The Preacher as Entrepreneur

Jan Edmiston points to an interview with Paul Borden that I find very compelling.

The primary challenges relate to the pastor's role. Seminaries have historically trained pastors to function as chaplains, responsible for preaching, counseling, and pastoral care. As a result, one of the reasons so few churches grew past 300 prior to the eighties was because that was the most a person in that role could deal with. The church growth movement, however, began to change the paradigm of the pastor's role. If the church is going to be focusing outward, touching an un-churched culture, then the pastor has to take on a different role: the role of leader.

Our churches have also assumed that a shepherd functions like a chaplain, caring for a group of sheep. The biblical model, however, portrays a shepherd as an entrepreneur, who led sheep by still waters and into green pastures so that he could eventually shear them or kill them. In other words, he moved the sheep into zones of comfort in order to prepare them for zones of discomfort.

Very few pastors hold this concept of shepherding. Yet that's the role of a leader. The leader communicates the vision, and then asks the community to take a risk.

Where does the vision come from? 

For over 15 years, I've been involved with organizations at the point of mission and vision identification. Writing a mission or vision statement is a process of discovery. What do we discover?  At one level, we discover the future. At least the future that requires effort to achieve.  This is where the pastor as entrepreneur comes in.

Lately, I've been working on a project with a company to write a values statement.  During the process, i was asked the difference between a values statement, a mission statement and a vision statement.  These organizational statements all seem to have there perceived value by leaders. Typically it relates to where the organization is at this point in time in its history.  For the group I've been working with, the values statement will serve to unify the organization for continued service to their constituents.

Let me explain how I see the difference between these statements.  Let's use the following diagram as a guide.

A Mission statement is an organizational statement. It describes what the church does.  It can include the four dimensions of every organization - Governance, Program, Operations and Resources.  It essence it is like a snapshot picture. "We are Acme church serving  the people of Acme and the world through ministries of worship, education, fellowship and outreach in the name of Jesus Christ."  Or something like that.

A Values statement is a relationship statement. It describes what these people stand for and the values that govern their relationships. "We are God's children who through the love of Jesus Christ trust, honor, support and mutually serve one another by faith in God's sustaining Spirit."

A Vision statement is an impact  statement.  Its purpose is to capture a clear sense of how these relationships matter in the context of a church organization.  It needs to capture the difference that is made by this gathering of God's people in this place at this time in history.  In effect, a vision statement is a statement that illustrates change. Change being the effect of people living out their faith in the community of the church. If there is not change, then there is no difference made, and if there is no difference, then there is no impact, and if there is no impact, what precisely do these people envision God doing through them?

So, how does this fit into a pastor's role as entrepreneur?

Paul Borden identifies the following challenges for pastors.

1.  "... the preacher's responsibility to communicate vision."

2.  "... the leader's responsibility for the overall recruitment of lay people."

3.  "Our responsibility to be stewards in every area necessitates the leader's regular attention to this theme."

He provides an excellent picture of the visionary aspect of being a pastor.

Vision is primarily communicated through stories, specifically the stories of the people in the church that are living the vision out. This is true because story not only communicates information but also volition and emotion. When I tell someone a story as opposed to an illustration, they not only understand the point but they see how other people have lived it out. It touches them at an emotive and volitional level.

Vision is also communicated through a positive persona. The pastors who are most successful are also the most positive. Negativity and guilt pour out of me like sweat on a hot day. I don't have to work at that. Being positive, however, is something I must work at. For people to buy into a vision that is bigger than themselves, there has to be communication from a positive leader.

Finally, visionaries preach to the community as opposed to the individual. This is contrary to how I was trained. Visionaries ask the larger questions like, "What does the community do for families?.What does the community do for prayer?. What does the community do for Bible study?" They ask the "so what?" question of the text, and then answer it in the plural.

So telling stories, being positive, and preaching to the community all relate to the preacher's role as a visionary.

Here the vision of the pastor is a picture of the community in action within the bounds of the church as a specific organization.  It isn't just ideas, but something alive. That is why the relational or social dimension is so important, and why values need to be articulated as a part of the church's vision of impact.

Entrepreneurs are leaders who embody the values and ideology of their mission. They are not just an administrative functionaries.  They live their vision with passion in front of people. Back in December I wrote about the importance of entrepreneurialism for the church in my series on Innovative Business Ideas for Churches.

I hope you'll read this whole interview with Paul Borden. I think he is saying something very important, and saying it in a gentle, simple way that makes a great deal of sense to me.

Comments

[DennisS]

I mostly agree with what you have posted. I didn't think about storytelling as sharing how the text has affected me - even if it is to throw up my hands.

While I agree that most people want a pastor who loves them, I think it might be more likely that people are really thinking of the pastor as the representative of God, and if this messenger of God loves me, then I am loved by God. On the other hand, it seems that some actually expect that God actually hates them.

I'm still a bit uncomfortable with the pastor actually embodying the message. I can accept that the pastor will mirror the message, and strive to be authentic to it, and seek to compare how well the message and my life are the same - yet I believe it is possible for one who doesn't embody the message to be an effective preacher (either as an example of what not to be, or as one who has the knowledge but not the passion to pick up the cross and carry it. This is possible because of the work of the Holy Spirit. I'm not suggesting these ways, but I want to suggest it is possible for the Holy Spirit to work through one who does not embody the Good News.

I like to think that I am refining the terms and understanding - not that I'm nitpicking. I'm thinking about things may or may not be taken care of if a pastor can "communicate genuine, authentic love". Sure, a it would be tough to try to run out of town a well-loved pastor. Being loved doesn't take care of lots of things. It doesn't necessarily educate or challenge. These can be done in love. A pastor who is loving can also become a doormat, a person with compassion fatigue, a person who can never say no, etc.

I'm rather hesitant to throw up my arms and say that I don't know what it means for our lives today. If there is a text which cannot be preached with a purpose for us today, then why not select a different text?

I think I see the visionary as a prophet, and I don't remember their message as being very positive.

[Ed Brenegar]

Dennis, you are right that quality discipleship will impact other aspects of a church's life. I've never found "evangelism" compelling as a separate function of the church. Instead it is one of the functions that transcends all aspects of the church.
I see the emphasis on storytelling no different than emphasis on expository preaching. It is simply a technique.
What makes a sermon compelling is the authenticity of the pastor embodying the message in his or her life. That can come through stories, or it can come through a more intellectual, philosophical exposition. I suspect the only thing that really needs to be in the sermon, other than scripture (obviously) is an answer to the question, "What am I to do with this text?" And even if the pastor throws his hands up and says, "I don't know." It displays a reality and honesty that demonstrates that authenticity. While I don't advocate making this the standard by which we measure ourselves, I believe that what most parishioners want is to know that their pastor loves them. If they can communicate genuine, authentic love, then the rest will ordinarily take care of itself.

[DennisS]

"... So telling stories, being positive, and preaching to the community all relate to the preacher's role as a visionary."

What do you recommend for someone who isn't a storyteller, equates being positive all the time with being false, and finds more comfort and more response in one-on-one conversation?

"... Entrepreneurs are leaders who embody the values and ideology of their mission."

Can we change "embody" to "exude"? If I embody that which belongs to the mission, then isn't the focus upon me? But if I exude this, don't I share (or even cast upon others) the values and ideology?

I'm really struggling with the positive persona. I wonder if it's possible for some of us to do this in an authentic way. Maybe make sure to be positive on the occasions of sharing vision?

[DennisS]

I think that much of this is dependent upon the context. I wonder what context Paul Borden has in mind, as that second item, regarding recruitment of lay persons, still has me wondering.

I've seen two models which had success.

First, the pastor is highly evangelistic, met people lots of places, spoke with them, and invited them to church. The problem was the revolving back door. Until myself and another fellow stepped up to build relationships with those brought in by the pastor, it seems people didn't stick around but a couple of months. And after the other fellow and I left for seminary the congregation started shedding members.

Second, the pastor is very driven by prayer and strong biblical preaching. He is an introvert, and tends to hide away from the crowd and from new people. He is after quality. The congregation has continued to grow for years, with most people in small group Bible study.

In the first, the pastor is central. In the second, the program is central. In the first, the pastor brings people in. In the second, the programs bring people in.

But the real difference I saw was that the people took initiative in the second congregation. They started new ministries, they organized things. The first congregation had newer Christians, as it has been a church plant for aobut 17 years, while the second has people who have been worshipping there for several generations.

It seems to me that a focus upon discipleship would truly benefit the first congregation, though they have such high turnover among those who are employed.

I hope these examples clarify why I'm uncertain that lay recruitment is primarily the role of the entrepreneurial pastor.

[DennisS]

I'm a little confused by this. The primary task of a pastor is to communicate vision - fine and agreeable so far.

Recruitment of lay people? What does this mean? Does it mean bringing people in the doors, signing them up for classes and membership, finding their gifts and putting them to work?

Attention to stewardship seems reasonable, but it also seems a subset of vision.

What I see in this is a heavy emphasis on the left half of the diagram, with Vision and Recruitment of people (largely relationships). I would rather see a strong balance between Vision and Mission. And maybe this is present, and the wording is throwing me a bit.

Vision and Mission seem a bit like chicken and egg - which comes first? I see a similar question between discipleship and evangelism - which is to take priority? Do we primarily value the growing of disciples (quality), or evangelizing to increase the number of disciples (quantity)? Yes, of course we want both, but we all tend to emphasize one over the other, and when talking with someone who puts the priority on the other, we tend to disagree on many things.

Personally, I believe we need to work on quality (discipleship) before emphasizing evangelism. And this feeds back to my question about "recruitment of lay people", and what that really means.

Pastor as entrepreneur is true in many ways.