this:
I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church, of which I became a minister according to the stewardship from God that was given to me for you, to make the word of God fully known, the mystery hidden for ages and generations but now revealed to his saints. To them God chose to make known how great among the Gentiles are the riches of the glory of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. Him we proclaim, warning everyone and teaching everyone with all wisdom, that we may present everyone mature in Christ. For this I toil, struggling with all his energy that he powerfully works within me. For I want you to know how great a struggle I have for you and for those at Laodicea and for all who have not seen me face to face, that their hearts may be encouraged, being knit together in love, to reach all the riches of full assurance of understanding and the knowledge of God’s mystery, which is Christ (Col. 1:24-2:2)
I’d feel good about you paying for his labor. But not someone sitting in a cushy office making announcements from the chair about how you need to get your life together, fix your marriage, etc. but doesn’t lift an actual hand to help. That person is not a pastor but is like a Pharisee Jesus criticized (Matt. 23:4).
Many “pastors” are managers, not pastors.[6] They don’t teach or shepherd and may not meet the qualifications of a pastor. Instead, their role is to keep the corporate church running and keep the felt needs of people met. Perhaps a lot of church budgets are going to things that are sub-biblical, not necessarily wrong but not the wisest choice for the best long-term Kingdom impact?
What if the office of Deacon functioned as it did in the early church, and pastors were able to pastor and churches didn’t have to hire “pastors” or “ministers directors” to do the ministry that Deacons could do? What financial resources might that free up? The early church gave money generously for the relief of famine, for example. What ministry might the church be able to do if so much wasn’t spent on staff, sanctuaries, and services?
Notice I’m not saying there isn’t a place for spending money on each of those things, but it sometimes seems like the American church thinks those things are the solution, are ministry, and lead to growth. They may lead to growth, but we should be concerned with healthy growth. Tumors grow. They can grow a lot. There is a difference between growth and healthy growth. When Jesus walked the earth with His disciples we clearly see He cared about healthy growth. Jesus still cares about healthy growth.
Conclusion
Yes, pastors should often be paid if they are doing the ministry Jesus has commissioned them to do. The laborer is worthy of his wages. But this assumes he is laboring. He’s not just lazily soaking up a salary. We also see in the New Testament that there are reasons for ministry leaders to abstain from receiving pay. Trends point to this becoming a more common reality. Will pastors be willing and able to pastor with little to no pay? And what may need to change for churches to pivot from the current model to the realities facing us in the future? (I propose some changes in my series, “What If Church were Different?”)
Notes
[1] Jamie Dunlop, Budgeting for a Healthy Church: Aligning Finances with Biblical Priorities for Ministry.
[2] Steve Shadrach, The God Ask, 79.
[3] Jamie Dunlop, Budgeting for a Healthy Church: Aligning Finances with Biblical Priorities for Ministry.
[4] Jamie Dunlop, Budgeting for a Healthy Church: Aligning Finances with Biblical Priorities for Ministry.
[5] Of course, this is not to say that theology and doctrine are not important. They are. See e.g., “The Practical Importance of Doctrine” and “True Knowledge Should Truly Humble.” Pastors are to minister to their actual people. Theological truth is supposed to be directed to particular practical and pastoral aims.
[6] “Although there are exceptions, the traditional Western approach to theological education is to train pastors to be managers of the status quo, not to lead churches for global disciple making. Maintaining ministry structures is the standard.” (J. D. Payne, Apostolic Imagination: Recovering a Biblical Vision for the Church’s Mission Today)
Photo by Gift Habeshaw
in X 