Business vs. Family Polity: Insights For The Smaller Church

By Glenn Daman

There remains a vast difference between what is written today about leadership and the type of leadership accepted by people within the small church. In recent history, the church has adopted much of the leadership model formulated within the secular business community.

While it is true that there is much that can (and should) be learned from the business paradigm of leadership, often that paradigm conflicts with the concept of leadership adapted within the small church. This results in the accusation that the small church remains hardheaded, unchangeable, un-leadable, old fashioned, or worse, downright sinful.

However, the problem is often not found in the people within in the church but in the failure of the leaders to understand the different paradigm by which the small church understands the role and nature of leadership.

Whereas much of what is written about church leadership follows a business model, the small church operates under a family model of leadership where relationships form the fabric for the community and organization. Just as a family owned and operated business views leadership vastly different from the large, Wall Street corporation, so also the congregation within the small church understands the roles and responsibilities of those placed in key positions differently from the larger church.

This is not to say that one is better than the other. Both paradigms can learn much from each other. However, if the pastor and board desire to be effective as leaders they need to understand the criterion by which the congregation judges and views leadership. Failing to do so results in the leadership grossly misunderstanding the people, bringing frustration and hurt to both the pastor and congregation.

1. The business model manages by objectives; the family model manages by relationships.

Management by objectives means that the leaders of the church and/or group formulate goals and objectives which become the basis for decisions. Plans are made based upon the desired outcome. Any decision that does not result in the achievement of the objectives is to be rejected. Only those that move the group closer to the accomplishment of the goals are validated.

Within the small church, decisions are not based upon objectives, but upon the effect the decision will have upon the unity and fellowship within the congregation. A decision, no matter how significant or beneficial, will be rejected if it is perceived to undermine or threaten the unity within the community. The decision to replace the organ with a keyboard is not based upon the objective of reaching baby boomers, but how it will affect the family who donated the organ and the person who has been playing the organ for the past twenty years.

2. Within the business model the leader is the visionary and direction setter; in the family model the congregation sets the vision and the leader serves as a facilitator and guide in assisting the congregation in determining and implementing its vision.

Most of the literature today dealing with the vision and direction of the church reflects a model adapted by the business community. Within this model, the pastor is responsible to set the direction and vision for the congregation. The congregation then follows the pastor and assists the pastor in implementing the vision.

George Barna, in his book, The Power of Vision, quotes Bill Moore who states, "The leader's got to have a vision of where he plans to take the company. He has to be able to dramatize that vision for his organization." (p. 168). In George Barna's model, the pastor function like the leader of a company in determining the direction for the church. As the pastor communicates the vision to the board and congregation, then they will rally around the pastor in moving the church forward.

In contrast, the small church often balks at any pastor who attempts to dictate the direction of the congregation. In the family model of leadership, any direction for the family is based upon input from the whole group, with each family member having a say in the matter. The role of the pastor is not to set the direction, but to help the congregation establish the direction they want to go. The people, not the pastor sets the vision for the congregation. The pastor is responsible to work with the various groups to implement that vision. In the small church they want a pastor who listens to their visions and dreams and works with them in achieving them.

3. Within the business model the pastor serves as the CEO, in the family model the pastor serves as a shepherd.

The small church wants a pastor who relates to them as individuals. They look for someone who will minister to them as a person rather than through programs. They want a leader who is approachable, who provides guidance and comfort through the struggles and daily pressures of life. While the pastor may oversee the various programs and ministries, the people are more concerned about relational skills than managerial skills.

Within the business model, the pastor's performance is evaluated based on the effectiveness by which he supervises the programs and sets the direction for the church's ministries. In the business model, it is more important that the pastor ministers to the whole congregation than to each individual within the congregation.

In the small church, how he ministers to each individual within the congregation is more important than how he ministers to the whole congregation. People evaluate the pastor by how well he relates to them. People examine the amount of time spent with them. They want to know the pastor personally and individually. They are not content to leave messages with his secretary or be referred to another staff member. The pastor needs to be accessible and available to each one.

4. Within the business model of leadership organizational plans dictate policies and procedures, in the family model of leadership relationships dictate policies and procedures.

The business model operates under the assumption that the health and well being of the organization is more important than the individual. Procedures are determined based upon the effect they will have upon the whole organization. Consequently, policies and procedures are designed to protect the organization and keep the congregation running smoothly.

Within the small church, because it focuses upon a family model, the assumption is that the individual is more important than the whole organization. It is not that they fail to see the importance of the organization, but that the health and well-being of one individual is seen to significantly impact the health and well-being of the whole group.

If one person is dissatisfied or upset, then the whole congregation experiences tension and the group dynamics are drastically altered. Consequently, policies and procedures are made to assure health of the individual and protect the individual from harm, even at the expense of organizational effectiveness.

5. The business model measures success by programs and growth, the family model focuses upon stability and unity.

The church operating under a business model measures success by results. They are product oriented rather than process oriented. The church is considered evangelistic if baptisms are occurring. The number of programs that are being developed and the amount of people participating within these ministries measures the growth and success of the church.

Thus, people evaluate the health of the congregation by the location and visibility of the church, the percentage of people involved in small groups, the stability of the financial resources, the adequacy of the facilities and the development of multifaceted programs. If numbers are increasing, people are satisfied because the church is growing. When numbers are decreasing, the leadership becomes dissatisfied because the church is declining.

Within the family model, relations and inward experiences measure success. The congregation is process oriented rather than product oriented. The congregation is considered to be evangelistic if people are sharing Christ with their neighbors and being involved in the community even if that does not translate into baptisms and the addition of new members.

The church is successful when there is unity within the congregation, when people are caring for one another. Health is measured by the absence of conflicts, the stability of the rolls, the willingness of people to be involved and the amount of personal growth experienced. People are satisfied regardless of the numbers as long as each individual is growing.

6. In the business model few make most of the decisions, in the family model the congregation makes most of the decisions.

The larger the church the more decisions are made by delegation. The various boards are responsible for most of the decisions. The congregation is responsible for the election of people to serve on the boards. The people decide only the most significant decisions that affect the whole congregation and future of the church.

Within the smaller church, everyone is considered to have an equal voice and the congregation makes most of the decisions. The various boards make only minor decisions and then only after the congregation has carefully delineated what those decisions would be. The boards are responsible for researching the issues and bringing recommendations to the congregation, but it is the congregation who has the final say in the matter.

Within the business model, decisions are made by the whole only when they affect the whole. In the family model, decisions are made by the whole even when they affect only a part.

One must also recognize that though some small churches may affirm the "equal vote" principle in theory, in practice it may not often be the case. While no one would admit it, there are cases where the patriarch's or matriarch's vote carries far more weight than another's vote.

On the other hand, small churches in exurban or suburban areas may operate under the principle in practice as well. In these churches there may not be a dominate tribal chief and people are given more of an equal status in the voting process. Such depends on each individual church. The most important thing for the pastor to realize is that he must first understand the congregation's perspective of leadership before the pastor attempts to force one upon them.

7. In the business model the budget guides decisions, in the family model decisions guide the budget.

When a business contemplates a proposal being considered, one of the first considerations is how the idea will fit within the budget. While the financial statues is not the sole determining factor, it does play heavily into the process. The formation of the new budget for the coming year is an important process and is given careful consideration.

Within the family model, the budget plays a far less significant role. Within the small church, budgets are made but rarely followed. People give based upon the need presented rather than the budget. The budget serves only to give general guidelines. When needs arise and proposals given, decisions are based upon the present financial status rather than any future budget. If there is a need, the congregation readily alters the budget rather than restricts it based upon the future budgeted needs.

8. In the business model groups function independently, in the family model groups function interdependently.

In the business model, there are a number of different groups that compose the whole function independent of each other. Only when their function and purpose affects the whole congregation, or another group is there mutual discussion and inter-relatedness.

Within the family model, the focus shifts to the whole where each group is an interrelated part. As a result, every decision of one group is of interest with the other groups, even when that decision does not have any direct bearing upon them. People in the Christian Education department desire to know what the Worship Group is doing because they see their work as part of worship and want to coordinate efforts.

When Sheep Squabble - Dealing With Conflict in the Smaller Church

By Glenn Daman

The small church revolves around the close relationships formed within the congregation. Because of this, many believe that a small church is a place where deeply caring people who love one another and mutually support each other gather to worship, where conflicts are nonexistent, and where “never is heard a discouraging word.”

While this is true of many smaller congregations most of the time, it is not true of every congregation all the time. Conflict is a reality that confronts a congregation regardless of how loving and caring the people are. The difference between a loving congregation and one settling into patterns of warfare is not the amount of conflict or the intensity of conflict, but the way they respond to and resolve conflict.

Loving churches resolve conflict with minimal damage to long-term relationships. Warring congregations allow conflicts to fester and grow. They never seek resolution and often add new conflicts to their existing problems.

Since conflict is a reality pastors face in small-church ministry, they need to understand the dynamics of conflict within the small church and develop godly methods for resolving it. While conflict can affect a church of any size, when it arises in a small church it can devastate the spiritual well-being of the congregation and undermine its ministry for years to come.

The Dynamics Of Small-Church Conflict

When tensions develop because people disagree, even two or three individuals within the congregation, the small church experiences spiritual stress and emotional upheaval. Conflict can be especially traumatic for the people and pastor as they try to deal with the crisis.

Conflict undermines the morale of the pastor

One significant problem in a small church is the isolation of the pastor. In a small church there are no staff members from whom to obtain emotional and spiritual support. When issues arise the pastor often faces them alone.

This isolation is especially acute when pastors are embroiled in a controversy that involves the board. Because pastors do not have anyone to confide in, they lack the input and wisdom that could be gained from someone who understands the issues and can provide the unbiased counsel needed to resolve the problems.

Many pastors in small churches in isolated communities also experience the compounded effects of isolation. They often feel overlooked and abandoned. Even their denominational leaders may sometimes seem distant and unavailable to them and their congregation.

Some pastors find comfort and counsel from other pastors in the area, but small-church pastors often do not have this option. There may be no local ministerial association and the nearest church may be miles away. As a result pastors become easily discouraged and soon feel overwhelmed by the conflict. When they can no longer maintain a positive perspective, they start seeing the situation as hopeless and soon leave the church or ministry.

Conflict undermines the morale of the small church

The morale of a small church is often fragile. Because the church may struggle with finances, staff, and resources, there is a concern that the church will no longer be viable. A small church can become discouraged if other churches grow and it does not. The people can become discouraged if new families visit, but go to the church down the road because it offers more programs. The positive characteristic they cling to is “we are a loving church.” If, however, the church becomes embroiled in a conflict, it undermines the one characteristic that is the strength of the church. The discouragement this causes adds fuel to the conflict, especially when people start blaming each other for the current problems.

Small churches often mask conflict under the guise of relational unity

A small church has a relational culture. The people can appear unified in public, but conflicts often remain hidden below the surface. Members may be resentful from past hurts and offenses, and even be angry and bitter.

In a small church there exists a cultural obligation for people to get along, to help one another and work together. This cultural expectation pressures people to overlook their differences and look beyond the petty quarrels that divide people. This can often challenge people to resolve their conflicts, but it can also become a mask behind which conflict simmers and festers, and eventually explodes and divides the church. The tensions may never degenerate into open warfare, but a cold war can exist where people manipulate church politics to undermine their opponents’ programs or ideas.

Conflicts affect the whole

A disagreement between two individuals in a larger church may remain unnoticed by the rest of the congregation; but in a smaller congregation, the whole church feels the tension. A small church operates as a whole. People want to know what is going on in every program and ministry, even if they are not directly involved. Consequently, everyone becomes aware of a conflict between two individuals. They will intuitively sense the tension, even if they are not fully aware of the issues.

This can be beneficial if the congregation puts pressure on the individuals to resolve their differences, but it can also be destructive when people start choosing sides. This polarization can happen because of existing bloodlines in the church. When the conflict involves two prominent families, clan warfare can arise as each tribal chief fights for dominance.

Conflicts affect the testimony of the church

The future ministry of the church can be affected when people become angry and bitter with one another. This is especially true for churches in smaller communities where the population remains static. People in the community say, “Well, I used to attend that church, but. …”

The ongoing conflicts that hinder the outreach of the church may not only stem from internal conflicts within the church, but also from conflicts within the community. When invited to attend the church, people say, “I would go to church, if so-and-so did not go there.”

A church that has a history of conflict may become known as “the church that can’t get along.” These scenarios are especially true when a past conflict was never resolved. Before the church can begin any significant outreach into the community, it may need to bring resolution to issues that happened decades ago.

Stress Points In The Small Church

Many issues can cause tension within a church. People have conflicts over values and goals. They disagree over issues of power and authority. Conflicts can also arise because people are discouraged and morale is low. These can undermine unity within the congregation. The small church is no more exempt from these issues than a large church. There are issues, however, to which a smaller congregation is more susceptible.

Conflicts because of cultural tensions

In the past, small churches, especially those in rural areas, were a homogeneous group unified around established cultural norms and values reflecting the homogeneous nature of the whole community. In recent years, however, there has been a dramatic shift in rural areas. People moving back into rural areas from urban areas create the potential for cultural tensions when traditional rural values and culture collide with urban values and culture. This not only affects relationships within the community, but it also affects relationships in the church.

Congregations become involved in tensions over music, versions of the Bible, dress codes, and other cultural differences. Concerns that are cultural become biblical issues when the division between cultural values and biblical values becomes clouded. When tensions arise, people not only disagree, but also see the opposition as being liberal or legalistic, and thus ungodly.

Conflicts also develop over nonreligious issues such as the environment, land-use policies, and other political issues being debated within the community. These political hot potatoes not only dominate the political landscape, but they also infiltrate the church. People on opposite ends of the political arena may be sitting on the same pew on Sunday. The tensions they experience in the secular world create tensions within the congregation and affect the congregation’s interaction and involvement with the secular community.

As these opinions collide, the church can provide reconciliation within the congregation and community. The church can have a significant witness, not by taking sides in the cultural battles, or remaining indifferent to them, but by demonstrating the ministry of reconciliation between people and pointing people to spiritual reconciliation with God (2 Corinthians 5:18–21).

Tribal warfare

Quite often a person or family within a small church becomes the tribal chief. This individual or family, because of past involvement, possess significant authority and influence in the church. This person may be in an official position of authority such as on the board, or he may not hold any recognized position. His influence, however, significantly controls the decisions and direction of the church. The congregation looks up to him.

Conflict arises in a small church when the tribal chief’s authority and influence are challenged. Often the challenge comes from the pastor as he finds himself at odds with this individual over the decisions and direction of the church. The result is tribal warfare in the congregation.

When the conflict is between the pastor and the tribal chief, people often will not openly oppose the pastor, but they will begin to withdraw from ministry positions and from financially supporting the church. In many cases, when the tribal chief conflicts with the pastor, the rest of the congregation will support the tribal chief and the pastor becomes isolated from the church and is eventually forced to resign.
Change

Change inevitably leads to conflict, even when the change is unavoidable. Change creates a conflict with the past as the church seeks to move forward to the future. Small churches have often been criticized for being rigid and unwilling to change. While this at times is true, in most cases people are willing to change, but they do not want to be forced into a change they do not understand or do not perceive as beneficial to themselves and to the church. When making a change creates a problem, most often it is not a reflection of the people’s attitude toward change, but the way the leader has introduced and handled the change.

Because the small church is relationally driven, people are not willing to embrace changes that may negatively affect relationships within the congregation. They will not embrace a change that is perceived to destroy a relational connection with past and present members who have built the church. For example, the church may resist changing the pews even though the old pews are terribly uncomfortable because John, who was a founder of the church, purchased the pews. For them, the issue is not the discomfort they feel during a service. The pews are a testimony to the heritage John left the church. Changing the pews would destroy the visible and tangible testimony of that heritage.

When making changes, the pastor must determine what the relational connections are and how to maintain them during the process. In the case of the pews, it may mean placing a plaque on the new pews that recognizes John and his contribution to the church.

Personalities

People disagree because people have different personalities. Some people enjoy country music, some enjoy classical music, and some enjoy contemporary music. Some people like red carpet, some prefer green, and some want no carpet at all. A church of 75 people has 75 different personalities. In a small church, people freely express their preferences and desires. While people may develop skills to work through the personality differences, there are times when those differences clash profoundly. Individuals become hurt and angry if they interpret the rejection of their ideas as a rejection of themselves. What seems to be a minor disagreement becomes a full-blown war as individuals fight for their personal identity.

While pastors encourage people to live out their faith as Paul challenges us in Philippians 2, placing the needs of others above their own rarely happens. People remain self-serving rather than self-sacrificing due to their uncontrolled carnal nature. Leaders must foster an atmosphere where people value the differences they have and realize that the strength of the church is not found in the homogeneity of the group, but in the diversity of the group, both in giftedness and personality.

Resolving Conflict Within The Small Church

Conflict in itself is not wrong or necessarily destructive. What is wrong and what causes the destruction of relationships is how people respond to conflict. The key to dealing with conflict is not to avoid it, but to properly resolve it. Many resources are available that can assist the pastor and board in conflict resolution.1 The following issues are relevant to resolving conflict in the small church.

Personal interaction

Because the small church is relationally driven, the first and most crucial element of conflict resolution is personal and direct interaction with the other person. Many conflicts between two people can be handled by a personal phone call or visit. The pastor can serve as an informal mediator between the two parties, helping them understand one another and come to a common and agreeable solution. The foundation of this approach to problem solving is the relationship the pastor has with the two people. If a pastor develops solid relationships with his people, they will respect and welcome his involvement in the situation. If the pastor, however, remains aloof and distant from his congregation, his involvement will be seen as an intrusion and cause the conflict to escalate. When issues arise between people that cause tension, the pastor should be able to go to them, listen and assess the issue, and provide suggestions for a quick and fair resolution. In a small church, the pastor is quickly aware of conflicts and usually has a positive, personal relationship with the people involved. This relationship provides opportunities for pastoral involvement in conflict resolution.

Board intervention

If the conflict affects a group of individuals, the whole congregation, or if the pastor becomes involved in the conflict, then the board must be included in the resolution process. The issue may be minor, and it may be one the pastor can address. But if the conflict is on a church issue, the board needs to be aware of it.

The board can provide prayer support for the people involved and emotional and spiritual support for the pastor as he seeks to bring about the resolution. It is a mistake for a pastor to make decisions that affect the congregation without first communicating to the board. The pastor then becomes the center of the conflict and is without any support. If the pastor has communicated clearly with the board and is acting on decisions that were jointly made, the board will unite and support the pastor even when people are critical.

Active intervention

A small church has a tendency to overlook conflict and sweep it under the carpet. This does not bring resolution, but creates subversive hostility. The people involved begin to develop bitterness and anger toward each other. When tensions arise, it is important for the pastor and board to become actively involved in making sure the issues are resolved.

To resolve the problems, the pastor and board chairman need to first meet with the individuals involved and determine the issues that gave rise to the hostilities. Second, once the issues are identified and clarified, then the pastor and board need to meet to discuss the problem and the kind of intervention needed. Third, in many cases the pastor and the board need to meet with the people involved to help them find a solution to the problem. When meeting with the individuals, the board should try to find a solution that both parties can support. Once a solution has mutual support, the people involved need to be asked to make a covenant with the other party stating that they will work toward the solution. Finally, once both parties agree to the solution, it is the responsibility of the board, not just the pastor, to hold the people accountable by ensuring that the agreement is lived out.

Preventing Conflict In The Small Church

While all conflict cannot and should not be avoided, many conflicts within the small church can be prevented. Many tensions can develop, not because of sinful behavior, but because pastors fail to communicate clearly and learn how to work with others.

Working with the tribal chief

Pastors can avoid being entangled in controversy by learning to work with the tribal chief of the congregation. Remember, this individual has considerable influence in the church. A pastor sometimes wrongly assumes that the tribal chief disagrees with his ideas because he is carnal and power driven. In most cases, however, the tribal chief has risen to the rank he holds because of his faith and long-term involvement in the church. A tribal chief often provides the spiritual stability small churches need during changes in pastoral leadership.

Because small churches tend to experience rapid turnover in pastoral leadership, people in the church do not always look to the pastor to provide the stability needed to see the church through difficult times. Rather, the tribal chief is the stabilizing influence. When a pastor seeks to unseat a tribal chief, he finds himself not only at odds with the tribal chief, but at odds with the congregation. When the church becomes unsettled because the pastor and the tribal chief have entered into conflict, the people will not look to the pastor for stability and security, but will turn to the tribal chief.

If a pastor desires to have influence in the growth and stability of the congregation, he must learn to work side by side with the tribal chief, gaining his trust and support. When the pastor enlists the support of the tribal chief for a new ministry or a change in ministry, the entire congregation will readily adopt the idea. They will no longer see the change as a threat to the stability of the church.

Orchestrate change carefully

Most change results in conflict as the desired new methods clash with the established old methods. As a result, change involves a loss as well as a threat to the stability of the church. This is especially critical to a church that is struggling to exist. Even though the change may be necessary for the church to remain viable, people fear that the change may be the final action that pushes the church over the edge.

When a pastor seeks to make changes within a small church, it is important to orchestrate the change in a way that minimizes the threat and loss to the congregation. This involves clearly communicating why the change is necessary, communicating both the positive and negative effects the change may have, and then allowing people the freedom to accept or reject the change. It is important to gain the people’s consent and support when seeking approval for a change. The people need to give their support to the proposed, otherwise it will not be effective.

Maintain communication

Pastors often create tension because they assume everyone has heard and understood what has been communicated. Conflict usually arises because pastors have under-communicated rather than over-communicated. The rule of thumb is: the more significant the issue and the more it affects congregational life, the more pastors must communicate clearly and continually what is happening and why. This is especially true in the small church. The people want to know what is going on in every aspect of the ministry. The adage, “communicate on a need to know basis,” does not work in the small church. Communication in a small church is as critical and necessary as it is in a larger congregation, perhaps even more so. The people are interested in the church’s ministry and have a need to know.

Conclusion

Conflict is a reality in every church, whether it is large or small. The task of pastoral leadership is not to eradicate every conflict in the church, but to help people resolve the conflicts in a way that honors Christ, protects the people, and manifests love within the congregation. To achieve this, the pastor of a small church must be proactive in conflict resolution. Too often, pastors assume that love will override the conflict because a small church is relationally driven and enjoys close interpersonal relationships. This is often not the case.

Unresolved conflict becomes the seedbed of dissension and division and can destroy the closeness of the church and undermine its ministry. Pastors need to be active in assisting people to communicate openly and honestly about disagreements and to work toward mutually agreeable solutions.

When the board becomes involved in the resolution, the effects of the tension on the whole congregation will be minimized. When the congregation knows the board is united, they are more willing to remain on the sidelines rather than become involved in the dispute. Furthermore, when they see the issue being resolved by the board, they are less likely to become stressed by the crisis. Instead, they will remain confident that God is at work in the church.

When pastors resolve conflict in a godly manner and communicate clearly with the board, they maintain a spiritually healthy and vibrant church even in the midst of disagreements. Conflict does not need to destroy the ministry of the pastor or the church. It can become a springboard for spiritual growth as people learn to communicate clearly, love unconditionally, and forgive completely. It is not the absence of conflict that distinguishes a loving church, but the resolution of it. When pastors successfully resolve conflict within the church, it distinguishes the church from an unloving world where bitterness, anger, and hostilities destroy relationships. When the people in the church love their enemies, accept one another in spite of their differences, and resolve their disagreements, then all men will know that they are Christ’s disciples from the love they have for one another (John 13:35).
Endnote

1. Norman Shawchuck, How To Manage Conflict in the Church, vol. 1and 2 (Glendale Heights, Ill.: Spiritual Growth Resources, 1984). Also, Edward G. Dobson, Speed B. Leas, Marshall Shelly, Mastering Conflict and Controversy(Portland, Oregon: Multnomah Press, 1992).

Originally published in Enrichment Journal Spring 2005 http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/

The Purpose of Leadership: The Call to Transformational Ministry - Part Two

Part Two

By Glenn Daman

If the purpose of our ministry is transformational in nature, the question confronting us is whom we are to transform and how do we go about achieving the process. We have repeated stated and implied that ministry is intrinsically simple, but it is not easy. This is especially true regarding the task of influencing and impacting people’s lives. In ministry we can become so focused upon programs and structures that we loose sight of the real object of our ministry. In many cases we fall prey to the proverbial error of the tail wagging the dog. The reason is because we become muddled in our thinking regarding the focus of our ministry. When this happens ministry becomes confusingly complex and thorny. The result in the small church is that we start trying to duplicate what worked elsewhere. We attempt to become the mini-mega-church. Instead of developing a ministry that is tailored to our specific small church location and environment, we try to force an external model upon the church. The result is not only frustration in the ministry of the pastor and people, but a failure to develop a truly transformational ministry.

Any size church can have a powerful, transformational ministry whether it is small or large. Because the focus of ministry is transformational rather than merely numerical growth, the size of the church is never an indicator of the quality of ministry it might have nor is it a barometer of the influence in can have in changing people’s loves. However, to make a difference for the cause of Christ we need to have a clear understanding of whom we are to influence and how we have a transformational impact upon them.

We are to transform people by being a shepherd.

One of the pictures used to present the pastoral ministry is that of a shepherd (from which the term “pastor” is derived). This term used by Paul in Ephesians 4:11 had its roots in the Old Testament understanding of Biblical leadership in relationship to both God and the human leaders of the people. God was the shepherd who cared for his people, protecting and providing for them (Psalm 68:7; Psalm 23; Isaiah 40:11). This correlation between the leader of the people and the shepherding model finds it parallel throughout the Ancient Near East. With its close ties to an agrarian milieu, both within the language and culture the king was regarded as the shepherd of the people. Thus it was easy for the Old Testament writers to speak not only of God being the shepherd of Israel, but also referring any individual who was designated by God to be the leader of the people of God. This imagery further finds expression in Christ’s own picture of his care of his people. He referred to himself as the good shepherd and his people as his flock. While the terms “Elder” and “overseer” describe the position of leadership within the church it was the term shepherd that served to describe the function of leadership (see 1 Peter 5:1-4; Acts 20:28-29). This picture provides us a clearly perspective of the responsibility we have as pastors. Rather than being leaders who are visionaries, we are shepherds that care. As E. Glenn Wagner points out, “I wonder: If I came to a new church and showed the people that I was a shepherd, that I cared for them-but did not yet have a vision for them-where would that congregation be in a year? Worst case? I might be pasturing a church of forty or fifty people because my abilities and gifts wouldn’t carry me beyond that. But is that so wrong? …Doesn’t that little church deserve a shepherd who models Christ? On the other hand, where would that church be if I came as a leader which great vision but no shepherd’s heart? I think the latter scenario could be more destructive than the former.” (Wagner, Escape from Church, Inc, p.148). While having a vision and being a leader is beneficial to ministry, it is not the core of our ministry. Instead we are called to provide care for the people. A shepherd is one who understands the people and tailors the ministry to minister to the needs of people.

An effective shepherds cares individually for the sheep.

Being effective within the pastoral role involves more than overseeing the spiritual well being of the whole congregation. It also involves providing individual care and guidance for everyone within the congregation. The danger is that we can depersonalize ministry to the point that we are leading the congregation but not ministering to the individuals within the church. However, Christ himself models individual care by giving personal attention to each person within the body of Christ. Christ states that a shepherd is one who “calls his own sheep by name” (John 10:3). This implies a personal relationship in which there is intimate knowledge of the special needs and care necessary to bring healing and health to the each sheep. Furthermore, the word “calls” “expresses personal address rather than general or authoritative invitation” (Westcott, Gospel of St. John, p. 152). This is further highlighted by Christ’s statement in verse 14 and 15 that “I know my sheep and my sheep know me-just as the Father knows me and I know the Father.” Just as there is personal interaction and involvement between the Father and the Son, so there is personal interaction between Christ and his followers.

As pastors of small churches we often decry our lack of resources and our limitations within the church and within our own giftedness. What we fail to recognize is that we already possess the greatest asset necessary for effective, transformational ministry: That being a personal knowledge of the people we serve. Because the church is small, everyone within the church has direct access to us, and we have a personal knowledge of what is going on in their lives. We know everyone’s strengths and weakness, we know the struggles and triumphs they face. We know the difficulties that they are confronted with each day. This knowledge becomes the basis for effectiveness in ministry as we can personally encounter them in their daily lives. We can have a personalized ministry, one that ministers specifically and particularly to them. Our ministry is not generically conducted with a “one size fits all” approach. Rather it is custom-made, tailored to the individual. As we interact with people we can apply scripture to specific situations they are facing. This is not done in a “formal counseling” session, but over informal interaction over a cup of coffee or a breakfast at a local diner.

An effective shepherd cares for the needs of the sheep.

When people enter the church they do come from a spiritual vacuum where they are untouched by the spiritual perceptions permeating our culture. Nor do they enter into the church spiritually whole. The reality remains that everyone (ourselves included) enters the church spiritually scarred and wounded. They have been damaged by the pains and trials of spiritual battles. They have been marred by the effects of sin in the past. Like Peter, after his denial of Christ, they wonder if God could ever accept and love them again. However, perhaps the greatest tragedy is that often they are not even aware of the spiritual scars that plague their life. The greatest deception of the evil one is the deception that we are not in desperate need of God’s infinite grace and forgiveness. We believe that we are inherently good and acceptable before a righteous God. We have been taught so long that we are to have a healthy self-image that we have forgotten that before we can think rightly about ourselves, we first must think rightly about God. The result is not only spiritual disaster but also emotional upheaval. So people struggle with their personal identity, with depression as they are unable to cope or understand the struggles they face, with anger as the actions of others seem to thwart their own search for personal identity. The apostle Paul summarizes the reality of many when he writes, “Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry. Because of these, the wrath of God is coming. You used to walk in these ways, in the life you once lived. But now you must rid yourselves of all things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips” (Colossians 3:5-8). Paul recognized that there remains often a dichotomy between the way people are to live because of their new life in Christ and the way in which they are currently conducting their lives. He realized that just because we are called to live Christ-like does not mean that we will live Christlike.

It is this discrepancy that challenges the pastor to shepherd his people. We are the avenue through which God often uses to bring his healing suave to the spiritual and emotional wounds of people (see Ephes 4:11-16). To do this, we must “feed the sheep,” that is we must constantly be communicating the truth of God in a manner that addresses and heals the spiritual struggles we face. The way we bring this healing is not through programs but through the proclamation of the word of God. When we are serving small churches, especially in isolated rural areas, we often do not have the counseling resources to which we can refer people for help. While there is a great deal of value to psychology and it is a discipline that we should not hesitate to utilize, we also can have confidence that we have an invaluable resource already in our possession by which we can bring spiritual and emotional health to people.

This is not to say that the use of professional counselors should not be utilized when it is available. In the ongoing debate concerning the value and place of psychology to address the emotional needs of people we often forget that it is not a case of either/or, but an issue of both/and. When psychological services are available we should not hesitate to utilize them. However, even in addressing the emotional needs of people there are also spiritual needs that need to be addressed. This is the role we fulfill as shepherds. A shepherd not only mends the broken but provides oversight in helping people find other resources to address individual needs and then follows up to make sure the person is on the way to emotional and spiritual health. The advantage we have as shepherds of small churches is we can often identify individuals who are in emotional and spiritual stress and we can intervene before the individual comes to a point of severe crisis

An effective shepherd protects the sheep.

Spiritual wolves are the constant threat to the sheep. Consequently the shepherd is to be continually on vigil least these wolves infiltrate the sheep and decimate the flock. Paul warns of this danger in his writing to those who desire to be shepherds of God’s flock (Acts 20:29). The church lives in a hostile area where the battle we face is incessant requireing perpetual vigilance. There remains the relentless threat that individuals and false teaching will infiltrate the church and seek to destroy the health of the church. This warning relates to the false teachers prevalent in a fallen world. These false teachers will corrupt both doctrine and practical living. They will distort the truth of scripture and the understanding of God and his redemptive plan, and they will corrupt godly behavior in order to prevent people from being transformed into the image of Christ. The challenge we face in the church is the challenge of not only doctrinal integrity but Christ-centered consistency in daily practice. One of the strengths of the small church has been its adherence to doctrinal truth. The small church has often remained a stalwart in upholding the doctrinal history of the church. However, in its adherence to correct theology it has often fallen prey to the same error as the church at Ephesus which maintained doctrinal purity and diligent activity, but had lost touch with its daily practice. It had strongly opposed the Nicolaitans and their heretical theology, but lost connection with the daily relationship with God (Revelation 2:1-7). Those in the small church have long upheld the doctrines of the church but overlooked the greater danger of no longer having a biblical worldview that governs all aspects of life. We have become practical schizophrenics who believe one thing, but practice another. As shepherds it is not only our task to correct bad theology, it is also our task to correct corrupt lifestyles. To guard against spiritual wolves is to be vigilant concerning both those who teach heresy and those who practice it. When we become professionals rather than preachers, where we become driven by crowds rather than truth we run the risk of teaching what is popular rather than what is transformational. When this happens we are no longer shepherds but hired hands who abandon the sheep to avoid the trauma of confronting wolves (John 10:11-13).

However, error not only infiltrates the church from a secular culture bent on rebelling against God, it also comes from those who are within the church. Paul goes on to warn, “Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them” (Acts 20:30). These are individual who are more concerned about position and their own standing within the church rather than the health of the congregation. They promote their own agenda rather than prayerfully seeking God’s direction for the church. They reduce the church to a political struggle for power and authority within the congregation. While in the small church the “tribal chief” is often one who has a deep love for God and a passion for the well-being of the church, and the wise pastor learns to work with them, there are times when their position within the church and their desire to maintain their authority becomes more important than what is best for the church. Sometimes some of the most difficult tasks we face in the small church is confronting the tribal chief and loosening authority from them. While this should always be done carefully and under girded with prayer, there are times that it must be done even at the risk of our position within the church. To be godly shepherds requires that we protect the congregation from those who are within the church who lead the church away from the truth and hamstring the ministry. While this is never easy and sometimes extremely painful, it may be necessary to be faithful to our calling to be shepherds.

An effective shepherd sacrifices for the sheep.

When we entered ministry we did so with optimism and a sense of excitement. We had an idealistic view where people would be thrilled by our messages and excited about our programs. With the command of Jesus to “feed my lambs” in our mind, we entered with a serene pastoral image of a shepherd lovingly watching over the flock as the little lambs frolic at his feet. It does not take long for this idealistic view to be shattered in the pain of rejection, discouragement and disappointment. Instead of a flock of sheep, we often wonder if we were given a herd of stubborn mules, who have the furiousness of wolves, the spiritual sensitivity of a baboon and the speed of a turtle.

Not only are we confronted with the pain of dealing with broken people, but also we ourselves are often broken by our own inadequacies and failures. The demands of ministry always exceed our capabilities and resources. We face the difficulties of trying to heal conflicts, deal with emotionally disturbed people (some of whom may even be on the board), and free people caught in the snares of sinful behaviors. We are confronted with our inadequacies as we counsel couples who have deep-rooted bitterness towards one another, assist parents whose child is rejecting every value and ethos they treasure, and help someone through the trauma of terminal cancer. In all this we are painfully aware of our own sinfulness and weaknesses. At times we stand in the pulpit knowing full well that we are not practicing the very message we are preaching. In our despair we blame our education and complain that the seminary or college did not adequately train us for the problems we face. But the reality is that the failure is not the seminary or college, for no matter how much training we received we could never be fully prepared for the trials we face.

What we failed to realize as we enter ministry is that to be a shepherd and transform people there would be an incredible cost that we would have to pay. When Jeremiah complained to God about the wickedness of the people and the treatment he received, God reminded him, “If you have raced with men on foot and they have worn you out, how can you compete with horses? If you stumble in safe country, how will you manage in the thickets by the Jordan” (Jeremiah 12:5). In other words, “If you can’t take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.” What we forget is that when God called us to transform people there was a sacrifice that had to be made. Christ realized this when he stated, “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep” (John 10:11). What distinguishes the genuine shepherd from the hired hand is the degree that the shepherd places the welfare and well-being of the sheep above his own. The genuine shepherd is willing to pay the price in protecting the sheep. Paul recognized the cost when he described the trials and struggles he faced in ministry (2 Corinthians 4:7-12). His motivation was that “All this is for your benefit, so that the grace that is reaching more and more people may cause thanksgiving to overflow to the glory of God” (verse 15).

If we desire to change people and transform individuals into disciples for Christ, then we must be willing to sacrifice our time, energies and talents so that others may realize the grace of God operating in their lives. It requires that we sacrifice our dreams of “success” (i.e. serving larger churches or growing churches in highly visible locations) to minister to a small congregation in isolated communities. It means that we recognize that the church of thirty is just as valuable to God as the church of 3000 five blocks down the street. God is just as concerned about the growth of the individual as he is the growth of the whole. In our market driven, mega-size society, what we often fail to understand is that God values each individual and that he sacrificed himself not just for the masses of people who would become the church, but also for each individual who would become part of the church. Since we are to follow him and pattern our ministry after his, we should do no less. The power to transform people corresponds to the amount we are willing to sacrifice for them. God did not call us to a life of ease, but to a life of pain, sorrow, and difficulty in order that in the end he might receive the glory.

An Effective shepherd searches for the sheep.

The picture Christ desires to present of his own ministry is not that of a shepherd who oversees the well-being of the 99, but the shepherd who leaves the 99 in order to search diligently for the wayward one (Matthew 18:12-14). While this statement makes for a wonderful picture of a shepherd carrying his lamb back to the flock, what we often overlook is that the context is not of someone who got lost, but someone who has become ensnared in sin and is rebellion against God (verses 15-20). This is not a lamb that lost his way, but one that deliberately went his own way. Perhaps even more troubling is God’s condemnation of the shepherds in Ezekiel 34:1-10. His chief indictment against them was that “you have not strengthened the weak or healed the sick or bound up the injured. You have not brought back the strays or searched for the lost” (verse 4). To care for people means that we are diligent in our care even of those who are in rebellion against God and causing us the most difficulties in ministry. We are not satisfied merely to look at the number of people we have in our pews or how many new individuals have come in the front door. We are also deeply concerned about the people who are leaving the church, who are no longer attending and we go out of our way to bring them back into fellowship. As Paul writes in 2 Corinthians 4:28-29, “Besides everything else, I face daily the pressure of my concern for all the churches. Who is weak, and I do not feel weak? Who is led into sin, and I do not inwardly burn?” To be effective as a shepherd requires that we are not content when people leave the church, not because we have “lost a costumer,” but because the person has stepped outside of fellowship with God. Consequently we are willing to go and diligently and lovingly seek to bring them back into a right relationship with God.

The Purpose of Leadership: The Call to Transformational Ministry - Part One

Part One

By Glenn Daman

To understand leadership we need to understand its fundamental purpose. It has been rightly said that if you do not know where you are going, you will probably end up somewhere else. In other words, if we do not have a clear idea of what our goals are, then we will never have a clear idea of what we are to do. This is especially true concerning leadership. How we understand the purpose of leadership will determine how we define the task of leadership and how we go about performing our responsibilities. Our purpose defines our goals, our goals define our priorities and our priorities influence how we define our responsibilities. If our purpose as leaders is organizational, then our goals will be to have an efficient organization. Our priorities, then, will be determined by what contributes to an efficiently run organization. Our responsibilities will ultimately be organizational in nature. However, if, our purpose as leaders is spiritual in nature, then our goals must be spiritually defined.

The spiritual purpose of a leader is to bring people into a personal, vibrant and real relationship with Christ.

Paul describes the purpose of his ministry in Col 1:28-29, “We proclaim him, admonishing and teaching everyone with all wisdom, so that we may present everyone perfect in Christ. To this end I labour, struggling with all his energy, which so perfectly works in me.” For Paul, the purpose governing all his activities and efforts was the spiritual transformation of people. This defines our purpose as well. Since it is our function to bring people to Christ, our goal is to lead in a manner that brings transformation in the lives of people.


People, to enter into a vital relationship with Christ, must be radically changed. First they must be changed redemptively, that is they must be changed from being spiritual dead to spiritually alive. Second, they must be changed sanctificationally. Even though they have a relationship with Christ, there must be the ongoing process by which they begin to manifest and reveal Christ’s character within them. This task, while resting ultimately upon the initiative of the Holy Spirit, involves the work of spiritual leaders. Paul states emphatically that God gave leaders to the church for the purpose of assisting the church in this sanctificational process (Eph 4:11-13).

The goal of leadership is transformational in nature.

A spiritual leader does not lead passively, merely imparting knowledge about God in the hopes that people might respond. Instead, we are to aggressively and actively seek to influence and impact people for the cause of Christ. Too often, in the church, our preaching and ministry has followed how we present theology. The reason theology has lost its power and influence in the church is because it was often presented without a transformational goal. Systematic theology, which is the study of God, too often was given without the call to respond properly to God. It addressed the mind, but never addressed the will. It may have challenged how we think about God, but it neglected to challenge how we live before God. So people regarded (wrongfully and tragically so) theology as dead orthodoxy rather than necessary for vibrant spirituality. We face the same danger in the church regarding leadership. When we start to view leadership merely organizationally (i.e. vision casting, administration, programs, etc.), we lose the very soul of leadership. The task of leadership is not to challenge the mind of people with biblical facts (although this is necessary), nor is it to guide the church organization, it is to seek to challenge people with transformation through the proclamation and application of biblical truth (see Acts 2:40; 26:3,29; 2 Cor. 10:1,2; Gal 4:12). When we lead the church without seeking to transform the church the end result is that we render leadership impotent and stagnate. The effect is that people become cynical and apathetic towards leaders.

The Necessity for a Transformational Ministry

Crucial in our understanding is the realization that all transformation is ultimately the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the individual and congregation. In the end, we must always recognize that we have done nothing worthy of recognition and merit in changing people. All the credit must and will go to the work of a sovereign and gracious God working in the lives of people. However, equally crucial is the realization that God in his infinite wisdom and grace chooses to use us as leaders in the process for effecting change within the church and within people. We are to lead with a transformational goal simply because God calls us to this ministry, equips us for this ministry, empowers us in this ministry and uses us through this ministry. Being transformational in our task is critical because of the need for change in the lives of people. They do not come into the church spiritual whole. Instead, they enter the doors of our sanctuary spiritually and morally crippled and marred.

We are called to lead people in spiritual transformation.

The world in which we live is in a crisis of confusion concerning the character of God. Like the paganism and polytheism that tainted the Ancient Near Eastern world, so our society is influenced by corrupted views of God. The names have changed, but the false gods they represent have not. Instead of Baal we have New Age philosophy, instead of Re we have Eastern Mysticism with its worship of creation, instead of Asherah we have the worship of the super-models and the sexuality they represent. We have consumerism, materialism, humanism, Yoga, meditation and a host of other philosophies that spew forth the same cesspool of idolatry represented by the gods of the Canaanites. Like the Israelites in the times of the prophets, so our culture has been indoctrinated with the teaching of the modern idols resulting in the incorporation of these even into our own view of spirituality. We live in an age where there is a renewed interest in spirituality. However, this interest has not brought a clarification of biblical truth in the minds of people, but corruption as truth has become relative and God has become limited in his own being (as expressed by Process Theology). The result is a clouded view of God and a confused understanding of the nature and being of God. Like the prophets of Scripture, our task as leaders is to call people from the confusion of polytheism to the clarity of the monotheistic God of Scriptures. Like Elijah on Mount Carmel we are to challenge people to choose between the God of the Bible and the gods of the culture. We are to confront faulty notions of God and rebuild people’s perspective with a right understanding of God. Transformation begins, not with changing people’s perspective of themselves, but with changing people’s perspective of God. Even though we know our people well, even in the small church we should never assume that they have a right understanding of God. Many people who come to church Sunday after Sunday, who have been raised in our congregations, who wouldn’t dream of reading any other Bible but the King James Version, have idolatrous views of God. As Stephen Charnock points out, it is not the absolute denial of God that is at the heart of atheism; it is the denial or doubting of some of the rights of his nature (The Existence and Attributes of God, 1:24). Idolatry is not just the denial of the God of Scripture in favor of another; it also is the misrepresentation of him. If we are not actively seeking to correct people’s view of God, then we deny the exclusiveness of God and the vitality of his nature and we become idolaters ourselves.

We are called to lead people in moral transformation

With the distortion of our view of comes a distortion of our view of morality. It should not surprise us that we see a moral decline in our culture for it is the inevitable result of post-modernity. When truth becomes unknowable, morality becomes indefinable (1 Timothy 1:10-11). Morality and ethics are further undermined when the focus shifts from personal character to personal achievement. As Millard Erickson points out, “The effect of this modernization is to create two separate spheres, the public and the private. The one world is defined by personal relations, and is made up of small, insulated islands of home, family and personal friends. The other is defined by the functions within the capitalistic machine. In this great system of production and distribution, persons are valued not for who they are or what they believe or hold as values, but for what the do” (Milliard Erickson, Postmodernizing the Faith, p. 30). The tragedy is that what is true in our culture is equally true in the church. No longer is a leader evaluated by what the values he or she represents, but by the achievements they accomplish. As long as the pastor is well liked, communicates effectively from the pulpit and “builds” the church, people are willing to overlook significant moral and ethical weaknesses.

Along with this moral decline has come a whole new set of moral questions. Genetic engineering, artificial reproduction technology, doctor assisted suicide, right to die and a host of other medical ethical questions brought about by the advancement of science have raised a whole new set of moral issues. Other issues, while long present within different subcultures are now become prevalent within the mainstream of society. Issues such as gambling (now supported by the state), pornography (both soft and hardcore), civil disobedience, drug abuse (both alcohol and stimulants), divorce and a host of other social issues are no longer outside the church but present within the church. We live in a society where self-centeredness and manipulation are encouraged (for an example see the proliferation of the ‘reality TV’ shows where people are willing to hurt, embarrass and manipulate others for their own gain) and humility and community are abandoned. Just because people come to church does not mean they leave the cultural morality (or immorality) behind to embrace a biblical morality and ethos.

It is in this world that the leader must lead. As we lead we must not lead people to transform their morality by merely confronting cultural vices; we must challenge people to be completely different. As Carl Henry points out, “Christianity is qualitatively different or it has nothing distinctive to offer the world.” He goes on to point out, “We need to do more than to sponsor a Christian subculture. We need a Christian counterculture that sets itself alongside the secular rivals and publishes openly the difference that belief in God and His Christ makes in the arenas of thought and action. We need Christian countermoves that commend a new climate, countermoves that penetrate the public realm” (Carl Henry, “Twilight of a Great Civilization, p. 44). The transformation that we are to call people to is to be complete and entire, affect the very core and essence of the personhood. Concerning the transformation that is to take place, Paul writes that we are to be a new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17). This is not merely a restoration of the person by the Holy Spirit to a pre-fall condition, but a complete transformation penetrating the very nature of the individual. The result is that we are to thinking differently and have a completely different mindset (Romans 8:5-7).

Becoming a Transformational Leader.

Inherent within our call as small church leaders is our calling to transform people. While it is ultimately the work of the Holy Spirit in accomplishing this transformation we need to recognize that we have the distinct privilege of being used by the Holy Spirit in challenging peoples lives. To be one who is used by the Holy Spirit it is important that we be available for him to use. This availability is not only in our inward willingness to serve, but how we develop as leaders.

1. To be a transformational leader we need to be cultural students

To effectively speak to the issues of people and the misconceptions they have, we need to understand the culture in which we live. We are the product of our culture. It influences and governs our thinking far more than we realize. A person who was raised in an American culture thinks and reacts radically different than a person raised in an Islamic culture. Even within a specific culture, there are a divergent number of subcultures that affect the way people live and the moral values they embrace. An individual living in an inner-city subculture will view life differently from a person raised in a rural setting. A person from the south has different values than a person in the northwest. Where our culture embraces and supports biblical values we can embrace and encourage them as leaders. Where our culture remains neutral, we can and should remain neutral (for example in issues of dress and styles). However where our culture violates biblical values and teachings we must confront and challenge them from a biblical perspective. To distinguish between these different levels of cultural involvement, we need to have a thorough and Spirit guided knowledge of our culture. We need to strive to step outside our culture and honestly assess our culture from a biblical perspective. While it is ultimately impossible to be culturally neutral (we are always influenced by our culture), we must strive to be culturally critical, ever re-examining our cultural expectations and values by the standards of Scripture.


2. We must have a clear perspective of God’s design for individuals, the church, and the community

To lead effectively we need to understand what God desires to transform people and the church into. This perspective is determined from Scripture as we seek to understand what God desires to accomplish within the lives of people. As the leaders, we are to be continually searching and examining the Scriptures to determine what God wants to church to be and how the church is to be involved within the community.

3. We must be transformed

We cannot lead where we have not gone, we cannot transform others if we ourselves are not at the same time being changed. The greatest challenge we face in ministry, and the most important ingredient to effective leadership is not what we do in relationship to the church, but what we are allowing the Holy Spirit to do in relationship to our own life. The disciplines of study, prayer, self-examination and personal discipleship are central to the pastoral responsibility. We may be able to run an organization without prayer and an intimate relationship with God, but we cannot transform others. If we are not being transformed we will inevitably fall prey to the same snare that captured the leaders of Israel, who became more concerned about their own well being than they did about spiritually nurturing the people (Jeremiah 23:1-2, 16-18).