It is hard to argue with Joel’s excellent article concerning pastors being visionaries in their congregations, but I will do my best.
His argument, as I understand it, is that a pastor acts as the constant proclaimer in all areas of the church’s work to bring the focus back to, or remain on, the purpose for which the church was gathered in the first place. The focus is that “the Gospel of the Kingdom will be preached throughout the world as a testimony to all nations.” This goal comes to fruition as the church confesses, “I believe in the holy Christian church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting.”
In other words, what we would typically understand to be the proper purpose of the pastoral office is readily incorporated into the language of “vision casting.” After all, doesn’t a pastor see what the power of the Gospel can do in a congregation’s life? And indeed, he should be its champion where and when he can.
All this makes sense to me. However, there is something uneasy about using the language of being a “visionary” or “vision casting” for the pastoral office. It is an institutional language that already has a developed technical meaning, which is usually freighted with social and political aspirations far beyond the preaching of the Gospel. While I’m not saying that we should only use Biblical terminology, as if that were possible, the charge for a pastor to be a visionary in its normal contemporary usage has no Scriptural mandate. (Please don’t do the nonsense of citing Habakuk 2, which everyone rips out of context).
Perhaps our use of the language of “vision” for a given congregation is just a fancy corporate word for our personal hopes and dreams as we faithfully strive to serve the people. But they are, at the core, still our hopes and dreams. In this case, this is simply what all pastors do: we make choices, push agendas, calculate outcomes, and take risks to try and enact what we think is the best way to go forward. We don’t need to call ourselves “visionaries,” as if that lends any credence to what it is to be a pastor.
Another reason I resist this language is that it can (and often does) stroke the egos of the theologian of glory that lurks within us all. Every pastor’s conference I’ve ever attended has some vision-casting guru promising some great outcome for the Kingdom of God if only we get on board with their plan. Similarly, my official title is Rev., and while I will use that title regularly in writing, I sort of bristle at being called Reverend in public. I am not worthy of being revered, which is why most people call me Pastor, which I treasure as my role is serving. It also keeps me humble and focused on the smallness of my work.
I suppose what I’m getting at is that God’s vision marches forward through the dying and rising of his people. He does this great work through preachers. Sure, we can call them visionaries if we want to, but why? We already have good and well-tested titles for this. At least, that is the way I see it.
