As always, we post material that we believe will be both helpful and rooted in the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions. This does not necessarily mean that CrossTies as an organization is directly responsible for everything in these papers. We believe there is room for differences and discussion. We do, in fact, welcome it.  We hope that in the near future we will open up a forum through our website where we can all carry on a vigorous discussion of issues related to our lives and work in the local congregations.

Pastoral Coverage or Pastoral Leadership: 

What God Intends for His Gathered Community in Christ

by Doyle Theimer,  February 1997

for the Day of Theological Reflection, Atlantic District LCMS

INTRODUCTION

            The title of this paper may require some explanation.  When we have a church that is without a pastor, we speak of the need to provide pastoral care.  If someone can be found to conduct the service on Sundays and make the necessary hospital visits, we say the situation is covered.  The Circuit Counselor breathes a sigh of relief because he has found pastoral coverage, unless, of course, he is providing the coverage himself.  The point is, pastoral coverage is a word that we use most often with reference vacancy situations.  In order to thrive, congregations need strong leadership, the kind of leadership that is expected of a pastor who is at once connected to God by faith in Christ and connected to the people by the love of Christ.  Vacancy pastors do not ordinarily get so involved with the lives of the people they serve.  Even though there is coverage, the pastoral office is still vacant. 

            Vacancy situations are supposed to be relatively short and infrequent.  But increasingly we have congregations that have become so small they cannot afford a full time pastor, or so dysfunctional they cannot keep a full time pastor for any length of time.  And so, we provide coverage for them.  We send someone to pass by and tender the Word and Sacrament to the faithful.  The question is, are these stop-gap measures going to enable a congregation to survive, and perhaps even to thrive?  I don't think so.  Congregations need strong leadership to thrive.  If this is true, then how do we understand the relationship between leadership and Word and Sacrament ministry?  To what extent does the effectiveness of Word and Sacrament ministry depend on the quality of the leadership responsible for it?

            I had hoped to offer something of a definitive answer to the questions just raised.  But it has become apparent to me that this will be little more than a cursory treatment of some of the issues concerning pastoral leadership and a proposal of some tentative conclusions.  It is more an exercise of opinion than scholarship.  The question is how well informed these opinions are.  Scholarship will have to decide that.  The subject is large enough for a lifetime of study.  It is hoped that this effort will stimulate further thinking and work on the subject of leadership in the church.  There are plenty enough of resources and books on leadership, but most of them are geared to the corporate model that is so prominent in the politico-economic system of this era.  This has spilled over into other areas, so that there is a lot of talk about the need for leadership training in church and community.  Unfortunately, there is not always a clear sense of what exactly is meant by leadership, much less how to cultivate it.  Finally, leadership has not been well addressed as a topic for theological consideration, even though it is not unusual to find works on leadership that draw heavily from Scriptural truth. 

            A thorough study of leadership in the Bible would attempt to answer the following questions, among others:  What words and related ideas are used to generally denote leadership?  What institutions provide specialized terms or examples for leadership?  What metaphors are there for leadership?  What are the specialized positions of leadership in the early church?  What related ideas need to be taken into consideration?  What assumptions about leadership were carried over from society to the church?  What aspects of societal leadership were avoided by the church?  What is at stake in leadership of the church?  While these questions inform this inquiry, to answer them in any detail or completeness is beyond the scope of this paper.

            Probably one of the reasons leadership has received so little attention theologically is that it is such an overarching and comprehensive idea.  Scholarship of recent centuries has been dominated by the analytical approach.  It has divided in order to conquer, breaking down the data into smaller and smaller components for study.  It has studied the forest by studying the trees, cataloguing the species and studying each of them independently.  But it has missed the forest for the trees.  It has failed to see the relationship of the parts to the whole.  The trend in our day and age has been toward more holistic thinking.  To study the forest in terms of the ecosystem.  The fundamental reason for this shift in approach is the explosion of information in this information age.  It has become unwieldy to the point of impossibility to continue to break down and study the components of a system as independent realities.  In order to make use of information it has become necessary to synthesize it rather than continually analyzing it; to pull it together rather than to keep breaking it down. 

            It is not unusual for theologians to insulate themselves from the dynamics of change, especially those who would strive to remain orthodox.  The current reluctance to face change is proven by the fear and suspicion with which the "post-modern age" is viewed.  While discernment is always called for, I think there is a failure to see that the same dynamics that bring new challenges also have brought new instruments with which to face the challenges.  The move toward more holistic, systems thinking is such a tool.  It is time to adopt a more synthetic approach to the Bible.  The analysis has been pretty well done.  We have theological dictionaries that can elaborate on the background and usage of practically all the words in the Bible.  But we don't have many synthetic studies that objectively pull all this stuff together in its inter-relatedness.  For this reason theologians have tended to rely on philosophical systems to pull it all together.  The problem with such an approach is that it ultimately distorts the biblical truth, not to mention that there is no longer any single philosophical system that dominates in this pluralistic age.  In order to avoid these pitfalls, some have crafted biblical theologies, which organize around central biblical concepts such as covenant or the Kingdom of God.  But these tend to overemphasize some ideas at the expense of others, losing the Bible's own fine sense of balance.  When everything else fails, it leaves you to choose the tried and true. 

            Dogmatic theology is best understood as an effort to consolidate and corroborate the data of the canonical Scriptures into a meaningful system of truth.  This synthesizing tendency began with the task of catechesis, and the development of creedal formulae.  It developed further in opposition to false teachings, which were often the result of attempts to co-opt Scriptural truth into alien philosophical or religious systems of thought.  Thus, the age of Nicea and Chalcedon, when orthodoxy received its definition.  In subsequent developments, what was well begun spun off into other areas of endeavor, from legalistic encoding to theological hairsplitting.  Many thinkers of the modern age rejected wholesale the traditional dogmas of the church as part and parcel of the latter.  They threw out the baby with the bathwater, so to speak.  If the Church is truly catholic, then what was true in ancient times is just as true today.  In fact, catholicity implies such a criterion for truth, that it apply to all people in all times and in all places.  In this, it is very much like the scientific method we have come to rely upon.  If a finding can be replicated in study after study, done in various times and places, it is considered true.[1] 

            Herewith, then begins an attempt to examine leadership in the Bible, using a more synthetic than analytic approach.  I will not go into detail about the many different words and metaphors for leadership.  This would become too involved.  There are many, many titles and roles and types of leadership.  But the fundamental reality in the Bible is the relationship of God to his people, and this reality pervades every human institution and every sort of human endeavor.   The interplay between the divine and the human is also the essence of Christology.  So I shall draw from the dogma of Christology as a hermeneutical device to synthesize Scriptural data on leadership.

            This effort will work in the gaps, so to speak.  It speaks from the perspective of leadership in a small church rather than a corporate environment.  It will address certain theological issues that are pertinent to leadership, and throughout it will attempt to distinguish between the human and divine elements of the pastoral office.  The study will proceed along the following lines of inquiry:  Some observations on leadership in the Bible; the possibility of being God's co-worker; the problem with being God's co-worker (Donatism, sectarianism); an appraisal of Lutheran understanding of the ministry of Word & Sacrament, the relationship between leadership and the ministry of Word and Sacrament; observations on leadership, and questions of practice as we move into the future.

OBSERVATIONS ON LEADERSHIP IN THE BIBLE

            The Exodus narrative in the Torah gives the most dramatic and theologically interesting description of leadership in the Bible.  The whole deliverance of the people of Israel from Egypt was basically an act of cooperative leadership.  All the events, from beginning to end, involved the interplay between the man Moses and the God of his fathers, the great I AM, YHWH, the Lord.  When the Lord called Moses, he told Moses how he had heard the cries of his people and was concerned about their suffering.  He then explained how  he had come down to deliver them from Pharaoh's hand.  And then he promptly told Moses to go and bring the people out of Egypt for him.  Of course, Moses said, in effect, "What?  You want me to go?  I thought you just said you were going to do that.  Who am I that I should go?"  So God told Moses it wasn't like he was sending him alone.  He said, "I will be with you."  (See Ex. 3:7-12)  That is the basic paradigm of the Exodus.  God did his work through the one he sent, Moses.  This is also the basic paradigm of leadership unto salvation in the Bible and in the age of the New Testament.  God does his work through human agents.

            The Exodus narrative explains that Lord God led the people out of Israel (Ex. 13:17, 15:13); he literally led them, going before them in a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night (13:21).  Another commonly used phrase, which should be understood in terms of this leadership, is that the Lord brought them out of Egypt with a mighty hand (Ex. 32:11).  Yet when the people proved faithless and disobedient, the Lord God disavowed his role.  He said to Moses, "Leave this place, you and the people you brought out of Egypt and go up to the land I promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob . . ..  But I will not go with you, because you are a stiff-necked people and I might destroy you on the way" (Ex. 33:1,4; also 32:7).  Moses, however, pleads that if he is to lead the people, he will need direction, and reminds God that these are, after all, his people (Ex. 33:12-13).  Moses succeeded in winning the Lord's favor, and received assurance that the Lord's Presence (literally, "face") would go with them (Ex. 33:14).  Though Moses was not permitted to "see God's face" (Ex. 33:20), he was permitted to speak to God  "face to face, as a man speaks to his friend" (Ex. 33:11, 34:34).  This intimacy with God was fundamental to Moses' exercise of leadership.   For forty years Yahweh led his people, directly and indirectly, through the cloud of glory  (Ex. 40:36-38, Nu.  9:15-23) and through the direction of Moses.  The fundamental paradigm is clear--God is the source and initiator, Moses is the instrument and mediator. 

            The people of Israel agreed to this arrangement because they were overcome with awe by hearing the voice of God directly from the fire, and they asked Moses to serve as God's spokesperson (Ex. 20:19, Deut. 5:23-27).  The Voice is the manifestation of God, and the words or commandments are the abiding reverberations of that Voice in the community.  Again, Moses mediates.  The leadership, or mediation, is to the end of God having a people for himself, "a kingdom of priests and a holy nation" (Ex. 19:6).  What Moses hears from God he tells to the people, and they, in turn, are expected to hear and keep and obey these commands and ordinances (Deut. 6).  Thus, from Voice to Word through Hearing, God leads his people.  Note that this is exactly the dynamic that Jesus expounds when he calls himself the Good Shepherd (Jn. 10).  He leads his sheep by the use of his Voice, he knows his sheep by name.  And this becomes then the paradigm for the pastoral office in the church.  It is therefore essentially an office of leadership.  Many pastors would prefer to pen the sheep and truck in the feed.  But the Lord shepherds his sheep by leading them to green pastures, just as the Lord led his people out of Egypt into the promised land.  Yet the Lord leads and saves through human agency.  The dynamic of interaction between God and man, which was concretely realized through the Lord and Moses, was abstractly[2] realized in the person of Jesus Christ.

            As the Lord's agent Moses had the responsibility to apply God's justice for the people (Ex. 18:13).  Jethro, his father-in-law, observed that it was too much of a burden for Moses and too inexpedient for the people.  So he recommended that Moses delegate the responsibility to qualified leaders among the people.  And so Moses did distribute the load (Ex. 18:24-26).  Similarly, God distributed the Spirit (Num. 11:24-30) in order to lighten Moses' burden.  This is an important principle.  As the burden of leadership increases, the Lord distributes it further among his people, according to their abilities and capacities.  This same principle was followed in the early church (Acts 6).

            To summarize:  God uses human agency to lead people unto salvation, and the spoken Word of God is central to that dynamic of leadership.  Accordingly, leadership is one of the core themes of the Bible, in both the Old and New Testaments.  Consider the prominence of discipleship in the New Testament, which must be understood in terms of the leadership of Jesus. 

CO-WORKERS OF GOD

            The principle that God uses human agency to accomplish his saving work is witnessed in the New Testament.  As if to emphasize this, in the Gospels Jesus pointedly uses the title Son of Man to refer to himself, particularly in situations where he is manifested as possessing divine authority (e.g. Mk 2:10,28; 13:27; Jn 5:27).  Just as pointedly, this title is used to emphasize that the salvation will be accomplished through a sacrificial death and resurrection (Mk 10:32,45).  The rule of Pope Leo, adopted at Chalcedon, offers the hermeneutical principle:  each nature in Christ performs what is proper to itself in communion with the other[3]--the Christ dies according to the human nature and destroys death according to the divine nature.  The same principle applies to the abiding work of Christ in and through the Church by virtue of Baptism, whereby we are united with Christ.  Thus Paul calls himself and Apollos "God's fellow workers (synergoi tou theou)"  through whom the Corinthians came to faith (1 Co. 3:9).  Likewise, he calls Timothy "God's co-worker in the Gospel of Christ"[4] (1 Thess. 3:2).  In other uses of the term he speaks of his co-workers (Rom. 16:3,9,21; 2 Co. 1:24, 8:23; Philippians 2:25,4:3; Col. 4:11; Philemon 1,24), but given these citations we may presume he understands them all to be co-workers of God.  At any rate, the bulk of the usage of this word in the New Testament is used in a technical sense of ministers of God.

            Along with the synergein words Paul uses the energein words.  The bulk of the usage of these words occur in the Pauline letters. 

            The word-group refers, as a rule, to the working of God (e.g. 1 Cor. 12:6; Eph 1:11) or of his antagonist, Satan (2 Thess. 2:9; cf. Rom. 7:5; Eph. 2:2).  Particular prominence is given to the efficacious power of God by which he raised Jesus Christ (Eph 1:20; Col. 2:12).  This divine power is effective both in Christ (Phil. 3:21; cf. Matt. 14:2) and in the Holy Spirit (cf. 1 Cor. 12:11, where the Holy Spirit appears as the uniform effective cause of the gifts of grace).  By it the apostles are equipped for their office (Eph. 3:7; Col. 1:29), just as by it the word becomes the authoritative judge of the thoughts and intentions of the heart (Heb. 4:12).  The members of the body of Christ also come to share in it (Eph 4:16; cf. 1 Cor. 12:10).  God, the One who is at work (energon), creates both the will (thelein) and the deed (energein, Phil. 2:13), which take shape in the love of the believers (cf. Gal. 5:6).[5]

In summary, then, the minister of the Gospel becomes the co-worker of God by virtue of the in-working of God, which is according to his grace through faith. 

            If there is a problem with this arrangement, it is on account of the sinful tendency to focus on the one through whom God works rather than the God who does the work.  People tend to flock to charismatic leaders, and to identify with them.  (For this reason those who are given a share in the ministry of the Gospel must be mature, lest they become conceited.)  This is the very problem Paul had in Corinth, where factions developed within the body as some identified with Paul and others with Apollos.  Paul devoted much attention to this issue in an attempt to turn their faith to the God who was doing the work, so that their faith might rest on his power rather than human wisdom or skill (1 Cor. 2:4-5).  This same problem is perpetual in the history of the church, but it appears with particular saliency in the Donatistic controversy in North Africa during the fourth century.

DONATISM AND AUGUSTINE'S RESPONSE

            Donatistic controversy was more of a schism than a heresy.  "Except for the question of the validity of sacraments dispensed by non-orthodox clerics, no serious theological difference separated [the Donatists] and the Catholics."[6]  The original difference between the two sides was their response to persecution.  The Donatists were absolutely uncompromising, and questioned the efficacy of bishop's ministry who might have compromised in the least in order to avoid persecution.  They abhorred and condemned the accommodation and compromise of the bishops who handed over sacred books to the authorities (even though many of the books handed over were heretical writings that the bishops did not value anyway).  The bishops' action served not only to protect their position and privilege, but sought to maintain the ministry of the church as quietly as possible, without provoking the governing authorities.

            There were significant cultural and class differences between the Donatists and Catholics which played into their respective positions.  The Donatists tended to include the lower classes of people, who had little to lose and much to gain by martyrdom.  In many respects theirs was the spirit of radical Muslims, if not the means.  The Catholics tended to be more urban, and Roman in their thought and culture.  The Donatists were mostly of the Numidian race, and agrarian by culture, and anti-Roman in their politics.  Numidia occupied a high plateau south and inland of the coastal plains on which Carthage sat.  Even the language was different.  Lybian, the African precursor to Berber, was spoken in the highlands, as opposed to Punic, a semitic language used in Carthage.[7] 

            Another factor was the pre-Christian religion of the highlands, which was the cult of Saturn.  In spite of the Roman name, the deity worshipped was more like Baal, "termed Eternal (Deus Aeternus), the Lord (Dominus), Holy (Sanctus), the Unconquered (Invictus), or even Holy Spirit (Numen sanctum), the Supreme Being without beginning or descendant.  His female counterpart, 'the countenance of Baal' (Tanit Pene Baal), became romanized into Caelestis, a goddess at once virgin and mother, the Queen of Heaven.  The same attributes, aeterna, sanctissima, and domina, that were bestowed on Saturn were bestowed on her."[8]   The religion required severe works and sacrifice in order to appease the deity.  This also combined with a popular belief in evil spirits, magic, and veneration of certain holy men possessed of supernatural powers.[9]  Thus, the pre-Christian religious background of the Donatists was essentially a mixture of Semitic and African influences.  It was a harsh, works oriented religion which respected and feared the divine powers that worked through the practitioners of the religion.

            Finally, there was the influence of Tertullian.  The logic of the rigorist position finds its roots already in Tertullian.  For instance, he had promoted the understanding that the presence or possession of the Holy Spirit was incompatible with evil spirits, or sin.  Another idea was that the Holy Spirit was communicated through men possessed of the Holy Spirit.  In this, Tertullian was not unique, for the role of the Bishop in the ancient baptismal rites demonstrate the widespread understanding that the Holy Spirit was communicated through the bishop by the anointment and/or by the laying on of hands.[10]  This posed a potential dilemma, for a cleric could not give what he did not have, and if he was manifestly deprived of the Holy Spirit on account of sin or unworthiness, then his sacramental actions would be ineffective.  And this is exactly the line of reasoning adopted by the Donatists.  The controversy raged for several generations.  Both sides resorted to force, violence, character assassination, etc. to achieve their ends.  The ends appear to have been political and juridical control or supremacy more than the spiritual upbuilding of the people of God.  Augustine arrived on the scene as bishop of Hippo well into the controversy, and he devoted a great deal time and energy trying to win the argument.  His superior reasoning did much to advance the cause of Catholicism in North Africa, but the controversy never really ended until both sides got absorbed into Islam several centuries later.

            Augustine directed his writings against Petilian, who continued in the stream of thought that arose from Tertullian and Cyprian.  Petilian argued that the source determines the outcome.  The true church was the one which maintained the purity of the Sacraments.  If the bishop church became apostate, then the apostasy endured, and indeed was promulgated through the line of succession of ordination from that source.  Against Petilian's argument that "he who receives faith from the faithless receives not faith, but guilt;" Augustine wrote:  "We find that it is possible that a man should receive faith even from one that is faithless, if he be not aware of the faithlessness of the giver."[11]  In other words, Augustine pointed out that it is impossible to know the faith of the administrant.  This leads him to the Scriptural support:  "It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man" (Ps 148:8).  The bottom line, he says, is that salvation comes from the Lord; anyone who trusts in man is lost.[12]  He goes on to argue:  Christ is the true source of the Sacraments--the baptism done in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is the baptism done by Christ, who indeed baptizes with the Holy Spirit.[13]  To Augustine the church is, as the Kingdom of God, a field in which tares have been sown with the wheat.  The tares are to be tolerated until the Day of Judgment.  If the Spirit flees, he writes, it is not from the truth of the Sacrament, but from the falseness of man.[14]  "For the sacraments are holy through Him to whom they belong: but when taken in hand worthily, they bring reward, when unworthily, judgment."[15]  "And not even on account of those Pharisees, . . . did not our Lord enjoin that the seat of Moses should be deserted, which seat He doubtless meant to be a figure of His own; for He said indeed that they who sat in Moses' seat were ever saying and not doing, but warns the people to do what they say, and not to do what they do, lest the chair, with all its holiness, should be deserted, and the unity of the flock divided through the faithlessness of the shepherds."[16] 

            Augustine's arguments against Donatism were intended to restore and protect the catholicity of the church and the unity of Christ, who is the subject of Word and Sacrament ministry.  It should be noted that although Augustine argued that an unworthy minister could dispense a Sacrament that could nevertheless be received worthily; the worthiness would be by virtue of the recipient's faith in Christ.  Augustine never intended to provide a rationale or basis to tolerate ungodly men in the office of bishop.  Thus, Augustine did not deny the basic premises of the Donatists; namely, that the Holy Spirit is given through the minister and that the Holy Spirit is not present where there is willful and manifest sin, or denial of Christ.  Yet he did not arrive at the same conclusion because he did not reference the working of God in the Sacrament to the minister, but to Christ.  Baptism belongs to him in whose Name it is administered.  And Christ, he reasoned, could not be divided.

APPRAISAL OF THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS

            The Donatistic controversy provides a great deal of the background for understanding the Lutheran Confessions on the topic of the ministry.  AC VIII specifically condemns Donatism, and states conversely, "the sacraments are efficacious even if the priests who administer them are wicked men."[17]  What is lacking in this article, however, is any nuance.  The qualifications are supplied in other articles, such as AC VII, which states that the Church is "the assembly of all believers among whom the Gospel is preached in its purity  . . .."[18]  An indicator of what is meant by "pure" Gospel is AC XXVIII,21-23, 28: 

            "According to divine right, therefore, it is the office of the bishop to preach the Gospel, forgive sins, judge doctrine and condemn doctrine that is contrary to the Gospel, and exclude from the Christian community the ungodly whose wicked conduct is manifest.  All this is to be done not by human power by God's Word alone.  On this account parish ministers and churches are bound to be obedient to the bishops according to the saying of Christ in Luke 10:16, "he who hears you hears me."  On the other hand, if they teach, introduce, or institute anything contrary to the Gospel, we have God's command not to be obedient in such cases . . ..  St. Augustine also writes in his reply to the letters of Petilian that one should not obey even regularly elected bishops if they err or if they teach or command something contrary to the divine Holy Scriptures."[19]

            To summarize, it is clear that the Lutheran Confessions make the division between pure and impure teaching on the basis of the distinctions between what is of human origin and what is of divine origin.  Thus, it is analogous to Chalcedonian Christology.  The divine and the human must be distinguished, yet in Christ they may not be disjoined.  The purity of the Word depends on the fact that it is God's Word, not human opinion.  Yet, by virtue of the incarnation, God's Voice is delivered through human vocal chords.  Likewise, the authority of the church to bind and loose sins is the authority which Christ received from the Father.  He received it according to his human nature in order that it might operate it in and through the humans who proclaim it and believe it.  Thus, the authority is administered in the name of Jesus. 

            The question is whether there are degrees of efficacy in the ministry of the Word and Sacrament, based on the faith and life of the administrant.  Here we might make a distinction between preaching and administering the Sacrament (note that the ministry of preaching the Word is not listed as an efficacious ministry of wicked person, AC VIII, above*).  The Sacrament of baptism depends on the Name of Jesus, or of the Triune God, and is by nature a work of God.  The gifts and promises of God there placed are irrevocable.  The human element in baptism lies not so much in the one who administers it as in the attitude of the recipient, who must receive it with repentance and faith if there is to be any benefit. 

            To awaken such faith, then, God has given the ministry of preaching the Word.  And there is no getting around the fact that the efficacy of the preached Word is to large degree relative to the faith, life and work of the one who preaches.  The preacher is a co-worker of God in the ministry of the Word as God by his Spirit works in him to will and to work according to his pleasure.  Only if the preacher is "plugged in" to God through Christ can he be the conduit for the divine energy for God's people.  In order to be fruitful, we must abide in Christ and his words with the obedience of faith and love, for without him we can do nothing (John 15:4-5).   In the name and person of Christ, what is human and divine are held in close communion.  Sometimes there is a tendency in Lutheran theology to overlook this fact, to discard it as "pietistic" or "works righteousness."  Such rationalizations are just evasions of responsibility toward God.  While God can and does work faith through people who minister the Gospel of Jesus Christ with false motives, it is certainly not his preferred way, nor is it of any benefit to the one who does it.

THE RELATION OF LEADERSHIP TO THE MINISTRY OF WORD & SACRAMENT

            The section on leadership in the Bible makes abundantly clear that God's leadership is exercised through his Word.  The testimonies of Scripture could be multiplied infinitely; suffice it to say in the converse that the ministry of Word and Sacrament is essentially a ministry of leadership.  That is why from earliest times the one presiding over the breaking of the bread was the leader of the congregation, or a recognized leader of the Church.  The fact that a pastor must be in Christ, active in faith and fellowship, in order to serve Christ and work effectively through him does not negate the fact that there may be some things to learn about leadership from human sciences.  For instance, the leadership guru's tell us that an effective leader provides a compelling vision for his organization, a preferred future that is attainable by faith and work.  Yes, the pulpit is an instrument for leadership, and a vision for the future is manifestly a part of the Gospel we are given to preach.  Our destiny is glory in Christ.  And along the way are many, many encouraging promises of God that inspire hope, and hope is the ground from which faith and love spring, and that is what ultimately counts, faith working through love.

            In human terms, leadership has been defined in many different ways.  Edwin Friedman describes leadership in organic terms, as a head to the body:

            It will be the thesis of this chapter that the overall health and functioning of any organization depend primarily on one or two people at the top, and that this is true whether the relationship system is a personal family, a sports team, and orchestra, a congregation, a religious hierarchy, or an entire nation.  But the reason for that connection is not some mechanistic, trickle-down, domino effect.  It is, rather, that leadership in families, like leadership in any flock, swarm, or her, is essentially an organic, perhaps even biological, phenomenon.  And an organism tends to function best when its "head" is well differentiated.  The key to successful spiritual leadership, therefore, with success understood not only as moving people toward a goal, but also in terms of the survival of the family (and its leader), has more to do with the leader's capacity for self-definition than with the ability to motivate others.[20]

Even without a detailed understanding of Friedman's theory it is easy to perceive that this is how the Jesus in the Gospels led.  He differentiated himself, both from his followers, and from other leaders.  Many of his hard sayings were calculated to achieve just such an effect, and are more valuable for insight into the process of self differentiation than the content of the saying itself. 

            Friedman identifies three distinct but inter-related components to leadership by self-differentiation:  [1]  The leader must stay in touch with the followers.  [2]  The leader must have the capacity and willingness to take non-reactive, clearly conceived, and clearly defined positions (this function requires some isolation).  [3]  The leader must be able to deal with (unconsciously motivated) sabotage from undifferentiated leaders.  To sum it up, the leader leads by distancing himself while staying in touch.  The followers' own need for a leader will move them along.[21]  The implication for the leader is that he or she must always be working on his or her own development.  As the leader grows, so do the followers; but as the followers resist growth, the leader bears their burden.  This kind of leadership is evidenced in Jesus, who prayed:  "For them I sanctify myself, that they may be truly sanctified" (John 17:19).

CONCLUSIONS

            Based on the foregoing there are a few remarks to be made about pastoral ministry in our churches today. 

            The essence of the pastoral office is leadership; therefore, pastors need to be trained in leadership.  The ongoing school of experience is a fine teacher, provided that there are sufficient opportunities for reflection and growth in understanding.  This has implications for seminaries, mentoring programs, and continuing education. 

            Especially important to pastoral leadership is the ability to discern and administer an authority that is truly divine rather than human, yet to administer that divine glory in and through human agency.  This requires the leader to continually grow in the grace and knowledge of God and be filled with the Spirit.  Thus, training for pastors also requires spiritual formation and equipping for a life-time of self growth. 

            We need to understand the ministry of Word and Sacrament more as a relation of leader(s) and community than a performance of liturgical rites.  The goal is for everyone to grow in likeness to Christ.  Doing the liturgy is certainly a means toward that end, but not an end in itself.

            We need to better discern the difference between real leadership and leadership titles.  There are many parishes where the most influential leaders are significant lay persons who may or may not bear the title elder, deacon, or congregational president.  A great amount of conflict and confusion in parishes results from a failure to distinguish between holding titles and exercising real leadership.

            We need to cultivate a value for longer terms of parish ministry--it takes several years for a pastor to progress from "parish chaplain" to "primary leader, or pastor," which is prerequisite for effective pastoral ministry.  Many pastors leave their calls before they enter into a position of real leadership.

            We need to understand the dynamic of self-differentiation.  The LCMS is a particularly anxious system.  In general, it discourages self-differentiation in favor of a consensus approach.  The atmosphere is stifling.

            We need to facilitate the development of local, part-time, ordained leaders who are able to lead or assist struggling congregations.  These leaders should be rooted in and committed to the local community.

            We need to expand and broaden the base of leadership, cultivating a more collegial and collective style of leadership within existing congregations.  Of course this would imply having more opportunities for women to share in the leadership.  But this does not necessarily mean a diminution of or infringement upon the office of the ministry.  Pastors who are effective leaders will feel more secure in sharing responsibility with other emerging leaders; conversely, pastors who are effective leaders will be unambiguously identified as the "head" of the congregation, allowing others the freedom to function under the "headship" of a clearly recognized leader.