[blue-duncan]

I get a sense of nostalgia in the article, a longing for something in the writer's past for a small group with a "shepherd" who can manage and personally care for the flock. The problem with that, I see, is he would not accept the small group model for shepherding. I don't get the sense he really buys into the gifts given to the members of the church along with the offices. His use of Paul as an example of a "hands on" shepherd, I think, is misplaced. Paul prayed for the churches but when he was present and in his letters, he is constantly reminding and exhorting leaders to raise up new leaders who would be able to raise up new leaders who could do the work of the ministry. Even the disciples in the early church appointed Spirit-filled people to do the hands on ministry so they could spend their time in study, prayer and teaching. Neither Paul nor the disciples spent themselves doing everything in the church. Their goal was "to equip the saints to do the work of the ministry." But the traditional church model fights that principle.

[Corin Stormhands]

I get a sense of nostalgia in the article, a longing for something in the writer's past for a small group with a "shepherd" who can manage and personally care for the flock.

God delivered me from a situation like that. It had reached near cult status with the Pastor being everyone's shepherd. People didn't make a move - didn't change jobs, buy a house, go on vacation - without the Pastor's approval.

Sadly it was my home church, so it was hard to leave. But politics came along and I left when I was accused of backsliding because I did a lit drop instead of going to mow the Pastor's lawn (with all the other men from the church).