Shepherding vs. Ranching: Part 1
In the last post I looked at these two definitions:
Dictionary Definitions:
Shepherding: To herd, guard, tend, or guide as or in the manner of a shepherd.
Ranching: To manage or work on a ranch.
I like the words used in shepherding: herd, guard, tend and guide. Where as a rancher manages or works.
So when I’m asked the question, “Are you a rancher or a shepherd?”, the implication for me is whether or not I want to manage people, or guide them. Managing people is indicative of larger groups, more of a hands off model of leadership and overseeing. Where as guiding and tending reminds me of a very personal hands on experience of walking through life and mentoring people. Because of this, ranchers oversee larger spaces of land and people, and shepherds tend to smaller areas and less people.
This is what I believe is underneath the questions, and the observations of the two metaphors.
A few more questions:
- When you think of the tasks of being a pastor, which metaphor is best?
- Which metaphor do you prefer in your church leadership?
- Can a pastor be both a shepherd and rancher? Or are they exclusive of one another? Why or why not?
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
Think about it in terms of a real ranch…
The bigger the ranch, the more shepherds (or cowboys) you need to handle the animals. The guy was the original shepherd becomes the de facto rancher.
Sometimes a great shepherd makes a bad rancher. Many a rancher would hate to get his hands dirty (especially if he’s spent several years outside of the “barn”).
I may be taking this metaphor a bit too far.
Point is, I think that this is why so many churches are adopting the role of the Executive Pastor (rancher). Many great preachers are just not managers – and they shouldn’t have to be.
A problem I’ve encountered far too many times has been called the Peter Principle. It says that people get promoted to their level of incompetency.
Great waiters don’t make great restaurant managers.
Great writers don’t make great publishers.
Great singers don’t make great producers.
Great preachers don’t make great church managers.
Some do. But I would dare say that the majority don’t.
Of course, Guiliani would say that the boss needs to know as much as possible about the way things work. Then let the people who know if better than you make it work.
Think about it in terms of a real ranch…
The bigger the ranch, the more shepherds (or cowboys) you need to handle the animals. The guy was the original shepherd becomes the de facto rancher.
Sometimes a great shepherd makes a bad rancher. Many a rancher would hate to get his hands dirty (especially if he’s spent several years outside of the “barn”).
I may be taking this metaphor a bit too far.
Point is, I think that this is why so many churches are adopting the role of the Executive Pastor (rancher). Many great preachers are just not managers – and they shouldn’t have to be.
A problem I’ve encountered far too many times has been called the Peter Principle. It says that people get promoted to their level of incompetency.
Great waiters don’t make great restaurant managers.
Great writers don’t make great publishers.
Great singers don’t make great producers.
Great preachers don’t make great church managers.
Some do. But I would dare say that the majority don’t.
Of course, Guiliani would say that the boss needs to know as much as possible about the way things work. Then let the people who know if better than you make it work.
Ryan…great comments. I like it. I like the idea of getting promoted to their level of incompetency.
And you are write. Some preachers can’t manage, etc.
I will see where this conversation takes us.
I’m not a great manager…or preacher. So I’m not sure where that leaves me
Hey Rhett,
I posted a quick comment on your blogsite, but I actually wanted to give you a few references and quotes from the book that I mentioned. It’s not only changed the way I think about food and eating, but also forced me to reconsider all so-called “pastoral” metaphors. I’ve also been worshipping here in Dublin at a Vineyard Church, so the idea of nourishment for a “flock” is much deeper for me as well. Because I think that there’s something about our culture that is more similar to the consumption/industrialization rubric. Line up the cows/sheep/whatever, feed em the feed, and trot em back out again. In the pastoral metaphor, the animals eat and roam where the food is. Rather than being industrial churches, we should be technologically organic. There’s a great quote from one of the leaders of the Vineyard UK “If you have scripture without the spirit, you dry up. If you have the Spirit without the scriptures, you blow up. But if you have both scriptures and the Spirit, you grow up.” I’ve been thinking that so often in my experiences we’ve been so busy trying to get people in the door or have coffee all the time, “earning the right to be heard” so to speak, that sometimes we leave out this really delicate balance…scripture (and the understanding of how to read it, instead of giving “answers” from it) and the Spirit (complete with gifting, prophetic worship, prayers for healing, etc.) So here is some “food” for thought from Pollan’s book, and I hope you’ve got what I’m saying not as criticism to all CM, but more of a desire of my heart for where to go. Consider these very “secular” thoughts to be metaphors for an agricultural metaphor of the Kingdom.
Michael Pollan. The Omnivore’s Dilemma
“Grass farmers grow animals — for meat, eggs, milk, and wool — but regard them as a part of a food chain in which grass is the keystone species, the nexus between the solar energy that powers every food chain and the animals we eat. “To be even more accurate,” Joel has said, “we should call ourselves sun farmers. The grass is just the way we capture the solar energy.” (ch 10, 188 – uk printing)
“‘See, the growth starts out real slow like this, but then after a few days it begins to zoom. That’s called ‘the blaze of growth,’ when the grass has recovered from the first bite, rebuilt its reserves and root mass, and really taken off. But after a while it slows down again, as the grass gets ready to flower and seed. It’s entering its period of senescence, when the grass begins to lignify [get woody] and becomes less palatable to the cow. What you want to do is graze a pasture at this point here at the very top of the blaze of growth. But what you never, ever want to do is violate the law of the second bite. You can’t let your cows take a second bite of a grass before it has had a chance to fully recover.”(189)
“the grazing of ruminants, when managed properly, actually builds new soil from the bottom up. Organic matter in a pasture also builds from the top down, as leaf litter and animal wastes break down on the surface, much as it does on a forest floor. But in a grassland decaying roots are the biggest source of new organic matter, and in the absence of grazers the soil-building process would be nowhere near as swift or productive.”(196)
“the efficiencies of natural systems flow from complexity and interdependence–by definition the very opposite of simplification. To achieve the efficiency represented by turning cow manure into chicken eggs and producing beef without chemicals you need at least two species (cows and chickens), but actually several more as well, including the larvae in the manure and the grasses in the pasture and the bacteria in the cows’ rumens. To measure the efficiency of such a complex system you need to count not only all the products it produces (meat, chicken, eggs), but also all the costs it eliminates: antibiotics, wormers, paraciticides, and fertilizers.”(214-215)
“Polyface Farm is built on the efficiencies that come from mimicking relationships found in nature and layering one farm enterprise over another on the same base of land. In effect, Joel is farming in time as well as in space–in four dimensions rather than three. He calls this intricate layering “stacking” and points out that “it is exactly the model God used in building nature”…He takes advantage of each species’ natural proclivities in a way that benefits not only that animal but other species as well. So instead of treating the chicken as a simple egg or protein machine, Polyface honors–and exploits–”the innate distinctive desires of a chicken”"(215)
“The great virtue of a diversified food economy, like a diverse pasture or farm, is its ability to withstand any shock.”(261)
As I said before, I strongly recommend the book.
Blessings, friend.
Katie
Hey Rhett,
As is often the times when we talk about issues, there is no clear answer. I think there has to be a delicate balance. There comes a point in your ministry where you hit a threshold. when you reach this point, you have to become hands off and delegate in a sense, trusting the people to make it happen.
At the same time, you have to have the mind and heart of a shepherd in that the people you entrust need to know that they are appreciated and that they count. Whenever they feel like the don’t matter, and are just carrying out “your” vision, then they “leave the ranch”. Not many people are able to strike or find that balance. Part of it, I think, is the fault of the leader. But also, I think part of it is the fault of the expectations of the masses.
This might be a whole other topic, but I think so often people look to the pastor for their “spiritual guidance and leadership”. I can’t help but wonder if this is a fair expectation to put on one person leading the local body? Why do we always look to the pastor for guidance, answers, and leadership? Didn’t the same Spirit that rested on Christ come down on us at Pentecost? I just think it will take a change of mindset on the “masses” to minister to each other and be content with that. I also think it will take a change of leadership by pastors to point out and lead people to this truth. It might mean having to not have their ego stroked as much…that’s hard for us leader types.
RO:
Nice post! Really like your thoughts. Lots of good things in there.
I definitely think there is a balance.
I don’t think one is necessarily right or wrong either. Rather I think that some of us are just wired to be shepherds, others ranchers, and maybe some…hybrid types.
I do get concerned though when we lose the “shepherding” aspect of ministry in the Church, and instead we treat the congregation like cogs on an assembly line.
I also have a problem when we as shepherds are so hands off, that we don’t know what is going on in the flock, per se. I agree that a good shepherd can put someone in charge over the other shepherds, but I think problems arise when pastors begin to remove themselves from some of the daily workings of a church. They don’t necessarily need to fold bulletins (though that would be great every once in a while); but they need to know what goes into making a service happen; what it’s like to set up and take down, etc. They may know, and probably at some point have done it. But I think we all are in danger of moving from a shepherd to a manager type, and forgetting the hands on aspect of ministry. This is for another post though.
rhett