Emotion and Intellect

I am not really good at debating creation vs. evolution, I’m just not. I think the one thing that both creationists and evolutionists can agree on is the simple fact that they are not going to change their position without some VERY compelling evidence. The Christian creationist needs their evidence to come from the scriptures else they will not accept it, the evolutionist needs their evidence to come through observation and the scientific method or else they will not accept it. The debate is a stalemate. Of course there are the occasional converts in both directions but by and large it is a settled point.

What I do find interesting however is the tendency of Christian creationist to appeal to the emotion and beauty, and the evolutionist to appeal to the hard evidence and scientific process. I think it is a fail on both sides.

It is typical in Christian circles to downplay the intellect. The Christian who reads many books, thinks deeply about doctrines that might not be essential is often derided in Christian circles as being high minded, or somehow wasting their time. They are often met with “The bible says it, I believe it, that settles it” or “you just need to have a childlike faith”. I wish more people would have a childlike faith! My 4 year old is constantly asking questions, and every question leads to a new question, and he is inquisitive beyond what I can handle at times. The child does not settle with simple answers, they always dig further, always want more, they do not care about ‘essential’ vs ‘non-essentials’ they want it all and in that sense ‘child-like’ is very intellectual.

On the flip side, the ‘evolutionist’ downplays the emotion and takes it completely out of the equation. They typically argue from the third person perspective and distance themselves emotionally from the arguments they make. It is unfortunate, because in many ways they have a wonderful story to tell that is stimulating and engaging, if they were willing to tell it in such a manner.

As Christians we say that history is a marvelous story of creation and redemption, of sin and grace, of a final victory, and tragic defeat of evil. We get wrapped up in, and immersed in this great story, a story that we affirm is true. It is a highly emotional story, and the emotion is part of its appeal. Nonetheless there is an intellectual side of it all, how the sacrifices work together, the types and shadows, the doctrines, the laws, the history. It is a complete package, and it is a mistake to neglect the intellect because the intellect serves the emotion and vice versa.

On the flip side the evolutionist has a marvelous story to tell as well, one that they affirm is true. It is a story of a world governed by natural law that defeats the odds while functioning with in those laws to bring forth the wonderful complexity that this world has. It is a story of life forming against the odds, but still within the possibility of infinite time and space. It is a story of ever increasing complexity and innovation. Like every good story it has a tipping point, and the greatness of this universe begins to return to the nothingness it once was, and tragically it ends as it began in an infinitesimally dense small speck. Honestly that is a story that we can get wrapped up in as well, one that, if it were true, we are really a part of, really involved in its timeline, and truly affected by it. (Of course I believe that story to be wrong, but I would be a liar if I said it wasn’t interesting and compelling.)

What I am saying is that the biblical narrative is much more believable if it is engaged intellectually, but also that the evolutionary narrative would be much more believable if it were engaged with emotion.

The teachers who were most effective in communicating their subjects in my education were my high school Calculus teacher, and my physics teacher (probably resulting in me becoming an engineer). I have no idea whether they were Christian or not, and as far as the subject matter was concerned that is irrelevant. The reason they taught so well was that they balanced intellect and emotion in their teaching. My calculus teacher was genuinely excited about the order that could be expressed by numbers, she genuinely portrayed an emotional connection to the math she taught. Our physics teacher was much the same. He not only wanted you to grasp the concepts, he drove you to become emotionally involved in them. If it were all emotion without the intellect we would have learned nothing, yet if it were all intellect without the emotion we would have dismissed the knowledge we received the moment we received our grade card.

A great book to read on this topic is CS Lewis’ “Abolition of Man”, he expresses this tension far better than I ever could on a blog post.

DeadPastorsSociety

I am now blogging at DeadPastorSociety with some twitter friends of mine. I will still be blogging here, but make sure you stop over there too, I post every monday.

Hey Aaron, are you going to eat all that?

There are certain portions of scripture that just make me question the veracity of the word. Yeah, that’s right, there I times when I question the book. Let me give a prime example. Moses, in Leviticus, is laying out the Law of God regarding the sacrifices and it just happens that the really good meat is not going to be burned up entirely, but instead it just gets nicely roasted, and lo, Moses’ brother Aaron and Aaron’s family is supposed to eat it. The cynic in me finds that to be an awfully convenient law for Aaron. I mean, here you have all the people of Israel bringing their best animals to be BBQ’d for Aaron and his people to eat, and it is a law that they must do it. Hey, why don’t I come down from a mountain and tell my people they need to bring ribs to sacrifice and they must be soaked with Sweet Baby Ray’s sauce, and yeah, why not bring a drink offering too, Coca-Cola Classic would be ideal. Does that not seem just a touch sketchy? Certainly I am not the only person that has taken issue with this text?

Something I have come to realize though, is that the Old Testament only finds its true meaning in light of the New Testament, specifically in Christ’s work on our behalf. In other words, if indeed the Aaronic Priests were supposed to eat this sacrifice and it really was the command of God for them to do so, this command can only make sense to me in light of Christ’s fulfillment of that command. So before I go dismissing the early parts of Leviticus as Moses trying to make sure his family eats well I must deal with it light of the Gospel.

So let me walk you through my thinking as I came to this portion of Leviticus with my skepticism yet again in my bible reading.

Aaron is commanded to eat the sacrifices, the priesthood so to speak is required to eat the ‘perfect’ sacrifice in the sight of God. Hebrews reminds us that in light of the Gospel we are a kingdom of priests, and that all who are the redeemed are priests before God. In other words the Aaronic priesthood has been fulfilled, there is no longer a set group of priests called to consume the sacrifice, but all believers now enter into that role of priest. Moreover, we know there is no longer sacrifice for sin, other than the perfect sacrifice which has been offered, that is the Christ himself. Moreover Christ has stated:

John 6:53 (ESV)

⁵³ So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

In light of Christ’s words contained in John’s Gospel we see a new picture arising. This hard command of Christ, that we must eat his flesh and his blood begins to make a little more sense. Moreover as we consider the Passover, when each family was to kill a lamb and leave none of it until the morning, begins to make sense, when you consider Christ as the Passover Lamb. The idea of consuming the sacrifice finds it’s full meaning in the fulfilled work of Christ and more specifically in the institution of the Lord’s Supper.

Needless to say, the command for the Aaronic priesthood to eat the sacrifice no longer bothers me at all, in fact it informs my doctrine of the Lord’s Supper and grounds it in the Old Testament sacrificial system and gives me a more robust understanding of what Christ meant by His hard teaching in John 6. This new reading further bolsters my belief that the sacrament is far more than a mere memorial meal that calls us to remember the Gospel, but that the sacrament in some sense is a part of the Gospel itself. Look, this does not make the case for transubstantiation, or some modern priesthood that must drink the portion of the sacrament not consumed by the people. Not at all, at the same time it does insert some healthy mystery into the Supper, and reminds me that in some sense we truly partake of the Lord as we receive the sacrament. This understanding of the consumption of the sacrifice leaves me thoroughly non-baptist with regards to the meal.

Was it wrong of me to question the veracity of the Law or to at least be a little skeptical of it? It would have been wrong if I had no intent of squaring it up with the New Testament, however if I allow my skepticism to drive me to answers, answers that I know must be founded in the Gospel, that initial skepticism proves to be a vehicle that drives me to greater faith and understanding of deeply profound truths.

Studying the scriptures should be a fascinating and enjoyable process, but it ceases to be that if you never let yourself be disturbed by the truths that you cannot seem to square up. Often we want to say something like “well it is in the bible so I am just going to believe it” without realizing that we are refusing to step on the mat with a God who is calling us out to wrestle. Unfortunately we are far too content to simply come up with trite clichés to answer deep questions that really disturb us.

I suppose this post is a small treatise for a healthy skepticism, but a skepticism that trusts that real truth can withstand our petty doubts.

obvious is not so obvious

I am a big fan of stating the obvious, and I believe that as humans, for whatever reason, we need the obvious stated to us often. So this post is a bit of an exercise in the obvious.

The meaning of a statement can rarely be ascertained without the context of the statement. Let’s start with a simple statement:

“The grass is green”

If you are standing in the middle of a desert that statement is a statement of a miracle of sorts. If you sprayed your driveway with round up three weeks ago and are looking at the grass in the cracks it is a statement of disappointment. Without context you cannot know whether the statement is positive or negative in tone.

Because this blog centers primarily on theology let’s move to a more appropriate example. Let’s try this statement.

“Jesus is the way”

Is that a true statement? There is no way to tell without context. If someone asks me, how do I get to the grocery store, and I answer “Jesus is the way” it would be ridiculous. If someone asks me how can I get to hell, that statement would be even more unhelpful. To have any idea of what is intended by the statement “Jesus is the way” some sort of context must be given.

Again this is an exercise in the obvious, but it seems to become less obvious when we are dealing with the scripture. We have been taught, and rightly so, that every word of scripture is inspired, God breathed, and inerrant. Of course we cannot understand scripture without it’s context, we all agree with that, but I do not think we are near as aware of the danger of placing a scripture in the wrong context.

If I am giving directions to a grocery store, and the final information I give is: “The grocery store will be on your right.” That statement would only be truthful if you were approaching the store from the directions I gave. To say the “the store is on the right” is an absolute truth within the context of the directions, but outside of the context it could be the polar opposite of the truth. Nobody who read the entire directions to the store would argue with the veracity of the claim that the store was on the right.

Now the problem arises when we affirm something as an absolute truth while placing it in a context that makes that very truth a lie. This is not postmodernism, in fact it is quite the opposite. I affirm it is an absolute truth that the store is on the North side of the road, but ‘left’ or ‘right’ are relative to context.

Again we affirm that the scriptures are absolute, when understood within their context, but by quoting a scripture you are not guaranteed to be quoting absolute truth. This is where it gets a little bit more sticky.

Let’s take a super important question: “What must I do to be saved?” We want to answer that question with scripture, so what scripture should we use to answer that? We must use a scripture that is answering the same question. A common Evangelical answer to that question would be to quote Romans 10:9.

⁹ because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

This seems like a fair statement, by doing this we answer the simple question, with a simple scripture that contains absolute truth. However, does Romans 10:9 intend to answer the question “What must I do to be saved” or is it answering a different question? The context of Romans 9 through Romans 11 involves the salvation of Jews and Gentiles and it is answering a question regarding who is saved and why, but Romans 10:9 is not laying out the way to be saved. An honest reading of the whole context of Romans 9-11 would make that clear. It is not appropriate to use a scripture to deliver an answer that was not intended to be delivered by that scripture. Now we can disagree with the meaning of Romans 10:9 and what it means in context, but let’s at least be careful to examine what Romans 10:9 is actually answering before we drop it into our conversation.

I do not hold to baptismal regeneration, I am not Lutheran or Catholic on this, but the bottom line is that Acts 2:38 answers the question… “What must I do?” If you read Peter’s Pentecost sermon, and you see that the hearers have come to a place of despair, you see that their question is exactly the question we are dealing with. “What must I do to be saved?”

³⁸ And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Now we must do some leg work into what is meant by being ‘baptized in the name of Jesus Christ’, which might be something for another day, but at least by answering the question with Acts 2:38 you are answering the question in a way that is honest to the context.

So what about Romans 10:9, or even the entire “Romans Road” that so many people use to lead people to Christ? Is “Romans Road” evangelism biblical? Well it uses the bible, so in that sense it is biblical, but is it aware of the context? Look to the beginning of Romans:

Romans 1:8–13 (ESV)

⁸ First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed in all the world. ⁹ For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I mention you ¹⁰ always in my prayers, asking that somehow by God’s will I may now at last succeed in coming to you. ¹¹ For I long to see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to strengthen you— ¹² that is, that we may be mutually encouraged by each other’s faith, both yours and mine. ¹³ I want you to know, brothers, that I have often intended to come to you (but thus far have been prevented), in order that I may reap some harvest among you as well as among the rest of the Gentiles.

At the outset of Romans we see who this is written to. Believers! The audience is not the lost. That alone should temper our reading of Romans. Nothing in Romans is written as praxis on how to get saved. Yes it certainly speaks eternal truths regarding salvation, yes it answers why people are saved, and how people are saved, but it is answering those questions to people who already believe. In other words it is written to people heading west down the road who will indeed need to turn ‘right’ into the grocery store on the north. It is not written to those heading east.

We could go on and on with countless scriptures, Matthew 7:21-23 is another big one that abuses the context. (I’ve blogged about that before.)

I encourage you, before you quote scripture make sure that your usage of it is appropriate to the context it fits within.

External Gospel for the Homeless

It is likely a common experience for a devotee of any particular doctrine of theology to come to a point where they honestly question the doctrine they hold. This questioning of our own doctrine is not necessarily healthy, nor is it unhealthy. In one sense we can constantly question and come to a point where we believe questioning everything is a virtue in itself, and our primary doctrine becomes a command to ‘question everything.’ Unfortunately that process is not as virtuous as it first appears. If ones primary doctrine is that to question everything is virtuous, then answers or truths become inherently evil, for if there is an answer or truth regarding a particular question the question is solved. Any sort of absolute becomes the enemy of the doctrine of ‘question all’. On the flip side, to hold doctrine without ever bringing it into question is equally dangerous. To never question anything is to assume that at some point in history you achieved perfection in your understanding and to refuse to question is to permanently lock your intellect and spirit in that one place and to arrogantly believe you have arrived. The bottom line is that questioning that honestly seeks answers is healthy, even questioning very foundational truths in some sense shows more faith than not questioning at all. When you question foundational truths you show faith that those truths can withstand your questions.

With that background laid out I want to bring forth a doctrinal stance that I have brought into question recently, and it is a doctrine that in my estimation is foundational to the Christian faith. In some sense a part of me thinks I should feel guilty for even questioning it, but now that I am on the other side of the question mark I am thankful that I asked it. The question is simple “Is the Gospel actually the simple message that Christ has done all that is required of us for salvation?” Now before I delve into the process of my questioning I will simply state the conclusion, which is; “Yes, that is the Gospel message.” Yet it is an honest question, and one that needs to be asked and answered because the answer to that question drives everything that is Christian.

In recent years, thanks to some reformed and Lutheran friends and authors, I have been led through the scriptures to believe that Gospel is news, independent of all personal action, that Christ has paid my penalty, lived the life required of me, and rose from the dead making me not guilty of His death and the proper recipient of His life. The implications of this understanding of the Gospel shattered both my lingering shreds liberalism and my strong fundamentalism. It shredded the liberalism that led me to believe that social justice and service we in some sense part of the essence of the Gospel, and it shredded my fundamentalism that believes that somehow my changed life is part of the essence of the Gospel. This understanding has left me with the bare truth that Christ alone is the essence of the Gospel, and that the Gospel is something entirely apart from me, or entirely external.

Now, after being brought to full commitment in this doctrine of a Gospel that is external to me, I then came to a place where I began to question this. The primary question I asked is this: “If the Gospel is entirely external to me, then is it really true that, with regards to salvation, my actions are irrelevant?” Of course to have true commitment to an external Gospel the answer to that question must be “yes”, but is that answer really yes? That is a hard question to wrestle with because the implications of a “yes” answer seems to scream “antinomian” (lawless). If I am to continue with a “yes” answer to that question I must dismiss the fundamentalist notion that “if I am saved, I will no longer do x, y, and z sins. If I answer “yes” I must also dismiss the liberal notion that “salvation is to become one who serves the poor and makes the world a better place in the name of Christ.” Both of those notions are difficult to dismiss, especially when they have become a part of the fabric of what I have grown to know about Christianity. While my answer has been “yes” to that question for a couple of years now, that “yes” answer has been tentatively hanging in the balance. A recent experience has solidified that “yes” answer.

A couple of nights ago my wife and I were at a coffee shop hanging out when a homeless man came in to get a cup of tea. He kept to himself, and we kept to ourselves. Eventually the time came for us to leave and I walked over to him before leaving and began to make some small talk with him. This was not a “missional” thing or some spiritual endeavor to serve the poor, or get someone saved. I simply saw a lonely looking guy and thought I would have a conversation with him partially because I thought he would enjoy it, and also because I just enjoy conversation. I was simply being a human, there was no conscious attempt to do a good deed. Our conversation progressed, and we ended up giving him a ride to a hotel ten miles away and put him up for the night there. Again, this was more about being a good human than anything else, a member of any faith, or even an atheist can do this sort of thing, it requires very little character for someone who is comfortable with people. This man, Mike, immediately upon getting into the car began speaking of Christianity. He had no idea that I was a pastor, it seemed that he assumed we were Christians by the simple fact that we were giving him a ride. As he opened up to us we found out that He lived in a monastery for a year and has sought with all his might to live a Christian life. In our age of contemplation this man seemed to have arrived. He had given up all to live a simple life of dependence on God. He had taken the concept of monasticism to its final conclusion. As he continued speaking, this man affirmed to us that he was currently in utter despair regarding his soul. Why? He kept saying that he wondered if he had done enough. While early in his life he sought poverty believing that was part of the essence of Christianity, he now wrestled with the reality that he had nothing of substance to give to those who had need. His poverty that He embraced now became his source of despair. The very fact that he needed to receive a ride from someone else caused him to believe he was not a Christian because he was receiving instead of giving.

This man was taught that the Gospel meant to give to everyone, yet he came to a place where he had little or nothing to give and was met with despair. This man was a clear picture of what currently theology promoted by the emergent movement and new monasticism eventually leads to… despair.

At this point, I had yet to reveal to him that I was Christian, let alone a pastor. As I was thinking during this conversation I was being reminded of the words of Pastor Mike Slaughter who said “If the Gospel is not good news to the poor, it is not the Gospel.” Unfortunately, pastor Mike, used this true statement to come to a false conclusion. The conclusion was that if your Gospel does not include service to the poor, it must not be the Gospel. The problem was that this homeless man’s Gospel was completely saturated with the command that he must serve the poor, and his means no longer allowed him to do so. Pastor Mike’s statement was true, if the Gospel is not good news to the poor, it most certainly was not the Gospel, but Pastor Mike’s conclusion was anything but good news to the truly poor. This poor man had embraced the emergent theology all the way into poverty and was left without good news, he was left only with commands he could never obey.

I revealed at some point in the conversation who I was, and what my vocation was, only because this man was dying to have a statement from the Church that he was somehow acceptable to God. This man needed an alternate message than the one he had committed his entire being to, and to hear that answer from an ecclesiastical authority meant a lot to him. I proceeded to proclaim the Gospel apart from works, the plain message that Christ has accomplished EVERYTHING on his behalf regardless of what he had or had not done. Possibly for the first time he had heard a Gospel that was truly good news for the poor. It made sense, and it was good news, with no strings attached.

If I still held firm to the fundamentalist Gospel I would have had to tell him about how he had to clean up his life, I would have had to convince him of his sin, bring him to a place even lower than he was in order that he would see his need. If I still held to the liberal Gospel I would have had to relax his despair be telling him that his poverty was honorable and that because he embraced it he was more Christian than most of the world. Both options would have left him in despair, because he knew what he had done was not enough. Instead I embraced the answer of “yes” to the question “Is the Gospel truly external to us, and independent of our actions?” Both Mike, the homeless man, and I can be thankful that the answer to that question is indeed yes.

Did I serve this man? Did I get him a room? Yeah. Did I engage a lonely man conversation? Sure I did those things. More than that, I shared the simple truth, the only truth, that is truly good news to the poor, and in the process it affirmed to me that the Gospel truly is external.

Beyond that I did something that might make a number of readers of this blog cringe. I absolved him of his sin. He heard the message of this external Gospel, in as far as I could tell he embraced this message of real hope that is independent of his action, and I pronounced to him that he was forgiven in the name of Christ. The man who had heard nothing from Churches except the constant calling to be something he was not, and to be something he could never be, heard from a pastor the reality that he was forgiven because of something done FOR HIM.

So before you get amped up on calling everyone to service to the poor, or calling everyone to separate from the world, or demanding people to be a new creation in Christ, think about the logical conclusion of those commands, think about the person who embraces those commands to the fullest and what they will finally become. On Saturday night I met the embodiment of what those commands produce if taken to their final and logical conclusion, and what I found was nothing but despair. Praise God that the commands of the Law are not the pronouncement of the Gospel.

Being like Jesus!?

Sometimes it is important to state what you are not saying, prior to making your actual point, and this certainly is one of those issues.  I would never say that we should not strive to be like Christ in our love, our ethics, and our general discourse in this world.  Moreover I would never say that we should not serve the marginalized, oppressed, captive, and impoverished in this world.  We are commanded by both Christ and Moses to do that exact thing!  So because Jesus did those things perfectly, we too should strive to be like Jesus right?  Yes, in those ways, however to say that trying to be like Jesus is a universally acceptable rule of thumb is not wise.

We are called to obey all that Christ commanded us to do, we read that in the great commission.  Jesus never commands us to live by His example, but instead to live by His commands.  He certainly is a great example of what obedience to his own commands looks like, nonetheless it is His words we obey not his example.  Why is this important? or is it important?  It is incredibly important.

If you say you are trying to be like Jesus then you are trying to weep for my sin, trying to be a man of sorrows, trying to be despised, trying to be misunderstood, trying to end up on a roman cross, trying to sweat as it were drops of blood, trying to be a sacrifice for other's sins, trying to do a number of things which He has done, but never commanded you to do!  Am I splitting hairs?  It may seem that way at first, but this is more critical than we think.  When we look at Jesus' life as exemplary then we quickly lose sight of the work that He has done FOR US that could never be accomplished by us.  We gloss over His divinity while focusing entirely on His humanity.  When you encounter someone who is in sin if you ask yourself "What would Jesus Do?" the response should be weep and fear because you are going to die for that sin.  Yet if you ask "What has Jesus commanded?" you will be equipped to properly deal with sin.

The focus of being like Christ is a noble focus when properly framed.  However it quickly becomes a paradigm for life that doesn't take into account the things He has done for you and this world neither you nor anybody else could ever do.

So where do you focus when it comes to moral standards, ethics, and so on.  Jesus summed up the law for us, Jesus gave us a number of commands, He did not leave us without instruction.  Focus on His instruction, and then with regard to those instructions, see him as the example of how to carry them out, and never allow your sight of Him as an example to overshadow the sight of him as your righteousness, propitiation, and redemption.

Sermon and Notes - 02.13.2011 - Revelation 8:2-11:19

You can download the Sermon from this past Sunday here. or visit http://deltaumc.podbean.com to view archived sermons.

You can also download my notes and outline by clicking here.

Also, the RSS feed address for our podcast is http://deltaumc.podbean.com/feed/ and this feed has been submitted to iTunes and should be available shortly there for you iTunes users.

Pastoral Care from the Pulpit /not small groups

The pulpit is a place to dispense pastoral care, in fact it is the primary place to dispense pastoral care.  There is this tendency to segregate pastoral care, and pulpit ministry into two separate areas of the pastoral call.  The standard sentiment seems to be that the pulpit is for preaching the gospel, and the visitation or counseling session is for pastoral care.

There are probably a myriad of reasons this dichotomy of preaching/pastoral care has arisen, but I believe the number one reason is that we have come to believe that the Sunday sermon is the primary evangelistic tool of the church.  Most pastors seem to buy into this; the fundamentalist pastor builds his message around saving the lost soul that ventured into a pew, the Church growth guy builds his message around some principles for a better life complete with some cute stories and a joke or two to get them to come back next week, and the missional pastor spends his pulpit time inviting people to participate in social justice or the great commission with his congregation. In all three of the aforementioned examples the sermon is used with the intent of getting the uninvolved, unchurched, or unsaved into the flock.  What is the problem with this?  The problem is that the very covenant community, which happens to be involved, churched, and saved, is never the intended audience of their pastor.  The sheep get neglected in favor of 'potential' sheep.  Now the clever pastors believe they have found a way around this, and that way is small/home/cell group ministry.  The idea is that the pastor cannot preach in such a manner that his faithful will grow, because for them to grow the depth of his sermon would be too much for the 'unchurched'.  So to address the problem the pastor recommends that his faithful sheep go to the small groups to grow and to be cared for.  Sounds great right? Wrong!

I am not anti small group by any means, but I am sick of hearing the "that's wear the real growth happens" line brought out by pastors who have neglected feeding the sheep on Sundays.  In most cases the leaders of small groups who are called to 'facilitate' discussion, and have no theological training and have not been selected by a process that evaluates their qualifications as pastors.  Yes I said their qualifications as pastors!  If we are going to make the small group the primary place where people are pastored, should not their leaders meet the biblical criterion of a pastor?  Do you see the problem?  The sheep are left to whoever is willing to volunteer their home to lead, while potential sheep not yet of the flock get lead by the pastor, the one who has a calling on his life to lead the sheep!  It's all backwards.  Pastors, we are to care for the flock, so that the flock can go healthily into the world with the Gospel to the lost, unchurched, dechurched, or whatever current cliche you drag out when referring to people without Christ.

I do believe in doing visitations as a pastor, especially to the sick.  Yet what is it that you bring to them?  The good news of Christ, who lived, suffered, died, and rose FOR THEM.  That is what pastoral care is all about, bringing the Law and Gospel into the various dark, difficult places where people are.  While visitation is for the individual, Sunday morning is a visitation so to speak for the covenant community, and that is how it should be treated.  We should enter the pulpit with care of the congregation of our Lord as our first concern!  Our goal should be to bring Law and Gospel to the sheep for their health and edification, leaving them emboldened by grace to go into the world.  I will leave the lost to the small groups... but the pulpit ministry is for the sheep.

That was a bit rantish, but think about it.