I find it interesting too, and I hope many will jump in with a comment, story, or rant. (Yes, rants can be fun too!)
My .02 is that too many churches are controlled by Deacons, Boards, etc. and that these guys are killing the church by limiting the pastor to a "monkey on a string" role.
We need a structure where the pastor can be the pastor and LEAD. We also need leaders (Elders/Deacons) who will SERVE the pastor and church, and who are MORE involved in the ministry of church, not just simply showing up every Sunday.
January 7, 2008 6:40 PM
Anonymous said...
This will be a very interesting discussion to read. Pastor Jeremy, you reference that "We need a structure where the pastor can be the pastor and LEAD. We also need leaders (Elders/Deacons) who will SERVE the pastor and church, and who are MORE involved in the ministry of church, not just simply showing up every Sunday."
I agree, Pastors need to be able to lead. The complexity comes when they are looking for Elders/Deacons to SERVE them when in the very essence, the pastors are also serving the congregation. Yet, too many boards put too many restrictions on their pastor, and then on the other hand, too many pastors take advantage of the freedoms given them, and forget the very people who support them, who have built the church to where it is, including financially and voluntarily.
Pastors need to be able to lead, and they need to be given the freedom to use the gifts God has given them to Pastor, and this I am sure works when the pastor truly exhibits pastoral qualities, including humility, and not seeking the "control" but to lead.
I attend James River Assembly, and the model they are using seems to be working. Time will tell, but so far so good. The fear is if they sway from their current leadership style, where does that leave all of us? Yes, we can leave and go elsewhere, but we supported the church all these years.
It dawns on me that the three models of church government nicely correspond to Aristotle's three models of political government: monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. Monarchy, meaning rule by one, is closest to the episcopal form of government. Aristocracy, meaning rule by a few, is closest to the presbyterian form. And democracy, meaning rule by the people, is closest to congregationalism. Again, no idea what relevance that is, but I thought it was interesting to note.
My interest in the team-based model is essentially based on three precepts. Before explaining them, let me clarify what I mean by “team.†I am not referring to a group of deacons or elders that act as an oversight committee to micro-manage the pastor’s activities. Nor am I referring to equal authority for every member of the church. What I mean by team is a group of leaders/elders that is diversified in their roles and giftings. The decision-making process stands more authoritative than any one person. There is a “lead†elder who is granted “point position†but whose voice is representative of the group and not simply their own.
The reasons this interests me are as follows:
1. Long-term success and health of the church. While I do see the short term results of a strong, single leader growing a church, I don’t see that system setting the church up for sustainable growth over time. A church grows into the thousands under one leader who sits in power for 15-20 years. Yet, when transition time comes, the church enters a very rocky season trying to adapt to a new leader and leadership style. It is almost guaranteed that the pastor following the successful former pastor is bound to be nothing more than a “transitional†leader. A team-based model allows for one or more leaders to leave without the setting, tone or structure of the church changing drastically.
2. Protection of the leaders. When I discuss team-based leadership with friends of mine in Senior Pastor positions, I almost always get as a rebuttal from them that the team model is inefficient. They refer to the “red-tape†you encounter by trying to gain a consensus in a group and feel that this un-necessarily bogs the church down. To them, the Senior Pastor needs the authority to make decisions without having to seek approval on every turn. But a true team-based model is not about “approval.†It is about protection.
It’s funny to me that in many churches they will have rules about finances requiring more than one signature on checks over a certain amount of money. Additionally, a pastor will not be allowed to counsel a woman privately in his office without someone else being aware of it. In these situations, we have checks because we rightly understand that no human is above being tempted by forces beyond their personal control. Sex and money can defeat any of us if we are left alone with them. Yet, when it comes an equally and potentially more lethal third element, namely “power,†we are willing to allow a Senior Pastor to dance with it un-checked because we get to see quick results.
A team-based model might be slow and horribly inefficient, but it protects the leaders from a force that history has proven corrupts and warps anyone allowed to touch it without accountability.
3. The true Leader of the church becomes more visible. In a team-based model, the group is forced to seek consensus among it’s members before moving forward. In other words, they look for unity. Isn’t this the mark of the Spirit’s movement in the New Testament? Doesn’t a team-based model force the group to consider more carefully whether or not the Spirit is truly in something as opposed to it just being the whim of one person’s idealistic dream?
I know that there are those out there who will tell me this is idealistic and good on paper. But is the dream of a team working together for the good of the church any more idealistic than one where a single, authoritative leader can truly abandon selfish tendencies and avoid covering their insecurities as a sole authoritarian?
Just some thoughts on my end towards the team-based concept. Would love to hear critiques as well as success stories.
I agree with the gist of your remarks. In fact, I think that "successful" (or "good" or "best-practice") senior pastors typically lead with a team approach, regardless of what prerogatives/responsibilities their churches' constitution and bylaws give them. They seek consensus (whether tacit or explicit) so that their decisions reflect an opinion broader than their own. And since their decisions reflect this consensus (again, tacitly or explicitly), they are not exercising power alone and are hence protected.
Consequently, I wonder whether the senior pastor model you're working against is either (a) a caricature of the way "successful" senior pastors actually work or (b) a critical corrective of the abuses found in "less successful" senior pastors, whose ministries are authoritarian and self-centered.
Much depends, of course, on what is meant by "successful" (or "or good" or "best-practice"). I'd say that a "successful" senior pastor is one whose ministry leaves more and better followers of Jesus Christ in his/her wake, who helps people discover and use their spiritual gifts, whose ministry garners "buy in" from the congregation of the church's mission and values, and whose church continues to disciple and minister at a high level when he/she has resigned. That's the model of senior pastoral leadership I grew up with as well as the one I'm trying to embody personally.
At the end of the day, I wonder if we agree on substance about this issue and only disagree on nomenclature.
George
P.S. One of the reasons I'm opposed to "team based leadership" is because, ironically enough, a minister I know of used this model in an attempt to gain control of a church from a lay board that had the more traditional model of senior pastoral leadership. Anyone on this lay board who disagreed with him was ostracized, and his team consisted of hand-picked people who agreed with him. I think I learned the danger of nomenclature from this minister. I've never heard of a more team-based authoritarian than him. Obviously, his model of leadership was not authentically team-based. Again, I'm only pointing out the danger of nomenclature.
I'm sure that we do agree on substance and I am aware that, truthfully, both systems can achieve the desired results and both systems are prone to human error gunking it up.
The Senior Pastor model is the truest form of the benevolent dictator and, provided the person filling that role is truly benevolent, you're right... a team will emerge that will make it almost impossible for the outsider to know which model the church operates under.
I've just been massively bothered over the past several years at the national statistic that the average church size for us is less than 200 people. This means that, despite some of the more shining stars, most of our churches are suffering.
While I don't have any research data of my own to really say anything, I do have several personal experiences (three) that lend themselves to influence my conclusions. In each of these three churches (AG) the church was on an "up and to the right" growth trend. Then, in each of them, the Senior Pastor moved on to bigger and better things. The result was the retardation of that growth in one and the reversal of the growth in the other two.
My conclusion is that our Senior Pastor model in the AG only lends itself to growth as long as the Senior Pastor stays put. But our model really suffers in the transition years for churches resulting in many of them having to start over again, and again, and again. It is my opinion that leadership change must be among the top 5 reasons many of our churches can't get past the startup phase.
You have obviously, George, been exposed to more of the data and research than I. Am I even remotely close in my conclusions?
I should have said my "hypothesis" rather than my "conclusion" in the bold paragraph above. I have not set my mind in stone about anything and am 200% in an exploratory phase.
I have seen several churches make a smooth transition between senior pastors, but all these churches have been of the traditional senior pastor mold, where the senior pastor built a strong team.
I don't have experience with many (a) team model churches in general, but (b) the one I am aware of had a bad transition precisely because of the team model.
You're right, though, that churches need to develop ministries, institutions, structures, and most of all competent leaders who carry on the organization toward its mission when the senior pastorate is in transition.
My guess is that most of our small churches are small because the average pastor can lead about 100 people, but most pastors don't know how to empower others to lead their 100s so that the church can multiply.
I guess that is certainly a factor. But one that pushes me towards the team-based model and not away from it. If your thoughts are right, it means that these churches are being inhibited by the inabilities of a single individual. Regardless of whether that pastor cannot learn delegation, or simply refuses to learn... the Senior Pastor model results in the church's atrophy due to the stop gap created by the leadership philosophy of the church.
It would seem to me that, in a team-based model (as I defined earlier), no one individual could hold the organization back whether through incompetence or apathy. In fact, the team would be able to check and push such an individual to either improve or yield their seat.
Good discussion. Your making me think and I have missed that since my school days.
As I said, I think we're disagreeing on nomenclature but basically agreeing on substance. I may lean more toward the senior-pastor model than you do, but that's an emphasis, not a fundamental disagreement.
Don't you think that part of the equation for any "successful/effective" church is stability from the pastoral leadership? Do we really believe that in John Lindell left JRA that they would keep on chugging? Even in a church that has as strong a leadership model and team as JRA, I just don't think that that they would not at least suffer and initial hit numerically. However, I could also see situations where a church with this type of leadership approach may become more "successful/effective" after the initial drop from a leadership change. But in the end, doesn't it really all rely on stability from the head? Isn't JRA that way because John Lindell (with a lot of help from the Holy Spirit) built it to be that way? Just my thoughts...
I agree with you regarding what would happen if John Lindell left James River today. The question is, how might a team-based concept of leadership help mitigate such an event? Knowing Lindell, I'm sure JRA has some sort of plan if something happened to him.
I believe the servant-pastor who loves and leads his church within the parameters of accountability to an elected Board of Deacons will be successful.
We should combine the congregational model of electing Elders/Deacons to administer the operations of the church, with electing a Pastor to lead us spiritually. Thus a presbytery elected to handlethe workings of the church. This aligns with the Scriptural example given in the first church.
Adding in a team of dedicated associates to teach and lead the church-withih-the-church (Children, Youth, Young Adults, Singles, Single Agains, Seniors, etc) empowers the church for growth beyond the scope of a benevolent dictator, and away from a controlling board.
Military structure is a great example of effective leadership at different levels to accomplish much. Too much responsibiltiy on anyone's shoulders can lead to burn-out and collapse.
I believe it is more important for a Sr Pastor to shepherd the flock in love, than to be a great orator. Leadership is more often the substance of what is seen and felt (LOVE) than what is said.
Leadership brings people to desire to follow the leader - not to do so just because of the office held. If the leadeship is in tune with the Holy Spirit, from the top down, the church will be stronger, and even able to weather the storm if for some reason the Sr Pastor was removed from the structure.
Team-concept leadership employs the gifts of each member and is not dependent totally upon the one leader. The idea of removing the whole staff if the Sr Pastor resigns begets a failed church and the need to start over again. Perhaps we should allow for the associates to remain at a church even if the Sr Pastor resigns - providing the Board and Body want them to stay.
It works in the business world and in the military structure - it can work in the church to provide stability and continuity as well.
January 8, 2008 11:25 AM
Gringo Latino said...
Pastor Mark said:
"The idea of removing the whole staff if the Sr Pastor resigns begets a failed church and the need to start over again. Perhaps we should allow for the associates to remain at a church even if the Sr Pastor resigns - providing the Board and Body want them to stay.
It works in the business world and in the military structure - it can work in the church to provide stability and continuity as well.
"
This is exactly what happened at the church I attend. When the senior pastor was elected to district office, the board nominated a staff pastor with many years of service at the church to take the lead role, and the rest of the staff backed the move by agreeing to stay on if he was elected. So we basically had the same pastoral team, with just a shuffling of some titles and duties.
January 8, 2008 1:30 PM
Zorro said...
Couple of things...
1 - "too many pastors take advantage of the freedoms given them"
Does this really happen, or is it just a fear?
2 - Don't you think that part of the equation for any "successful/effective" church is stability from the pastoral leadership?
Of course!, but I have also seen a church of 2500, who had the same founding pastor for 25 years resign,, only to see the church GROW with a new OUTSIDER pastor.
There is no absolute formula, and we know this.
I just think there is too much NEGATIVE SPECULATION taking place on this subject.
I would think (though I could be wrong) that everyone would agree on the "no absolute formula" statement. But I don't think that what we are doing is searching for a "one size fits all" solution. To the contrary, the fact that the NT leaves this issue vague leads me to believe that we have the license to explore this topic frequently.
I, too, have flagged previous comment lists for descending to the negative. For what it is worth, though, I have not sensed that here yet. All I have read (and written) so far is an exploratory pros and cons list between a centralized and decentralized leadership model.
Also, for what it is worth, I think this discussion is a valid follow-up to the incredibly LONG comment section from George's post on Leading for Change. It would seem that we established (though very vaguely, I admit) that there are abuses of power at District levels. My opinion is that those leaders did not become that way upon entering the District office. Instead, they formed their leadership style at the local church level where they led.
So here is a second hypothesis (my first is a few comments up):
Changing the leadership style of churches at the local level towards increased accountability (team-based) will have positive effects on future District officers coming from such churches. These new officers will understand delegation, team-work, and accountability better than pastors who were previously authoritarian in leadership style.
(Again, this is purely for discussion and research. I am fully aware that we do not legislate church polity in the AG)
January 9, 2008 4:58 AM
Dave Olson said...
Maybe one of the keys to smooth tranisitions of leadership which would allow our Chruches to go from "glory to glory" as opposed to surge and delcine through out the years is to build into our philosophy of ministry, especially as senior leaders, the idea of grooming our successor (you have all heard the phrase "there is no success without a successor).
The excellent business book "Built to Last" did research on those companies who are at least 70 years old and have performed consistently at the top of thier field. They then compared them with those companies who were the number 2 performer in thier field. Among many common denomonators, a key difference between the top performers and thier nearest rivals: the top performers groomed thier future CEO years in advance. Jack Welch and a couple of his peers were earmarked for the lead postion at GE some decade and a half or more before he took the postion if I remember right.
When you read 2 Timothy, you get the idea that Paul has done something similar with his protege.
I think the team approach and senior leader approach can both work. The component of leadership continuity during personnel change that team leadership affords can be provided by the senior leader model. This happens when we get a grid work for grooming a successor with the same DNA that the Church was built on the preceding years.
Here is a question for you regarding this comment, mentioned earlier in this blog post, "I've just been massively bothered over the past several years at the national statistic that the average church size for us is less than 200 people. This means that, despite some of the more shining stars, most of our churches are suffering."
I serve as Pastor of a church of 80, in a rural community of 600. In my A/G section here, out of our 12 churches, only 2 are over 200, and those are located in the only two larger cities in our area. It is interesting that the national perception seems to be that churches under 200 are suffering. I have been Pastoring here for 10 years, and was not aware that our church was suffering:) (Bummer...I hope our congregation doesn't read this blog!)
Questions: Statistically, aren't a majority of A/G churches located in communities less that 10,000 people, and aren't a majority of A/G churches less than 200 in attendance? Do you think it is an accurate assessment, that most of these churches are "suffering?"
Thanks - I do enjoy this site and it's great dialogue!
Bob
PS - In our rural church, where the average lifespan of a pastor has historically been about three years, the Deacons/Board are very involved in leadership strategy & decision making, knowing that they may be left "holding the bag" with whatever direction and decisions the pastor/church makes. However, they (Deacons) have been very cooperative, flexible, and easy to work with in leadership of the church, and in cooperation with my leadership as a Pastor. They have supported me in making good decisions (sometimes hard decisions); and yet have also helped me in avoiding making some bad decisions that would have really back-fired.
Good insights. "Built to Last" is a favorite of mine and sits on my "To Re-Read" shelf annually.
There is a big difference, though, between businesses and churches that makes the "successor" concept more difficult in the church world than in the business world.
In a company, a CEO is known more for their philosophy and strategy than anything else. In fact, some employees may never even physically see their CEO for months at a time. So as long as the successor carries on that philosophy, things can transition smoothly.
In a church, a Senior Pastor's face time with his congregation every Sunday is a MAJOR factor in how the congregation evaluates him/her. This means that charisma and personality (not just philosophy) make them "successful." Since these traits cannot be "groomed" into a successor... the transition becomes more difficult if the new guy is of a MAJORLY different temperament.
Not saying it is impossible, and I agree with your insights. Just making the case that in a Senior Pastor model, their personality is a major factor in how they are evaluated by their congregation. This needs to carry over into the successor to follow them.
The comment you quoted was mine, so I should respond.
Your right for flagging me on this one. There is no question that a church's size should be evaluated based on the relative size of the community in which they reside.
BUT, I would add that, despite the size of the community, growth over time is a factor of health. This means that you have to also ask about RATE of growth and not just SIZE. 80 people in a community of 600 means you have ~13% of the community in your church. That means you are doing better than a church of 1,000 in a community of 10,000.
But you also told us that you have been there for 10 years. So a follow up question is "How many people were there when you started?" How has the church grown over 10 years?
Please know that this question comes with sincere honesty and exploration on my part. I am not asking if you are a good leader or pastor, but RATHER if a team-based model would be more effective.
I think you're quite right to point out that being a church under 200 in attendance is not necessarily a bad thing. Rather than focus on absolute numbers, perhaps we should focus on ratios and trajectories.
Ratios: What is the size of the congregation in comparison to the community it serves? I think it's unreasonable to expect a community of 600 people to have a megachurch with 2000 or more people in attendance.
But even more important than ratios are trajectories: Is the church growing, stagnant, or declining? Obviously, the overall attendance figure is a blunt measurement of growth patterns. But I think we should really be looking at how many people are converting, how many are being baptized, how many are baptized in the Spirit, how many are joining small groups, how many report making spiritual progress in the last year, and how many are using their spiritual gifts to serve others in some form of ministry.
As the pastor of a small (but hopefully growing church), those are the considerations I keep in mind. What do you think, EBAGPastor?
I think dave hit on a key point when it comes to transition. Whether its the traditional model or the team model, isn't the point to work ourselves out of a job? Making leaders and influencers rather than simply pew warmers? I think this applies to our own positions. If we want the church to continue to grow and to be a kingdom building church after we leave then shouldn't we be building up our replacements?
I tend to lean more towards a Team model because I know my weaknesses and I think having team members who are strong where I'm weak simply makes sense.
Also, multiple people can be in multiple places at one time...obviously I can not.
And the sphere of influence from a team is naturally bigger than the sphere of influence from an individual.
And I don't have to do everything or be everywhere all the time.
I think some things that at least have to be looked out for and addressed are
unity of vision and purpose,
clarity of roles,
work ethics,
determining whats not worth getting in an argument over,
not trying to control other team members area of ministry while still maintaining unity in direction,
determining how to work together when lines between roles and areas aren't hard and fast and they overlap into each other.
Honestly, I can appreciate Pastor Jeremy's comments and those pastors that Lane spoke of because there are times when you just want to be able to do what you were put on this world to do. Sometimes people get in the way, sometimes they are an anchor but sometimes they are exactly what we need to see things from a different perspective. Sometimes they have abilities and accomplish things we never dreamed of on our own. Ultimately, I think having a team of leaders with a unified vision and direction working together has more benefits than the traditional model.
George, do you think that your problem from the one experience you have with a team model is with the person's attempt to take over or with the actual team model? One's abuse of a system doesn't necessarily make that system bad or wrong.
I'm still trying to figure it out so don't think that I think I have the answers, these are just some things I've observed and experienced.
Through my interactions with Lane, I've come to the conclusion that we advocate basically the same style of pastoral leadership. He tends more to the team side of the equation, I a bit more to the senior pastor side. But essentially, we agree that the church has a multiple leadership. What separates us mostly is nomenclature. And yes, it is my observation of the abuse of team models that has made me wary of that model, even though I myself work with what is functionally a team model of leadership.
I also agree that there are better measurements of church health than the one's I cited, such as spiritual children reproducing more spiritual children, which is what you wrote about.
George – I offer 2 parts to my post. Please feel free to delete part 2 until you feel it is appropriate.
I. I am a person who has served as Youth, Music, C.E. and Senior pastor - 34 years in ministry. I moved with one Senior pastor, when he changed churches. I also lived through one church, as an associate, when there were 4 pastoral changes. (I don’t know of many who have served multiple Senior Pastors in the same church.)
My observation is that when staff stays through to a new administration it is a very difficult transition time. And most Senior Pastors want the opportunity to choose staff that they feel fit their style and hopefully fill in where they are weak. (I have also had to resign due to an incoming Senior Pastor.) It is always tempting to remind the New pastor of “How it was done before†those words often precede these words: "Call U-Haul".
I do believe in the system of electing a Senior pastor and allowing him to choose his staff. (I have stated before in your blog that I even think that idea would be great for our District Superintendents. Elect the Sup and let him choose his staff.) I know I am trusting the Senior pastor to be a man of God.
The best ministry teams I have served on – looked a lot like the coaching staff of a successful football team. I along with others, played the role of an assistant coach. We were valued and needed. Our opinions were heard and weighed. We had our assignments and would be held accountable for our areas. We were considered experts in our area by the Senior Pastor. And we were supported when deacons challenged or attacked.
Too few Senior pastors value their staff enough to sit down with them and hear their hearts. Effective teams help prepare for ministry better and evaluate with more honestly. Sadly, I only served with 2 pastors with an effective team model. (FYI: One is now in Heaven.)
Could it be that our "1 Man Does It All" mentality, has created a monster that has to be fed?
II. I want to throw a curve into this discussion, because I believe that there are 3 major shifts that are happening in growing churches today:
1. Some of the up and coming young Pastors say they are called to a City.
… Vs. being called to a Church.
So, when a pulpit committee calls them looking for a pastor, they quickly say “NO, I am
Called to my city.â€
I’m afraid too many of us look at churches as stepping stones along the way. I had one
Pastor tell me NOT to take a certain church because it was “Not Visible enoughâ€.
Meaning you could be forgotten there.
2. Some of the newer church models have gone away from Elected Deacons or Elders.
They use pastors, missionaries and evangelists to serve on their Executive Boards.
(The people do not elect any one or vote on anything.) This brings accountability
without the suppression that usually comes from elected non-ministry boards.
3. Growing churches are once again exposing people to the hurting in their cities. These churches and their people are SERVING their communities.
I believe that those three factor into the strength and growth of their churches more than any other factors.
I can share one churches government structure via an attachment for anyone who’s interested.
Tom Bougher reach me at tbougher@therockfwc.org
Personally, I think a new senior pastor in a multiple staff church should get to know who's there before he/she starts replacing people. New senior pastors will have to change things, but churches are not blank checks which they get to write to themselves. That's just my personal feeling. I recognize there are pros and cons. Sometimes, new senior pastors are arrogant, and keeping the existing staff forces them to be humble and cooperative. On the other hand, sometimes new senior pastors need to jump start a stagnant organization, and keeping the existing staff is an obstacle to accomplishing this goal.
Thanks for the good feedback. Glad to hear that we're not necessarily "suffering", out here in rural America, just because we don't have a jaw-dropping ACMR.
Our church was averaging around 50 when we arrived, so God has blessed us with some growth over the years. Our DS challenges each church to set a goal of growing by at least 10% each year. This seems like a goal that is applicable to both rural and city churches. Each year, as we look back to measure the success of the last year, we look at several factors:
*Was God exalted & lifted High in our worship and in the way we "do" church?
*Did lost people come to Jesus through our church's ministries, and through our missions support?
*Did our own people grow in their relationship with God, and in their effectiveness in being used by God in ministry.
Each year there is room for giving God glory for successes, and also room for improvement.
Lane - In a smaller, rural church, being the solo "staff" member, and already working pretty closely with the Board, what would a "team based model" look like? Seems like we are pretty team based now, but perhaps I am missing something?
This is a topic that I am passionate about and there is no way to express my full point of view in a space anyone would be willing to read. I am a former Deacon/chairman of pastor search committee who is now a credentialed staff pastor at a medium sized church. So, I have seen both sides and my feeling is that in the most general terms, The "Vision" for the local church must flow through the senior pastor and each associate or ministry leader should do his/her part to make sure that his/her area of ministry does its part to acheive the "Vision" cast by the senior pastor. This is not "pastorcentric" nor authoritarian. Placing the vision in one person is not the same as one person doing all the ministry. God gave the vision for the entire nation of Israel to Moses, who then disseminated that vison to Aaron and Miriam and also to the judges of smaller numbers. I'll stop there because to continue to develop that thought would cause me to go too long and I have already gone too long.
Don't worry about long comments! Have you seen thelength of some of my posts (particularly "Leading Change in the AG")? I think it would be useful to flesh out some of the senior-pastor-model ideas that you have.
George
January 9, 2008 1:48 PM
Dave Olson said...
Lane,
You are right that the "face time" of the Senior Pastor is crucial in how the congregation evaluates and relates with him. I believe the key in grooming a successor is to do so long before you leave, beginning to elevate his/her "face time" before the congregation during the final few years of one's tenure.
I volunteered for several years at a Church where the Pastor was convinced that I was his replacement. He promoted me verbally and had me speak more and more during his final two years at our Church. Upon his resignation he informed the Board that their new pastor was already among them. He had wisely been planting that seed for some time.
Our church esily made the transition because of his willingness to promote my ministry over his own at times. I am indebted to his willingness to pass the baton in many subtle ways before his time was done.
Our Church has experienced strong consistent growth ever since, but much of it can be attributed to his foresight (I have been given credit for things that were really his doing...his concern for the Church's health rather than being caught up with who would get the credit was key to our continued momentum).
January 9, 2008 6:04 PM
1120 said...
First, let me say I recognize my own experience colors a significant amount of my perceptions on this topic. Unfortunately, I have been too close, too often, to senior pastors and/or board chairs who have abused their authority. Often the abuse stemmed from insecurity or immaturity. Other times the abuse stemmed from incompetency and neglect. Maybe my experience has affected me for the better, perhaps for the worse. I’m open for your opinions on that matter.
With that disclosure and in full view of my “issues†I am opposed to any type of church leadership that is not team centered both theologically and practically. Let me give a few reasons why I take that position.
First, I believe the Mosaic era is over, never to return. Gone is the time when a man, called of God, goes up onto a mountain, alone, is given instruction, authority and empowerment to employ the ways and means of God’s kingdom rule, and then delivers that ethic to God’s people, without responsibility or accountability to anyone other than God himself. That era left when Jesus ascended into heaven and the Church age was born at Pentecost.
Since that time we must as a Church discern and achieve the ways and means of God’s kingdom in concert with one another in a “metaphysical†way (if you’ll let me use that term) just as Jesus’ earthly body worked together to enact his personal individual will “physically†while he was embodied. Paul uses this metaphor perfectly. There is only one head, Jesus. Everyone else is a bit player, dependent on every other member for mutual success. The idea of a “senior†liver, “associate†elbow or “junior†aorta is ridiculous. Every part is equally valued and needs to be able to communicate what and how they see their part from their seat in the organization with freedom and integrity. Certainly some are more visible, yet none more important. So biblically I think Paul describes in many places the gifts and offices given to the church to be equally important and therefore equally respected and valued for leadership responsibility.
The best example of a Godly leadership model is the Trinity. Every member remains equally submitted and dependent on each other. Can you imagine one member of the Trinity demanding seniority? It couldn’t happen. They each play the role that brings about the perfect display of the Godhead. Can one imagine there being even a thought of “First, Second and Third?†It is impossible to think of imposed subordination within the trinity. Why? Because they each subordinate to the other continually. The Father gives all power on heaven and earth to his son. The son says and does nothing he does not see his father doing. The Spirit never draws attention to himself but only draws and points humankind to the son. The son leaves so the spirit can come. On and on it goes. This is the model of leadership. Submission is seen over and over again in love and faith to each other.
Team leadership in the church is not efficient from a corporate, western philosophical mindset. I fully understand that critique and have suffered through the pain and frustration which often accompanies it. Team leadership is not clean or easy. But it is not for these reasons why we most often settle for a more authoritarian, Mosaic model. In my experience team leadership requires serious devotion and commitment to relationship. And unfortunately too many senior pastors are significantly lacking in either the ability or desire to engage their staffs and or elders in a transparent, interwoven, communal, mutually dependent discipleship living. God himself is encapsulated in what Dallas Willard calls a “sweet society of love†where the first, second and third members of the trinity are abandoned to and complete a “social matrix where not only is there love and being loved, but also there is shared love for one another.†For love to be perfected it has to be inclusive. And it is this love which first must be birthed and demonstrated within our leadership structures before it can be caught by the larger body. John’s epistle states this type of love, when evidenced by the world, will uniquely mark us as believers of the risen Christ.
I recognize and respect the insights and logical arguments all the previous posters have made on why and where team leadership falls apart or becomes problematic. I would simply seek to add to the argument that the theory of team leadership is undeniably biblical. If it fails in practice it is not because the model is flawed.
I end this too long post with my favorite G. K. Chesterton quote. He said:"The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult and left untried."
I think that is equally true for team based leadership in the church and relationships in general. Thanks and I look forward to your comments.
Good question. (RE: what a team model would look like in a small church). That's why I defined what I meant by a team model way up at the top of this list. I am not equating "team" to "staff." I totally understand that a staff size is dependent on finances available and, as such, if all members of a team had to be paid staff... my vision for team-based leadership would be relegated to mid-sized churches and above.
But that is not what I am advocating. What I mean by "team-based" is that the authority and decision-making process is handled by a group rather than an individual. Additionally, the members of this group actually take lead roles over the areas in the church where their giftings reside. The responsibility for each area is left to them. The Pastor does not tell them what HE/SHE wants. They are more than just people "carrying out the Pastor's vision."
The team cements this process in the constitution which stands higher than any one member of the team (including the Pastor). Much like the Constitution of the US. It, and not the President, is what runs the country.
The difference between this and a traditional Pastor meeting with his/her Board of Deacons/Elders is that, in my experience... the people that make up the Board are rarely actively overseeing departments. They usually are just trusted people in the church who come out once/month to ratify and support what the Senior Pastor is doing.
How does my definition line up with what you are doing there?
Your experience encourages me!! I think what you described is a rarity and your Senior Pastor sounds like a man who truly believed in praxis (not theory) that it was not about him. Thanks for the refreshing story!!
RWhitlow...
You raise a VERY important point... namely, who is responsible for the vision of the church?
I am yet to be convinced that the Senior Pastor, alone, is responsible for vision of the church. Along with what 1120 wrote, I think you can only build a case theologically for that through a Mosaic lens and I do not believe that should be our model.
As George has noted above... I am pushing more for a theory of decision-making then I am a certain model. A Senior Pastor who uses his/her authority to build a team and then incorporates them into the vision process would be accomplishing the very same thing I talking about here.
January 10, 2008 6:19 AM
Anonymous said...
Mel Ming is an excellent resource on this topic. Maybe he will discover this site and post...
As a church we are working through the vision and values of our church. I am not so sure I agree that the Pastor is the only one responsible for the vision of the church I think he or she is the protector or primary presenter of that vision more so than supreme creator of the vision. The Pastor guides the leadership team in vision casting, and leads the ideas of vision, but if the top tier of leadership isn't involved there is no "buy in."
Looking at this in relation to macro and microeconomics is a good way to think about it. Macroeconomics in the broad and wide study where microeconomics takes it down to a detailed and functional level. The Pastor and top tier of leadership (pastoral staff, board, elders etc.) cast the macro-vision and encourage individuals to develop the micro-vision within the context of the macro-vision. We need to let others have ownership of their micro-vision and the freedom to allow their creativity to flow through it.
January 11, 2008 7:52 AM
Pablo D. Vizcay said...
Concerning strong Pastoral leadership, If not the Mosaic model, then our friends on the liberal side of pentecostalism will state to us that its the "Apostolic model" as in Paul?
Can someone comment. Thanks
January 11, 2008 8:24 AM
1120 said...
No, I don't think the apostolic model, as evidenced in the modern church, is biblical either. In fact I would argue that many of those who support the apostolic model today are simply rewriting their version the Mosaic model with New Testament terms.
The model of leadership that I believe scripture teaches is that found in the Trinity and the Body.(as argued at length previously.)That model takes faith, grace, relationship and an understanding of community.
I do believe there is a gift of leadership. Most spiritual gifting measurements reveal that very few, less than 10%, of believers score high in this area. I think that is appropriate and allows for order and alignment. There should be significantly fewer "leaders" than followers. Getting too many cooks in the kitchen is not the objective. Getting all the cooks that belong in the kitchen is.
The argument I make is not that leaders should be prevented from their rightful place within the body to guide and direct. I argue for how leadership takes shape in form and praxis. I believe our entire leadership theology needs to be re-evaluated and reshaped from the authoritarian, "anointed" Mosaic model. The abuses of these types of leaders are biblical not only in scope but proportion.
Helping people go where they have never been before requires a guide with skills and experience. But the body has been given a team (prophets, teachers, evangelists, apostles/missionaries and shepherds)of experienced, uniquely gifted members to work together, displaying mutual dependence, respect and love, to accomplish the work of the Kingdom.
The last point I want to make surrounds the nature of servant leadership. Too many of our churches model top notch corporations where the impetus of the organization is to serve the needs and desires of the very few and elite at the top of the pyramid. I don't quarrel with that model for the purposes corporations serve. They follow the profit motive that is very clean and easy to discern. Jesus, however, reveals a completely different ethic that motivates his kingdom. When faith, love and grace are instituted as prime motivators, they will turn the corporate leadership paradigm upside down. Instead of top-down leadership, we witness Jesus leading with a bottom-up approach. In Kingdom dynamics, the individual who serves the most people, not the individual served by the most people, is revealed as the true leader of the organization.
This is a great discussion that is in the best tradition of this blog. It has caused me to re-examine my positions, which is always healthy. As a recently credentialed minister from a business background, I may have a different definition of vision and vision casting. My view is that vision is a general direction or goal that finds its strength and life as it is fleshed out by the leadership team. I have been a manager, but I have never been a senior pastor, and I know that there are similarities, but some extreme differences. In my role as a manager/leader I was given goals and I also set goals for those who worked under my leadership. It was my responsibility to determine if the goals given to me were attainable with the team I had, and make changes as necessary. My best times were when the goals were just beyond our existing abilities and I was able to encourage and build up my team members to go beyond what they thought they could do.
Where this analogy breaks down in the church, is that in the business world if I had to make team changes because of incapable or unwilling team members, I didn't fear losing customers if I made a change. My only concern was meeting the goals set by my employer.
My idea of vision flowing through the senior pastor first is along the idea of direction such as connecting to the community, a greater emphasis on prayer, more ministry focus and less program focus, or something like that. He then has the responsibility of getting buy-in from his ministry team (and/or board members) so that they will be vision carriers. Each of them will be more specific in carrying out their part of the overall vision as it relates directly to their own area of ministry influence. Is this team ministry? Or is it Mosaic? I've always just called this leadership.
I agree with you. This discussion has been a great "iron-sharpening-iron" discussion that has remained void of negative and disparaging comments and has stayed on the theoretical/discussion level.
Based on your last paragraph, what you described is (in my opinion) still a "Mosaic" concept. Anytime the leader looks for buy-in AFTER he/she has set the vision you have a Mosaic model. Instead, what I advocate as team-based is the entire team gathering together to ask the question "What should the vision be?" as a unit. The leader may spearhead the discussion and even throw in thoughts as catalysts for the dialogue... but for it to be team-based the team has to feel like they helped to develop the vision and not just carry it.
Let me throw a theoretical monkey wrench into the discussion here. Several posters have critiqued the Mosaic model of leadership in favor of a more team model of leadership. The basic critique of the Mosaic model is that it is authoritarian and unaccountable. Of course, teams can be equally authoritarian and unaccountable. I have recently read a testimony about how a board of elders drove a senior pastor out of the church out of ungodly motives. Only recently have things turned around there.
Perhaps I can use Lane's specific example about vision buy-in to illustrate my point. He wrote that it's bad for an individual leader to expect buy-in after he alone has determined the vision of the church. Is it equally wrong for a team to do that? But isn't that exactly what happens in church situations? A small group of leaders meets to determine the vision, mission, and values of the church. They then present these things to the entire congregation in an effort to get buy-in. Why is it wrong for a senior pastor to do what a team would be doing? And if it's acceptable for a small team within the overall congregation to get buy-in from the congregation after they have determined the church's vision, why is it wrong for a individual pastor to do the same?
At the level of theory, the authority of leadership is always a tricky issue facing the individual leader and/or his team. From my perspective, just about any model of leadership can work, DEPENDING ON THE LEADER(S). A good senior pastor can lead effectively, and a bad team can lead defectively, depending on their character and integrity.
As I've mentioned in my earlier exchanges with Lane, I favor a senior-pastor/team combo, with emphasis on the senior pastor. I think he emphasizes the other side of that model.
Anyway, like I said, this is just a theoretical monkey wrench. I agree with the substance and concerns of most of these posts.
Your point is well taken, and, correct. In trying to point out the difference between the two models to Rwhitlow, I failed in limiting myself to his language used in his post where he only mentioned two parties; the Senior lead and the team leads.
For what it is worth, your point is exactly what Bill Hybels addressed in the first session of the Leadership Summit this past summer. He agreed with you that whether a Senior Pastor does it, or a team does ... it is wrong.
The solution Willow has recently implemented is one where the team-initialized vision goes through, not one, but two procedures of review by the small groups in the church before being implemented. While the process is laborious, he admits, it has shown higher productivity and greater church ownership (meaning less conflict) than any other point in his 28 years of leadership.
I'd be interested in reading more about Willow's process, Lane. I'm in the process of reimagining my church's vision, mission, and values; and I could use some guidance on how to get greater buy-in, pariticpation, and involvement from the congregation.
I wish I had the money to be able to buy it and send it to you. Alas... I don't. If you are able... all you need to get is Session 1: "Vision to Die For" of this past year's Summit. He explains how they walk through the new vision casting process in detail. VERY much worth listening to if for nothing else than to consider the different model.
Thanks, Lane! I just finished reading REVEAL, and I think I'm going to write a post about it. Very challenging stuff!
January 12, 2008 12:03 PM
PGB said...
George,
Another book I would recommend is Andy Stanley's "Vision Casting" for ideas about the re-imaging you discussed.
I agree with Lane. Hybel's explanation on how Willow Creek structured the team approach to engender buy in from the larger body is innovative and well thought through. I thought their process seemed to be a bit cumbersome at first glance. But I agree that the buy-in which results would effectively avoid the types of oligarchies and power plays described in George's hypothetical.
George makes a good point: Bad leaders are bad leaders whether they come in singles, pairs or groups. But as our nation discovered, sharing power, having a balance of power, is the best way to safeguard against the passions of power and their accompanying abuses.
I think the greater point is that no one leader can hope to take, maintain and monitor the pulse of an organization as dynamic and diverse as the local church. What the Mosaic leadership style produces, in my opinion, are churches that more resemble only the personalities of the few in leadership and not the diversity of the community they inhabit. Meaning these churches often become more exclusive and less inclusive to diversity within their body. When I say diversity I don't only mean racial or socio-politico-economic diversity. I would also include the acceptance of diversity when considering ministry needs and opportunities. I believe there can be a direct link found between exclusivity in leadership style and a church that is exclusive with the gospel. The team approach, working together as spirit-filled, dedicated disciples of Jesus will guard against building self-limiting security barriers (walls) around our churches.
It is impossible to know how and who God is going to use to communicate his divine plan and vision for our churches. We can and should be open and willing to learn from everybody. Especially those we are trying to minister to.
January 12, 2008 9:28 PM
Italian Servant said...
I didn't understand a point... maybe I didn't see it...
If we see New testament, is there any chuch that has a Senior Pastor? It seems to me that there is always a strong evidence for "elders". So I think that a Senior Pastor can be useful, but the biblical model is "team-based".
Is there any opposition on my biblical interpretation?
I'd say that the evidence for senior pastoring in the New Testament is implicit, rather than explicit. Take, for example, Paul's letters to Timothy and Titus. Both those men clearly seemed to be "first among equals" in their respective church organizations in Ephesus and Crete. Else why would Paul write to them as individuals, rather than to the entire board of elders or the entire church? As you look past the New Testament period in the post-apostolic age, you see a pattern emerging of bishops taking primary care for certain churches. One things here of Ignatius, for example. This senior leadership was not in opposition to other leaders within the church, but it does seem to have been an authoritative role, "first among equals" even. Now, of course, you could totally discount the evidence of the post-aposotlic age, but why? It seems to me that this period is vital if we want to understand how the New Testament was intepreted and practiced by those in closest chronological proximity to the apostles. Their example is not infallible, obviously, but it is important, for they show the trajectory of New Testament teaching in the early second century, often in the exact same cities where the apostles had founded early churches.
George
January 13, 2008 8:26 AM
Italian Servant said...
George,
I thank you for your answer, but I disagree about some items.
1) About the example of Paul, we are speaking of an apostle that in an age where there wasn't the complete written bible, was bible himself. Timothy was his delegate. There's no accent on the NT on the preservation of these special roles, instead there is accent on the preservation of elders and deacons.
2) The "doctrine" of pluralist team-working is not in contrast with a single pastor or a Senior Pastor view if you think him as an exception or an extreme case
. Nowhere in the Bible we find: "one elder is wrong". But I think that the "one-pastor leadership" is a human tendence that is necessary in some situations (specially in transition) and become not good in extabilished church.
To return to Mosaic Model, we see that God wanted one leader (Moses) for the challenge of desert, one leader (Joshua) for the challenge of Canaan, but then God didn't propose any "one-head leadership". The "one-head leadership" came back with the king, but it was not a good idea according to God.
At the same way, I think it's human trend to prefer one-head leadership, because everything becomes easier, but it's not the final goal when you want a "God's leadership".
The post-apostolic age had a bad trend and the result was the Catholic Church. I think "one bishop for one church" was simply the best they could do and surely it was not against apostolic doctrine.
But I think that when a real team-work works... that's GREAT, it's the best goal God wants that we achieve, because it means BODY, ARMONY, ORGANISM and not human leadership.
3) A last thought: the post-apostolic church choosed "one-head leadership" also for the world-church and so the role of the pope was created. What about this issue? Is it necessary a president for a movement? Can it be only a representative? (I hope so) Or we can re-think to a team-leadership also for the denominations? I think apostolic church had team-leadership at the top, because Paul, Peter and James seem at the same level in acts 15.
I hope this long comment was useful for everyone to reflect just a little about things that we say that are "inevitable", but I'm not so sure.
I agree with you that the New Testament prefers a plurality of leaders in the church. To clarify my point, I believe that senior pastors are first among equals in church leadership, not the only leadership. So, my model would not be one-head-leadership but first-among-equals-on-a-team leadership.
I think this is actually a biblical pattern, by the way. Moses was the leader of a team (remember the elders?). Joshua similarly had a team (remember Caleb?). David had his mighty men. Solomon had his advisers. Jesus had his apostles (not to mention the 70). The apostles had their deacons. Paul had Barnabas, Silas, Timothy, and Titus. Etc., etc., etc. Let's stipulate for further discussion that there is no one-head-leadership model anywhere in the Bible. To me, the interesting debate is what role a senior leader plays on a team, but perhaps that's because I'm the senior leader on a team. For all you associate pastors, the relevant question might be what role an associate plays on a team led by the senior pastor. Or what role elders have in decision making.
George
P.S. I think it's great that we've got an international dialogue going on here.
January 13, 2008 2:59 PM
Italian Servant said...
George,
first of all I thank you because you forgive my bad english with a real christian love ;-); secondarly, I can agree with your formulation also if I have some difficulties to understand why God chooses clearly Moses and Joshua but he doesn't choose anyone else after they go inside the promise-land (and why so great problem with the role of the king?).
My answer to your question probably is clear by my assumptions: I think at the best a senior pastor must stop to exist, in the sense that the collegiality has to stand above his will; at the worst, in the situations when love and armony don't win the struggles inside the team, he must take the situation in his hand and must decide with his will what is impossible to decide in the team.
So, if you want, the senior pastor must be the second chance during a decision-process: if the team doesn't achieve a common answer or a common solution for an item, the senior pastor rules.
Italian Servant.
P.S. Why don't promote a little more the international dialogue also with some ad hoc posts ;-)? I'd like it...
January 13, 2008 3:32 PM
Anonymous said...
George,
Does first amongst "equals" also mean equal compensation and pay?
How far does your model of "team" actually mean equal?
Why kind of ad hoc posts would you like to see us write? Are there issues we could address that would be of more relevance to the international AG?
Also, after Moses and Joshua, God did in fact raise up individual leaders to guide the nation, didn't he? Wasn't that what the Judges were?
Anonymous:
Pay should be determined by a matrix of professional responsibilities, education, and length of tenure. I can envisage situations where an older associate with wide responsibilities may in fact make more money than a newly minted, first-time senior pastor.
George
January 13, 2008 5:41 PM
Italian Servant said...
George,
I'll suggest probably in the future some good arguments for "international blogging" ;-) (well, you will tell me if they'll be _good_ :-D!); the Judges arrived after the repeated crisis, but they were never thought as standard-leadership (I think it's very clear the book of Judges about this issue). This is why I think the individual-leader arrives in bad moments and then "goes out".
However, I don't believe in the first-among-equals-on-a-team leadership. In every moment, there is one-head-leadership or a team-leadership. Generally, the first-among-equals-on-a-team leadership is a nice way to say one-head leadership (as the example of david - he was the king, the other ones were simply advisers) or at the best is a way to say that one-head-leadership and team-leadership alternate.
Ah, I forgot to say that in Italy there isn't any example of AoG team-leadership church. So, this is only my opinion according to what I read in the Bible and you don't have to think that this is "the Italian Thinking" ;-)
God bless us,
Italian Servant
January 14, 2008 3:16 AM
Italian Servant said...
I find myself boring about this argument... I think it's not so important as the discussion about baptism in the Holy Spirit that is in the next post... so for me this discussion can be closed.
Thanks: I hope you didn't repent about this freedom you gave me. I repeat that I'm ready to go out if this is not the right place for me.
Now, I've to come back to my spaghetti... :-D.
Italian Servant
January 14, 2008 8:32 AM
Anonymous said...
I think Italian Servant is on the right track of thinking on this issue - there is actually very little biblical support for the single senior pastor leader model but plenty of support for the plurality of elders model.
also really great book to consider reading on this topic is Timothy S. Laniak;s Shepherds After My Own Heart: Pastoral Traditions and Leadership in the Bible (New Studies in Biblical Theology NSBT) (IVP, 2006).
January 14, 2008 1:15 PM
Italian Servant said...
George, Lane, Paul,
I thank the anonymous for support to my position on leadership, but I am really surprised that I was the first one that began to speak about the biblical aspects of leadership after 20 comments on this theme. Also after seeing the open-dialogue on the FTs, I notice that nobody is trying to estabilish the biblical truth and praxis. Instead there's something a refusal of this kind of approach. I understand that it seems the tipical story of the old pastor that discourages the new generations, but the first above-all issue that this blog MUST challenge is: what kind of hermeneutics and exegesis we want to have in Assemblies of God? Against the common places about the pentecostal believers, Azusa Street was not born from EXPERIENCE (Seymour wasn't yet baptized after 6 years, if I remember correctly); Azusa street was born on a NEW (OLD) DOCTRINE about spiritual experience. And this doctrine came from a naive, ingenuous,
literalistic view of the Word (Parham's teaching is so stupid for us, wise 21th century pentecostal servants). So we'll have a lot of problems about women in ministry (yes or not), baptism in the Holy Spirit, tongues, omosexuality (why not?), leadership and so on if we don't choose a clear hermeneutics for our movement. Academic world is saying to pentecostal churches that hermeneutics is just like philosophy ("choose your best solution and continue to love and work with your friends"), but the community of faith is first of all a community of truths before than a community of experiences. Today in our discussion the focal point is this one: are we able, starting from a common hermeneutics, reading together the Bible, to arrive at a common point about a doctrine? if we are not able, so let's continue to follow pragmatism and almost-political thinking. But this kind of arguments seems to me very different from Acts-15-dialogue and not really useful.
This week I was shocked by this page: http://www.cbmw.org/Blog/Posts/Wayne-Grudem-on-the-State-of-the-Gender-Debate-and-the-Way-Forward
Wayne Grudem is prophetizing a "large realignment of the entire evangelical world between those for whom the Bible is still the ultimate authority and those for whom it is not". I think this one will be a issue also for pentecostal denominations.
Maybe it's not important every single detail of the 16 FTs, but it's important if we have a common approach and feeling to discuss about the Bible. If we don't have a common approach, starting from the Bible, we are like all the other philosophers in the world: not useful, repetetive, arrugant and so on.
I propose to speak together about this issue with a specific post. I'll wait for it from you.
I think we can start from your review, George, of "Full Gospel, Fractured Minds?" of R. M. Nanez and the issue can be: "is there the chance for a radical middle between past pentecostal ignorance and close-mindness and present academic, intellectualistic trends? and what is the clear definition of this wise radical middle approach, specially for exegesis?".
I repeat that this is according to me the real focus of all the present debates.
I have just heard about this blog from some men at my church and have really enjoyed what I have read so far. Thank you so much for being willing to discuss what can be very difficult topics.
I hope it's ok to post a comment even though I'm not a pastor, but just an AG member.
It just so happens, I have been studying this topic lately and really have been amazed at what I found.
First let me say I don't think there is a mandated way in scripture to govern churches. I believe because of what Jesus did in Math.16:17-19, he opened the door for leaders to chose the structure of government. He gave his disciples the keys of heaven and whatsoever they bind or loose will have heavens support.
It is my opinion there is pro's and con's to both structures of teams or single leaders running a church.
If you are looking to have a church that models the first century churches then you would have a team structure. I can not find any proof in scripture of one pastor over a particular church. I am not saying it's wrong, but I can't find any proof in scripture.
The result of my study show that authority resided in the congregation who elected men and women to various functions of leadership (Elders,Overseers,Deacons, ext.)
They functioned as a team and submitted one to another. It's not that there was equal power either. Some because of there gifts may have greater influence on decision, but the final authority resided in the congregation as a whole. This way the whole body could use there gifts, and the whole body is lifted up.
The idea of one pastor (paid clergy) being over one church didn't come into effect until the 2nd and 3rd century. It is not unbiblical to have your church set up in a way that one pastor leads and has the final authority on matters. It's proven to be very effective. Many great mega churches have been built this way. The main problems is one not every pastor can handle the pressures, and temptations that come with the responsibilities of that much power. We have lost a lot of great pastors because of it. The other great problem is it can create a certain laziness in our congregations that, we come to church to watch all our leaders perform and entertain us. Then there are many who don't developed there gifts so the whole body is not lifted up and many Christians remain infants.
I personally find the team structure to be the most effective in general, but it definitely depends on your body of believers.
The team structure is not perfect , it can be very difficult to get a group to agree on something without encountering arguments. The word says the “testing of our faith produces patience that we may be complete and perfect lacking nothing.†We need to definitely grow in this area.
Most of you who commented on this blog topic ("Who Leads the Church") also weighed in on the following blog topic (Paul Grabill's IPE Topic).
Here are a couple of questions for you:
1) In essence, on the Grabill topic, as a "team" of ag bloggers, weren't we using shared authority, team-based leadership in an attempt to solve a problem or develop a "shared vision" about an issue?
2) Did it work? Did we come up with a team-based consensus that all participants were happy with and felt they "owned?"
3) How does "my way or the high way" attitude make team-based, shared authority leadership difficult? Is there any solution to this?
4) Because team-based, shared authority leadership takes so much give and take, and even a willingness to "compromise" (a swear word, I know), didn't the Grabill blog topic discussion show that it is tends to be quite messy, and looks a lot easier on paper than it works out in reality?
Just a thought.
January 19, 2008 8:40 AM
Not so sure... said...
This is not a team...i think that has been made clear over and over. An online community is not actually communtity....and it is certainly not a team. I dont buy the comparison.
I do agree a so called leadership team can be messy. I know that we in America like things neat and clean. We like all our different steps to a successful christian walk. We have so many diffent books written by different pastors about steps to have a great church.
The overwhelming evidence in scripture and historical writings point to the early church moving in multitude of leaders in each body of beleivers with the congregation with the final authority as a whole. It was the way Jews operated there synagoues. It makes sense since the majority of beleivers at that time were jewish.
I for one think the mess that may arise in team leadership is healthier than the mess in single leadership, because iron sharpens iron, and we need that accountability as imperfect beings who live in a time were power, sex and money are quickly trying to pull the church down.
just my thoughs
Tony Pino We have been engrained in the single (one senior pastor) leadership over one body for 1700-1800years now.
January 21, 2008 11:09 AM
Italian Servant said...
I again agree with Tony Pino, and that's not because I'm italian too ;-)
February 1, 2008 9:04 AM
In the comments section of "Leading Change in the AG," one of the topics being discussed centers on the question, "Who leads the church?"
Traditionally, AG churches have been led by strong senior pastors. My church is a good example. According to its Constitution and Bylaws, when the church hires a new senior pastor, the remaining staff from the previous administration turns in their resignations, which the new senior pastor is free to accept or reject. After serving a probationary term of one year, the senior pastor is voted upon. If he or she receives a two-thirds vote, then he or she can serve as long as desired, without having to worry about another vote. (This assumes service in good behavior, and there is a provision by which the Board of Deacons can ask for his/her resignation.) The senior pastor is an ex officio member of every committee and has broad authority to hire and fire, although the Board of Deacons and the congregation have final authority to approve the budget. My guess is that this is a fairly typical arrangement in General Council affiliated churches.
More recently, AG churches have been experimenting with team-based leadership models, whether in terms of a pastoral team concept or an elder leadership model. James River Assembly is a good example of a team-teaching church, although I'm not sure what the governance structure there is.
Here are some questions for discussion. In your responses, please be both frank in your assessments but also civil toward others.
1. Do the Scriptures mandate one model of church leadership? If so, what is it? Please cite specific passages. Alternatively, do the Scriptures give evidence of a variety of leadership models?
2. What are the pros and cons of these models? (My two-cents' worth is that the senior-pastor model provides unity of vision, mission, and values, but can drift toward authoritarianism. Team-leadership models, on the other hand diffuse ownership and empower many, while tending toward disorganization and the disavowal of personal responsibility.)
3. How effective is each model in accomplishing the mission of the church? (Here, I'm assuming that the end determines the means and that form follows function.)
4. How does "culture" (national, ethnic, generational, etc.) shape our understanding of leadership in the church? Is that a good or bad thing?
In the history of the church, the predominant leadership models have been episcopal (pastor-driven), presbyterian (elder-driven), and congregational (member-driven). Interestingly, all three models combine elements of the others. For example, in the Catholic church, the Pope is elected by Cardinals who are never appointed without the consensus fidelium ("consent of the faithful"). In Presbyterian churches, the elders govern, but it is the pastor who has special responsibilities and prerogatives, and the congregation often elects the elders to its session. Finally, in congregational churches, the members elect the pastor and the deacons, and they delegate authority to the pastor and the deacons to accomplish specific tasks. In other words, the traditional models of church governance all are mixed models, but with one of the elements being primus inter pares ("first among equals"). I'm not sure if this information will help the discussion along on this blog, but I've always found the information interesting nonetheless. Do with it what you will.
posted by George P. Wood at 5:09 PM on Jan 7, 2008
Mowser
"Who Leads the Church?"
66 Comments -
I find it interesting too, and I hope many will jump in with a comment, story, or rant. (Yes, rants can be fun too!)
My .02 is that too many churches are controlled by Deacons, Boards, etc. and that these guys are killing the church by limiting the pastor to a "monkey on a string" role.
We need a structure where the pastor can be the pastor and LEAD. We also need leaders (Elders/Deacons) who will SERVE the pastor and church, and who are MORE involved in the ministry of church, not just simply showing up every Sunday.
January 7, 2008 6:40 PM
This will be a very interesting discussion to read. Pastor Jeremy, you reference that "We need a structure where the pastor can be the pastor and LEAD. We also need leaders (Elders/Deacons) who will SERVE the pastor and church, and who are MORE involved in the ministry of church, not just simply showing up every Sunday."
I agree, Pastors need to be able to lead. The complexity comes when they are looking for Elders/Deacons to SERVE them when in the very essence, the pastors are also serving the congregation. Yet, too many boards put too many restrictions on their pastor, and then on the other hand, too many pastors take advantage of the freedoms given them, and forget the very people who support them, who have built the church to where it is, including financially and voluntarily.
Pastors need to be able to lead, and they need to be given the freedom to use the gifts God has given them to Pastor, and this I am sure works when the pastor truly exhibits pastoral qualities, including humility, and not seeking the "control" but to lead.
I attend James River Assembly, and the model they are using seems to be working. Time will tell, but so far so good. The fear is if they sway from their current leadership style, where does that leave all of us? Yes, we can leave and go elsewhere, but we supported the church all these years.
Steve
Springfield, MO
January 7, 2008 7:30 PM
Steve:
What exactly is James River's model? I'm interested in knowing how one of better churches does things, especially if it's innovative.
George
January 7, 2008 8:06 PM
It dawns on me that the three models of church government nicely correspond to Aristotle's three models of political government: monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. Monarchy, meaning rule by one, is closest to the episcopal form of government. Aristocracy, meaning rule by a few, is closest to the presbyterian form. And democracy, meaning rule by the people, is closest to congregationalism. Again, no idea what relevance that is, but I thought it was interesting to note.
January 7, 2008 9:34 PM
My interest in the team-based model is essentially based on three precepts. Before explaining them, let me clarify what I mean by “team.†I am not referring to a group of deacons or elders that act as an oversight committee to micro-manage the pastor’s activities. Nor am I referring to equal authority for every member of the church. What I mean by team is a group of leaders/elders that is diversified in their roles and giftings. The decision-making process stands more authoritative than any one person. There is a “lead†elder who is granted “point position†but whose voice is representative of the group and not simply their own.
The reasons this interests me are as follows:
1. Long-term success and health of the church. While I do see the short term results of a strong, single leader growing a church, I don’t see that system setting the church up for sustainable growth over time. A church grows into the thousands under one leader who sits in power for 15-20 years. Yet, when transition time comes, the church enters a very rocky season trying to adapt to a new leader and leadership style. It is almost guaranteed that the pastor following the successful former pastor is bound to be nothing more than a “transitional†leader. A team-based model allows for one or more leaders to leave without the setting, tone or structure of the church changing drastically.
2. Protection of the leaders. When I discuss team-based leadership with friends of mine in Senior Pastor positions, I almost always get as a rebuttal from them that the team model is inefficient. They refer to the “red-tape†you encounter by trying to gain a consensus in a group and feel that this un-necessarily bogs the church down. To them, the Senior Pastor needs the authority to make decisions without having to seek approval on every turn. But a true team-based model is not about “approval.†It is about protection.
It’s funny to me that in many churches they will have rules about finances requiring more than one signature on checks over a certain amount of money. Additionally, a pastor will not be allowed to counsel a woman privately in his office without someone else being aware of it. In these situations, we have checks because we rightly understand that no human is above being tempted by forces beyond their personal control. Sex and money can defeat any of us if we are left alone with them. Yet, when it comes an equally and potentially more lethal third element, namely “power,†we are willing to allow a Senior Pastor to dance with it un-checked because we get to see quick results.
A team-based model might be slow and horribly inefficient, but it protects the leaders from a force that history has proven corrupts and warps anyone allowed to touch it without accountability.
3. The true Leader of the church becomes more visible. In a team-based model, the group is forced to seek consensus among it’s members before moving forward. In other words, they look for unity. Isn’t this the mark of the Spirit’s movement in the New Testament? Doesn’t a team-based model force the group to consider more carefully whether or not the Spirit is truly in something as opposed to it just being the whim of one person’s idealistic dream?
I know that there are those out there who will tell me this is idealistic and good on paper. But is the dream of a team working together for the good of the church any more idealistic than one where a single, authoritative leader can truly abandon selfish tendencies and avoid covering their insecurities as a sole authoritarian?
Just some thoughts on my end towards the team-based concept. Would love to hear critiques as well as success stories.
January 7, 2008 11:32 PM
Lane:
I agree with the gist of your remarks. In fact, I think that "successful" (or "good" or "best-practice") senior pastors typically lead with a team approach, regardless of what prerogatives/responsibilities their churches' constitution and bylaws give them. They seek consensus (whether tacit or explicit) so that their decisions reflect an opinion broader than their own. And since their decisions reflect this consensus (again, tacitly or explicitly), they are not exercising power alone and are hence protected.
Consequently, I wonder whether the senior pastor model you're working against is either (a) a caricature of the way "successful" senior pastors actually work or (b) a critical corrective of the abuses found in "less successful" senior pastors, whose ministries are authoritarian and self-centered.
Much depends, of course, on what is meant by "successful" (or "or good" or "best-practice"). I'd say that a "successful" senior pastor is one whose ministry leaves more and better followers of Jesus Christ in his/her wake, who helps people discover and use their spiritual gifts, whose ministry garners "buy in" from the congregation of the church's mission and values, and whose church continues to disciple and minister at a high level when he/she has resigned. That's the model of senior pastoral leadership I grew up with as well as the one I'm trying to embody personally.
At the end of the day, I wonder if we agree on substance about this issue and only disagree on nomenclature.
George
P.S. One of the reasons I'm opposed to "team based leadership" is because, ironically enough, a minister I know of used this model in an attempt to gain control of a church from a lay board that had the more traditional model of senior pastoral leadership. Anyone on this lay board who disagreed with him was ostracized, and his team consisted of hand-picked people who agreed with him. I think I learned the danger of nomenclature from this minister. I've never heard of a more team-based authoritarian than him. Obviously, his model of leadership was not authentically team-based. Again, I'm only pointing out the danger of nomenclature.
January 8, 2008 3:14 AM
George...
I'm sure that we do agree on substance and I am aware that, truthfully, both systems can achieve the desired results and both systems are prone to human error gunking it up.
The Senior Pastor model is the truest form of the benevolent dictator and, provided the person filling that role is truly benevolent, you're right... a team will emerge that will make it almost impossible for the outsider to know which model the church operates under.
I've just been massively bothered over the past several years at the national statistic that the average church size for us is less than 200 people. This means that, despite some of the more shining stars, most of our churches are suffering.
While I don't have any research data of my own to really say anything, I do have several personal experiences (three) that lend themselves to influence my conclusions. In each of these three churches (AG) the church was on an "up and to the right" growth trend. Then, in each of them, the Senior Pastor moved on to bigger and better things. The result was the retardation of that growth in one and the reversal of the growth in the other two.
My conclusion is that our Senior Pastor model in the AG only lends itself to growth as long as the Senior Pastor stays put. But our model really suffers in the transition years for churches resulting in many of them having to start over again, and again, and again. It is my opinion that leadership change must be among the top 5 reasons many of our churches can't get past the startup phase.
You have obviously, George, been exposed to more of the data and research than I. Am I even remotely close in my conclusions?
January 8, 2008 5:55 AM
I should have said my "hypothesis" rather than my "conclusion" in the bold paragraph above. I have not set my mind in stone about anything and am 200% in an exploratory phase.
January 8, 2008 5:58 AM
Lane:
I have seen several churches make a smooth transition between senior pastors, but all these churches have been of the traditional senior pastor mold, where the senior pastor built a strong team.
I don't have experience with many (a) team model churches in general, but (b) the one I am aware of had a bad transition precisely because of the team model.
You're right, though, that churches need to develop ministries, institutions, structures, and most of all competent leaders who carry on the organization toward its mission when the senior pastorate is in transition.
My guess is that most of our small churches are small because the average pastor can lead about 100 people, but most pastors don't know how to empower others to lead their 100s so that the church can multiply.
George
January 8, 2008 8:29 AM
I guess that is certainly a factor. But one that pushes me towards the team-based model and not away from it. If your thoughts are right, it means that these churches are being inhibited by the inabilities of a single individual. Regardless of whether that pastor cannot learn delegation, or simply refuses to learn... the Senior Pastor model results in the church's atrophy due to the stop gap created by the leadership philosophy of the church.
It would seem to me that, in a team-based model (as I defined earlier), no one individual could hold the organization back whether through incompetence or apathy. In fact, the team would be able to check and push such an individual to either improve or yield their seat.
Good discussion. Your making me think and I have missed that since my school days.
January 8, 2008 9:49 AM
I feel the same way, Lane, about this discussion!
As I said, I think we're disagreeing on nomenclature but basically agreeing on substance. I may lean more toward the senior-pastor model than you do, but that's an emphasis, not a fundamental disagreement.
January 8, 2008 10:00 AM
Agreed.
Anyone out there actually working in a team-based model that has stories or insights to share????
January 8, 2008 10:19 AM
Don't you think that part of the equation for any "successful/effective" church is stability from the pastoral leadership? Do we really believe that in John Lindell left JRA that they would keep on chugging? Even in a church that has as strong a leadership model and team as JRA, I just don't think that that they would not at least suffer and initial hit numerically. However, I could also see situations where a church with this type of leadership approach may become more "successful/effective" after the initial drop from a leadership change. But in the end, doesn't it really all rely on stability from the head? Isn't JRA that way because John Lindell (with a lot of help from the Holy Spirit) built it to be that way? Just my thoughts...
January 8, 2008 10:27 AM
Beaty:
I agree with you regarding what would happen if John Lindell left James River today. The question is, how might a team-based concept of leadership help mitigate such an event? Knowing Lindell, I'm sure JRA has some sort of plan if something happened to him.
George
January 8, 2008 10:41 AM
I believe the servant-pastor who loves and leads his church within the parameters of accountability to an elected Board of Deacons will be successful.
We should combine the congregational model of electing Elders/Deacons to administer the operations of the church, with electing a Pastor to lead us spiritually. Thus a presbytery elected to handlethe workings of the church. This aligns with the Scriptural example given in the first church.
Adding in a team of dedicated associates to teach and lead the church-withih-the-church (Children, Youth, Young Adults, Singles, Single Agains, Seniors, etc) empowers the church for growth beyond the scope of a benevolent dictator, and away from a controlling board.
Military structure is a great example of effective leadership at different levels to accomplish much. Too much responsibiltiy on anyone's shoulders can lead to burn-out and collapse.
I believe it is more important for a Sr Pastor to shepherd the flock in love, than to be a great orator. Leadership is more often the substance of what is seen and felt (LOVE) than what is said.
Leadership brings people to desire to follow the leader - not to do so just because of the office held. If the leadeship is in tune with the Holy Spirit, from the top down, the church will be stronger, and even able to weather the storm if for some reason the Sr Pastor was removed from the structure.
Team-concept leadership employs the gifts of each member and is not dependent totally upon the one leader. The idea of removing the whole staff if the Sr Pastor resigns begets a failed church and the need to start over again. Perhaps we should allow for the associates to remain at a church even if the Sr Pastor resigns - providing the Board and Body want them to stay.
It works in the business world and in the military structure - it can work in the church to provide stability and continuity as well.
January 8, 2008 11:25 AM
Pastor Mark said:
"The idea of removing the whole staff if the Sr Pastor resigns begets a failed church and the need to start over again. Perhaps we should allow for the associates to remain at a church even if the Sr Pastor resigns - providing the Board and Body want them to stay.
It works in the business world and in the military structure - it can work in the church to provide stability and continuity as well.
"
This is exactly what happened at the church I attend. When the senior pastor was elected to district office, the board nominated a staff pastor with many years of service at the church to take the lead role, and the rest of the staff backed the move by agreeing to stay on if he was elected. So we basically had the same pastoral team, with just a shuffling of some titles and duties.
January 8, 2008 1:30 PM
Couple of things...
1 - "too many pastors take advantage of the freedoms given them"
Does this really happen, or is it just a fear?
2 - Don't you think that part of the equation for any "successful/effective" church is stability from the pastoral leadership?
Of course!, but I have also seen a church of 2500, who had the same founding pastor for 25 years resign,, only to see the church GROW with a new OUTSIDER pastor.
There is no absolute formula, and we know this.
I just think there is too much NEGATIVE SPECULATION taking place on this subject.
January 8, 2008 4:00 PM
Zorro...
I would think (though I could be wrong) that everyone would agree on the "no absolute formula" statement. But I don't think that what we are doing is searching for a "one size fits all" solution. To the contrary, the fact that the NT leaves this issue vague leads me to believe that we have the license to explore this topic frequently.
I, too, have flagged previous comment lists for descending to the negative. For what it is worth, though, I have not sensed that here yet. All I have read (and written) so far is an exploratory pros and cons list between a centralized and decentralized leadership model.
Also, for what it is worth, I think this discussion is a valid follow-up to the incredibly LONG comment section from George's post on Leading for Change. It would seem that we established (though very vaguely, I admit) that there are abuses of power at District levels. My opinion is that those leaders did not become that way upon entering the District office. Instead, they formed their leadership style at the local church level where they led.
So here is a second hypothesis (my first is a few comments up):
Changing the leadership style of churches at the local level towards increased accountability (team-based) will have positive effects on future District officers coming from such churches. These new officers will understand delegation, team-work, and accountability better than pastors who were previously authoritarian in leadership style.
(Again, this is purely for discussion and research. I am fully aware that we do not legislate church polity in the AG)
January 9, 2008 4:58 AM
Maybe one of the keys to smooth tranisitions of leadership which would allow our Chruches to go from "glory to glory" as opposed to surge and delcine through out the years is to build into our philosophy of ministry, especially as senior leaders, the idea of grooming our successor (you have all heard the phrase "there is no success without a successor).
The excellent business book "Built to Last" did research on those companies who are at least 70 years old and have performed consistently at the top of thier field. They then compared them with those companies who were the number 2 performer in thier field. Among many common denomonators, a key difference between the top performers and thier nearest rivals: the top performers groomed thier future CEO years in advance. Jack Welch and a couple of his peers were earmarked for the lead postion at GE some decade and a half or more before he took the postion if I remember right.
When you read 2 Timothy, you get the idea that Paul has done something similar with his protege.
I think the team approach and senior leader approach can both work. The component of leadership continuity during personnel change that team leadership affords can be provided by the senior leader model. This happens when we get a grid work for grooming a successor with the same DNA that the Church was built on the preceding years.
January 9, 2008 7:29 AM
Here is a question for you regarding this comment, mentioned earlier in this blog post, "I've just been massively bothered over the past several years at the national statistic that the average church size for us is less than 200 people. This means that, despite some of the more shining stars, most of our churches are suffering."
I serve as Pastor of a church of 80, in a rural community of 600. In my A/G section here, out of our 12 churches, only 2 are over 200, and those are located in the only two larger cities in our area. It is interesting that the national perception seems to be that churches under 200 are suffering. I have been Pastoring here for 10 years, and was not aware that our church was suffering:) (Bummer...I hope our congregation doesn't read this blog!)
Questions: Statistically, aren't a majority of A/G churches located in communities less that 10,000 people, and aren't a majority of A/G churches less than 200 in attendance? Do you think it is an accurate assessment, that most of these churches are "suffering?"
Thanks - I do enjoy this site and it's great dialogue!
Bob
PS - In our rural church, where the average lifespan of a pastor has historically been about three years, the Deacons/Board are very involved in leadership strategy & decision making, knowing that they may be left "holding the bag" with whatever direction and decisions the pastor/church makes. However, they (Deacons) have been very cooperative, flexible, and easy to work with in leadership of the church, and in cooperation with my leadership as a Pastor. They have supported me in making good decisions (sometimes hard decisions); and yet have also helped me in avoiding making some bad decisions that would have really back-fired.
January 9, 2008 9:51 AM
Dave...
Good insights. "Built to Last" is a favorite of mine and sits on my "To Re-Read" shelf annually.
There is a big difference, though, between businesses and churches that makes the "successor" concept more difficult in the church world than in the business world.
In a company, a CEO is known more for their philosophy and strategy than anything else. In fact, some employees may never even physically see their CEO for months at a time. So as long as the successor carries on that philosophy, things can transition smoothly.
In a church, a Senior Pastor's face time with his congregation every Sunday is a MAJOR factor in how the congregation evaluates him/her. This means that charisma and personality (not just philosophy) make them "successful." Since these traits cannot be "groomed" into a successor... the transition becomes more difficult if the new guy is of a MAJORLY different temperament.
Not saying it is impossible, and I agree with your insights. Just making the case that in a Senior Pastor model, their personality is a major factor in how they are evaluated by their congregation. This needs to carry over into the successor to follow them.
January 9, 2008 10:06 AM
ebagpastor...
The comment you quoted was mine, so I should respond.
Your right for flagging me on this one. There is no question that a church's size should be evaluated based on the relative size of the community in which they reside.
BUT, I would add that, despite the size of the community, growth over time is a factor of health. This means that you have to also ask about RATE of growth and not just SIZE. 80 people in a community of 600 means you have ~13% of the community in your church. That means you are doing better than a church of 1,000 in a community of 10,000.
But you also told us that you have been there for 10 years. So a follow up question is "How many people were there when you started?" How has the church grown over 10 years?
Please know that this question comes with sincere honesty and exploration on my part. I am not asking if you are a good leader or pastor, but RATHER if a team-based model would be more effective.
January 9, 2008 10:22 AM
EBAGPastor:
I think you're quite right to point out that being a church under 200 in attendance is not necessarily a bad thing. Rather than focus on absolute numbers, perhaps we should focus on ratios and trajectories.
Ratios: What is the size of the congregation in comparison to the community it serves? I think it's unreasonable to expect a community of 600 people to have a megachurch with 2000 or more people in attendance.
But even more important than ratios are trajectories: Is the church growing, stagnant, or declining? Obviously, the overall attendance figure is a blunt measurement of growth patterns. But I think we should really be looking at how many people are converting, how many are being baptized, how many are baptized in the Spirit, how many are joining small groups, how many report making spiritual progress in the last year, and how many are using their spiritual gifts to serve others in some form of ministry.
As the pastor of a small (but hopefully growing church), those are the considerations I keep in mind. What do you think, EBAGPastor?
George
January 9, 2008 10:29 AM
So many things to comment on...
I think dave hit on a key point when it comes to transition. Whether its the traditional model or the team model, isn't the point to work ourselves out of a job? Making leaders and influencers rather than simply pew warmers? I think this applies to our own positions. If we want the church to continue to grow and to be a kingdom building church after we leave then shouldn't we be building up our replacements?
I tend to lean more towards a Team model because I know my weaknesses and I think having team members who are strong where I'm weak simply makes sense.
Also, multiple people can be in multiple places at one time...obviously I can not.
And the sphere of influence from a team is naturally bigger than the sphere of influence from an individual.
And I don't have to do everything or be everywhere all the time.
I think some things that at least have to be looked out for and addressed are
unity of vision and purpose,
clarity of roles,
work ethics,
determining whats not worth getting in an argument over,
not trying to control other team members area of ministry while still maintaining unity in direction,
determining how to work together when lines between roles and areas aren't hard and fast and they overlap into each other.
Honestly, I can appreciate Pastor Jeremy's comments and those pastors that Lane spoke of because there are times when you just want to be able to do what you were put on this world to do. Sometimes people get in the way, sometimes they are an anchor but sometimes they are exactly what we need to see things from a different perspective. Sometimes they have abilities and accomplish things we never dreamed of on our own. Ultimately, I think having a team of leaders with a unified vision and direction working together has more benefits than the traditional model.
George, do you think that your problem from the one experience you have with a team model is with the person's attempt to take over or with the actual team model? One's abuse of a system doesn't necessarily make that system bad or wrong.
I'm still trying to figure it out so don't think that I think I have the answers, these are just some things I've observed and experienced.
January 9, 2008 10:47 AM
I didn't see the last few comments until after I posted mine. I think it is worth another comment.
I think that a more accurate measure of success is if our spiritual children are reproducing spiritual children.
There are too many different factors and variables between rural and urban to grasp ahold of what is successful from numbers alone given on a report.
January 9, 2008 11:01 AM
Wes:
Through my interactions with Lane, I've come to the conclusion that we advocate basically the same style of pastoral leadership. He tends more to the team side of the equation, I a bit more to the senior pastor side. But essentially, we agree that the church has a multiple leadership. What separates us mostly is nomenclature. And yes, it is my observation of the abuse of team models that has made me wary of that model, even though I myself work with what is functionally a team model of leadership.
I also agree that there are better measurements of church health than the one's I cited, such as spiritual children reproducing more spiritual children, which is what you wrote about.
George
January 9, 2008 11:05 AM
George – I offer 2 parts to my post. Please feel free to delete part 2 until you feel it is appropriate.
I. I am a person who has served as Youth, Music, C.E. and Senior pastor - 34 years in ministry. I moved with one Senior pastor, when he changed churches. I also lived through one church, as an associate, when there were 4 pastoral changes. (I don’t know of many who have served multiple Senior Pastors in the same church.)
My observation is that when staff stays through to a new administration it is a very difficult transition time. And most Senior Pastors want the opportunity to choose staff that they feel fit their style and hopefully fill in where they are weak. (I have also had to resign due to an incoming Senior Pastor.) It is always tempting to remind the New pastor of “How it was done before†those words often precede these words: "Call U-Haul".
I do believe in the system of electing a Senior pastor and allowing him to choose his staff. (I have stated before in your blog that I even think that idea would be great for our District Superintendents. Elect the Sup and let him choose his staff.) I know I am trusting the Senior pastor to be a man of God.
The best ministry teams I have served on – looked a lot like the coaching staff of a successful football team. I along with others, played the role of an assistant coach. We were valued and needed. Our opinions were heard and weighed. We had our assignments and would be held accountable for our areas. We were considered experts in our area by the Senior Pastor. And we were supported when deacons challenged or attacked.
Too few Senior pastors value their staff enough to sit down with them and hear their hearts. Effective teams help prepare for ministry better and evaluate with more honestly. Sadly, I only served with 2 pastors with an effective team model. (FYI: One is now in Heaven.)
Could it be that our "1 Man Does It All" mentality, has created a monster that has to be fed?
II. I want to throw a curve into this discussion, because I believe that there are 3 major shifts that are happening in growing churches today:
1. Some of the up and coming young Pastors say they are called to a City.
… Vs. being called to a Church.
So, when a pulpit committee calls them looking for a pastor, they quickly say “NO, I am
Called to my city.â€
I’m afraid too many of us look at churches as stepping stones along the way. I had one
Pastor tell me NOT to take a certain church because it was “Not Visible enoughâ€.
Meaning you could be forgotten there.
2. Some of the newer church models have gone away from Elected Deacons or Elders.
They use pastors, missionaries and evangelists to serve on their Executive Boards.
(The people do not elect any one or vote on anything.) This brings accountability
without the suppression that usually comes from elected non-ministry boards.
3. Growing churches are once again exposing people to the hurting in their cities. These churches and their people are SERVING their communities.
I believe that those three factor into the strength and growth of their churches more than any other factors.
I can share one churches government structure via an attachment for anyone who’s interested.
Tom Bougher reach me at tbougher@therockfwc.org
January 9, 2008 11:20 AM
Tom:
Personally, I think a new senior pastor in a multiple staff church should get to know who's there before he/she starts replacing people. New senior pastors will have to change things, but churches are not blank checks which they get to write to themselves. That's just my personal feeling. I recognize there are pros and cons. Sometimes, new senior pastors are arrogant, and keeping the existing staff forces them to be humble and cooperative. On the other hand, sometimes new senior pastors need to jump start a stagnant organization, and keeping the existing staff is an obstacle to accomplishing this goal.
George
January 9, 2008 11:37 AM
Thanks for the good feedback. Glad to hear that we're not necessarily "suffering", out here in rural America, just because we don't have a jaw-dropping ACMR.
Our church was averaging around 50 when we arrived, so God has blessed us with some growth over the years. Our DS challenges each church to set a goal of growing by at least 10% each year. This seems like a goal that is applicable to both rural and city churches. Each year, as we look back to measure the success of the last year, we look at several factors:
*Was God exalted & lifted High in our worship and in the way we "do" church?
*Did lost people come to Jesus through our church's ministries, and through our missions support?
*Did our own people grow in their relationship with God, and in their effectiveness in being used by God in ministry.
Each year there is room for giving God glory for successes, and also room for improvement.
Lane - In a smaller, rural church, being the solo "staff" member, and already working pretty closely with the Board, what would a "team based model" look like? Seems like we are pretty team based now, but perhaps I am missing something?
Bob
January 9, 2008 11:38 AM
This is a topic that I am passionate about and there is no way to express my full point of view in a space anyone would be willing to read. I am a former Deacon/chairman of pastor search committee who is now a credentialed staff pastor at a medium sized church. So, I have seen both sides and my feeling is that in the most general terms, The "Vision" for the local church must flow through the senior pastor and each associate or ministry leader should do his/her part to make sure that his/her area of ministry does its part to acheive the "Vision" cast by the senior pastor. This is not "pastorcentric" nor authoritarian. Placing the vision in one person is not the same as one person doing all the ministry. God gave the vision for the entire nation of Israel to Moses, who then disseminated that vison to Aaron and Miriam and also to the judges of smaller numbers. I'll stop there because to continue to develop that thought would cause me to go too long and I have already gone too long.
January 9, 2008 12:15 PM
RWhitlow:
Don't worry about long comments! Have you seen thelength of some of my posts (particularly "Leading Change in the AG")? I think it would be useful to flesh out some of the senior-pastor-model ideas that you have.
George
January 9, 2008 1:48 PM
Lane,
You are right that the "face time" of the Senior Pastor is crucial in how the congregation evaluates and relates with him. I believe the key in grooming a successor is to do so long before you leave, beginning to elevate his/her "face time" before the congregation during the final few years of one's tenure.
I volunteered for several years at a Church where the Pastor was convinced that I was his replacement. He promoted me verbally and had me speak more and more during his final two years at our Church. Upon his resignation he informed the Board that their new pastor was already among them. He had wisely been planting that seed for some time.
Our church esily made the transition because of his willingness to promote my ministry over his own at times. I am indebted to his willingness to pass the baton in many subtle ways before his time was done.
Our Church has experienced strong consistent growth ever since, but much of it can be attributed to his foresight (I have been given credit for things that were really his doing...his concern for the Church's health rather than being caught up with who would get the credit was key to our continued momentum).
January 9, 2008 6:04 PM
First, let me say I recognize my own experience colors a significant amount of my perceptions on this topic. Unfortunately, I have been too close, too often, to senior pastors and/or board chairs who have abused their authority. Often the abuse stemmed from insecurity or immaturity. Other times the abuse stemmed from incompetency and neglect. Maybe my experience has affected me for the better, perhaps for the worse. I’m open for your opinions on that matter.
With that disclosure and in full view of my “issues†I am opposed to any type of church leadership that is not team centered both theologically and practically. Let me give a few reasons why I take that position.
First, I believe the Mosaic era is over, never to return. Gone is the time when a man, called of God, goes up onto a mountain, alone, is given instruction, authority and empowerment to employ the ways and means of God’s kingdom rule, and then delivers that ethic to God’s people, without responsibility or accountability to anyone other than God himself. That era left when Jesus ascended into heaven and the Church age was born at Pentecost.
Since that time we must as a Church discern and achieve the ways and means of God’s kingdom in concert with one another in a “metaphysical†way (if you’ll let me use that term) just as Jesus’ earthly body worked together to enact his personal individual will “physically†while he was embodied. Paul uses this metaphor perfectly. There is only one head, Jesus. Everyone else is a bit player, dependent on every other member for mutual success. The idea of a “senior†liver, “associate†elbow or “junior†aorta is ridiculous. Every part is equally valued and needs to be able to communicate what and how they see their part from their seat in the organization with freedom and integrity. Certainly some are more visible, yet none more important. So biblically I think Paul describes in many places the gifts and offices given to the church to be equally important and therefore equally respected and valued for leadership responsibility.
The best example of a Godly leadership model is the Trinity. Every member remains equally submitted and dependent on each other. Can you imagine one member of the Trinity demanding seniority? It couldn’t happen. They each play the role that brings about the perfect display of the Godhead. Can one imagine there being even a thought of “First, Second and Third?†It is impossible to think of imposed subordination within the trinity. Why? Because they each subordinate to the other continually. The Father gives all power on heaven and earth to his son. The son says and does nothing he does not see his father doing. The Spirit never draws attention to himself but only draws and points humankind to the son. The son leaves so the spirit can come. On and on it goes. This is the model of leadership. Submission is seen over and over again in love and faith to each other.
Team leadership in the church is not efficient from a corporate, western philosophical mindset. I fully understand that critique and have suffered through the pain and frustration which often accompanies it. Team leadership is not clean or easy. But it is not for these reasons why we most often settle for a more authoritarian, Mosaic model. In my experience team leadership requires serious devotion and commitment to relationship. And unfortunately too many senior pastors are significantly lacking in either the ability or desire to engage their staffs and or elders in a transparent, interwoven, communal, mutually dependent discipleship living. God himself is encapsulated in what Dallas Willard calls a “sweet society of love†where the first, second and third members of the trinity are abandoned to and complete a “social matrix where not only is there love and being loved, but also there is shared love for one another.†For love to be perfected it has to be inclusive. And it is this love which first must be birthed and demonstrated within our leadership structures before it can be caught by the larger body. John’s epistle states this type of love, when evidenced by the world, will uniquely mark us as believers of the risen Christ.
I recognize and respect the insights and logical arguments all the previous posters have made on why and where team leadership falls apart or becomes problematic. I would simply seek to add to the argument that the theory of team leadership is undeniably biblical. If it fails in practice it is not because the model is flawed.
I end this too long post with my favorite G. K. Chesterton quote. He said:"The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult and left untried."
I think that is equally true for team based leadership in the church and relationships in general. Thanks and I look forward to your comments.
January 9, 2008 7:17 PM
Ebagpastor...
Good question. (RE: what a team model would look like in a small church). That's why I defined what I meant by a team model way up at the top of this list. I am not equating "team" to "staff." I totally understand that a staff size is dependent on finances available and, as such, if all members of a team had to be paid staff... my vision for team-based leadership would be relegated to mid-sized churches and above.
But that is not what I am advocating. What I mean by "team-based" is that the authority and decision-making process is handled by a group rather than an individual. Additionally, the members of this group actually take lead roles over the areas in the church where their giftings reside. The responsibility for each area is left to them. The Pastor does not tell them what HE/SHE wants. They are more than just people "carrying out the Pastor's vision."
The team cements this process in the constitution which stands higher than any one member of the team (including the Pastor). Much like the Constitution of the US. It, and not the President, is what runs the country.
The difference between this and a traditional Pastor meeting with his/her Board of Deacons/Elders is that, in my experience... the people that make up the Board are rarely actively overseeing departments. They usually are just trusted people in the church who come out once/month to ratify and support what the Senior Pastor is doing.
How does my definition line up with what you are doing there?
January 10, 2008 5:47 AM
Dave...
Your experience encourages me!! I think what you described is a rarity and your Senior Pastor sounds like a man who truly believed in praxis (not theory) that it was not about him. Thanks for the refreshing story!!
RWhitlow...
You raise a VERY important point... namely, who is responsible for the vision of the church?
I am yet to be convinced that the Senior Pastor, alone, is responsible for vision of the church. Along with what 1120 wrote, I think you can only build a case theologically for that through a Mosaic lens and I do not believe that should be our model.
As George has noted above... I am pushing more for a theory of decision-making then I am a certain model. A Senior Pastor who uses his/her authority to build a team and then incorporates them into the vision process would be accomplishing the very same thing I talking about here.
January 10, 2008 6:19 AM
Mel Ming is an excellent resource on this topic. Maybe he will discover this site and post...
January 10, 2008 6:53 PM
As a church we are working through the vision and values of our church. I am not so sure I agree that the Pastor is the only one responsible for the vision of the church I think he or she is the protector or primary presenter of that vision more so than supreme creator of the vision. The Pastor guides the leadership team in vision casting, and leads the ideas of vision, but if the top tier of leadership isn't involved there is no "buy in."
Looking at this in relation to macro and microeconomics is a good way to think about it. Macroeconomics in the broad and wide study where microeconomics takes it down to a detailed and functional level. The Pastor and top tier of leadership (pastoral staff, board, elders etc.) cast the macro-vision and encourage individuals to develop the micro-vision within the context of the macro-vision. We need to let others have ownership of their micro-vision and the freedom to allow their creativity to flow through it.
January 11, 2008 7:52 AM
Concerning strong Pastoral leadership, If not the Mosaic model, then our friends on the liberal side of pentecostalism will state to us that its the "Apostolic model" as in Paul?
Can someone comment. Thanks
January 11, 2008 8:24 AM
No, I don't think the apostolic model, as evidenced in the modern church, is biblical either. In fact I would argue that many of those who support the apostolic model today are simply rewriting their version the Mosaic model with New Testament terms.
The model of leadership that I believe scripture teaches is that found in the Trinity and the Body.(as argued at length previously.)That model takes faith, grace, relationship and an understanding of community.
I do believe there is a gift of leadership. Most spiritual gifting measurements reveal that very few, less than 10%, of believers score high in this area. I think that is appropriate and allows for order and alignment. There should be significantly fewer "leaders" than followers. Getting too many cooks in the kitchen is not the objective. Getting all the cooks that belong in the kitchen is.
The argument I make is not that leaders should be prevented from their rightful place within the body to guide and direct. I argue for how leadership takes shape in form and praxis. I believe our entire leadership theology needs to be re-evaluated and reshaped from the authoritarian, "anointed" Mosaic model. The abuses of these types of leaders are biblical not only in scope but proportion.
Helping people go where they have never been before requires a guide with skills and experience. But the body has been given a team (prophets, teachers, evangelists, apostles/missionaries and shepherds)of experienced, uniquely gifted members to work together, displaying mutual dependence, respect and love, to accomplish the work of the Kingdom.
The last point I want to make surrounds the nature of servant leadership. Too many of our churches model top notch corporations where the impetus of the organization is to serve the needs and desires of the very few and elite at the top of the pyramid. I don't quarrel with that model for the purposes corporations serve. They follow the profit motive that is very clean and easy to discern. Jesus, however, reveals a completely different ethic that motivates his kingdom. When faith, love and grace are instituted as prime motivators, they will turn the corporate leadership paradigm upside down. Instead of top-down leadership, we witness Jesus leading with a bottom-up approach. In Kingdom dynamics, the individual who serves the most people, not the individual served by the most people, is revealed as the true leader of the organization.
January 11, 2008 9:51 AM
This is a great discussion that is in the best tradition of this blog. It has caused me to re-examine my positions, which is always healthy. As a recently credentialed minister from a business background, I may have a different definition of vision and vision casting. My view is that vision is a general direction or goal that finds its strength and life as it is fleshed out by the leadership team. I have been a manager, but I have never been a senior pastor, and I know that there are similarities, but some extreme differences. In my role as a manager/leader I was given goals and I also set goals for those who worked under my leadership. It was my responsibility to determine if the goals given to me were attainable with the team I had, and make changes as necessary. My best times were when the goals were just beyond our existing abilities and I was able to encourage and build up my team members to go beyond what they thought they could do.
Where this analogy breaks down in the church, is that in the business world if I had to make team changes because of incapable or unwilling team members, I didn't fear losing customers if I made a change. My only concern was meeting the goals set by my employer.
My idea of vision flowing through the senior pastor first is along the idea of direction such as connecting to the community, a greater emphasis on prayer, more ministry focus and less program focus, or something like that. He then has the responsibility of getting buy-in from his ministry team (and/or board members) so that they will be vision carriers. Each of them will be more specific in carrying out their part of the overall vision as it relates directly to their own area of ministry influence. Is this team ministry? Or is it Mosaic? I've always just called this leadership.
January 11, 2008 12:09 PM
Rwhitlow...
I agree with you. This discussion has been a great "iron-sharpening-iron" discussion that has remained void of negative and disparaging comments and has stayed on the theoretical/discussion level.
Based on your last paragraph, what you described is (in my opinion) still a "Mosaic" concept. Anytime the leader looks for buy-in AFTER he/she has set the vision you have a Mosaic model. Instead, what I advocate as team-based is the entire team gathering together to ask the question "What should the vision be?" as a unit. The leader may spearhead the discussion and even throw in thoughts as catalysts for the dialogue... but for it to be team-based the team has to feel like they helped to develop the vision and not just carry it.
January 11, 2008 1:15 PM
Let me throw a theoretical monkey wrench into the discussion here. Several posters have critiqued the Mosaic model of leadership in favor of a more team model of leadership. The basic critique of the Mosaic model is that it is authoritarian and unaccountable. Of course, teams can be equally authoritarian and unaccountable. I have recently read a testimony about how a board of elders drove a senior pastor out of the church out of ungodly motives. Only recently have things turned around there.
Perhaps I can use Lane's specific example about vision buy-in to illustrate my point. He wrote that it's bad for an individual leader to expect buy-in after he alone has determined the vision of the church. Is it equally wrong for a team to do that? But isn't that exactly what happens in church situations? A small group of leaders meets to determine the vision, mission, and values of the church. They then present these things to the entire congregation in an effort to get buy-in. Why is it wrong for a senior pastor to do what a team would be doing? And if it's acceptable for a small team within the overall congregation to get buy-in from the congregation after they have determined the church's vision, why is it wrong for a individual pastor to do the same?
At the level of theory, the authority of leadership is always a tricky issue facing the individual leader and/or his team. From my perspective, just about any model of leadership can work, DEPENDING ON THE LEADER(S). A good senior pastor can lead effectively, and a bad team can lead defectively, depending on their character and integrity.
As I've mentioned in my earlier exchanges with Lane, I favor a senior-pastor/team combo, with emphasis on the senior pastor. I think he emphasizes the other side of that model.
Anyway, like I said, this is just a theoretical monkey wrench. I agree with the substance and concerns of most of these posts.
January 11, 2008 5:23 PM
George...
Your point is well taken, and, correct. In trying to point out the difference between the two models to Rwhitlow, I failed in limiting myself to his language used in his post where he only mentioned two parties; the Senior lead and the team leads.
For what it is worth, your point is exactly what Bill Hybels addressed in the first session of the Leadership Summit this past summer. He agreed with you that whether a Senior Pastor does it, or a team does ... it is wrong.
The solution Willow has recently implemented is one where the team-initialized vision goes through, not one, but two procedures of review by the small groups in the church before being implemented. While the process is laborious, he admits, it has shown higher productivity and greater church ownership (meaning less conflict) than any other point in his 28 years of leadership.
January 11, 2008 7:37 PM
I'd be interested in reading more about Willow's process, Lane. I'm in the process of reimagining my church's vision, mission, and values; and I could use some guidance on how to get greater buy-in, pariticpation, and involvement from the congregation.
January 11, 2008 10:17 PM
I wish I had the money to be able to buy it and send it to you. Alas... I don't. If you are able... all you need to get is Session 1: "Vision to Die For" of this past year's Summit. He explains how they walk through the new vision casting process in detail. VERY much worth listening to if for nothing else than to consider the different model.
January 11, 2008 11:23 PM
Thanks, Lane! I just finished reading REVEAL, and I think I'm going to write a post about it. Very challenging stuff!
January 12, 2008 12:03 PM
George,
Another book I would recommend is Andy Stanley's "Vision Casting" for ideas about the re-imaging you discussed.
I agree with Lane. Hybel's explanation on how Willow Creek structured the team approach to engender buy in from the larger body is innovative and well thought through. I thought their process seemed to be a bit cumbersome at first glance. But I agree that the buy-in which results would effectively avoid the types of oligarchies and power plays described in George's hypothetical.
George makes a good point: Bad leaders are bad leaders whether they come in singles, pairs or groups. But as our nation discovered, sharing power, having a balance of power, is the best way to safeguard against the passions of power and their accompanying abuses.
I think the greater point is that no one leader can hope to take, maintain and monitor the pulse of an organization as dynamic and diverse as the local church. What the Mosaic leadership style produces, in my opinion, are churches that more resemble only the personalities of the few in leadership and not the diversity of the community they inhabit. Meaning these churches often become more exclusive and less inclusive to diversity within their body. When I say diversity I don't only mean racial or socio-politico-economic diversity. I would also include the acceptance of diversity when considering ministry needs and opportunities. I believe there can be a direct link found between exclusivity in leadership style and a church that is exclusive with the gospel. The team approach, working together as spirit-filled, dedicated disciples of Jesus will guard against building self-limiting security barriers (walls) around our churches.
It is impossible to know how and who God is going to use to communicate his divine plan and vision for our churches. We can and should be open and willing to learn from everybody. Especially those we are trying to minister to.
January 12, 2008 9:28 PM
I didn't understand a point... maybe I didn't see it...
If we see New testament, is there any chuch that has a Senior Pastor? It seems to me that there is always a strong evidence for "elders". So I think that a Senior Pastor can be useful, but the biblical model is "team-based".
Is there any opposition on my biblical interpretation?
January 13, 2008 8:09 AM
Italian Servant:
I'd say that the evidence for senior pastoring in the New Testament is implicit, rather than explicit. Take, for example, Paul's letters to Timothy and Titus. Both those men clearly seemed to be "first among equals" in their respective church organizations in Ephesus and Crete. Else why would Paul write to them as individuals, rather than to the entire board of elders or the entire church? As you look past the New Testament period in the post-apostolic age, you see a pattern emerging of bishops taking primary care for certain churches. One things here of Ignatius, for example. This senior leadership was not in opposition to other leaders within the church, but it does seem to have been an authoritative role, "first among equals" even. Now, of course, you could totally discount the evidence of the post-aposotlic age, but why? It seems to me that this period is vital if we want to understand how the New Testament was intepreted and practiced by those in closest chronological proximity to the apostles. Their example is not infallible, obviously, but it is important, for they show the trajectory of New Testament teaching in the early second century, often in the exact same cities where the apostles had founded early churches.
George
January 13, 2008 8:26 AM
George,
I thank you for your answer, but I disagree about some items.
1) About the example of Paul, we are speaking of an apostle that in an age where there wasn't the complete written bible, was bible himself. Timothy was his delegate. There's no accent on the NT on the preservation of these special roles, instead there is accent on the preservation of elders and deacons.
2) The "doctrine" of pluralist team-working is not in contrast with a single pastor or a Senior Pastor view if you think him as an exception or an extreme case
. Nowhere in the Bible we find: "one elder is wrong". But I think that the "one-pastor leadership" is a human tendence that is necessary in some situations (specially in transition) and become not good in extabilished church.
To return to Mosaic Model, we see that God wanted one leader (Moses) for the challenge of desert, one leader (Joshua) for the challenge of Canaan, but then God didn't propose any "one-head leadership". The "one-head leadership" came back with the king, but it was not a good idea according to God.
At the same way, I think it's human trend to prefer one-head leadership, because everything becomes easier, but it's not the final goal when you want a "God's leadership".
The post-apostolic age had a bad trend and the result was the Catholic Church. I think "one bishop for one church" was simply the best they could do and surely it was not against apostolic doctrine.
But I think that when a real team-work works... that's GREAT, it's the best goal God wants that we achieve, because it means BODY, ARMONY, ORGANISM and not human leadership.
3) A last thought: the post-apostolic church choosed "one-head leadership" also for the world-church and so the role of the pope was created. What about this issue? Is it necessary a president for a movement? Can it be only a representative? (I hope so) Or we can re-think to a team-leadership also for the denominations? I think apostolic church had team-leadership at the top, because Paul, Peter and James seem at the same level in acts 15.
I hope this long comment was useful for everyone to reflect just a little about things that we say that are "inevitable", but I'm not so sure.
Italian Servant
January 13, 2008 12:33 PM
Italian Servant:
I agree with you that the New Testament prefers a plurality of leaders in the church. To clarify my point, I believe that senior pastors are first among equals in church leadership, not the only leadership. So, my model would not be one-head-leadership but first-among-equals-on-a-team leadership.
I think this is actually a biblical pattern, by the way. Moses was the leader of a team (remember the elders?). Joshua similarly had a team (remember Caleb?). David had his mighty men. Solomon had his advisers. Jesus had his apostles (not to mention the 70). The apostles had their deacons. Paul had Barnabas, Silas, Timothy, and Titus. Etc., etc., etc. Let's stipulate for further discussion that there is no one-head-leadership model anywhere in the Bible. To me, the interesting debate is what role a senior leader plays on a team, but perhaps that's because I'm the senior leader on a team. For all you associate pastors, the relevant question might be what role an associate plays on a team led by the senior pastor. Or what role elders have in decision making.
George
P.S. I think it's great that we've got an international dialogue going on here.
January 13, 2008 2:59 PM
George,
first of all I thank you because you forgive my bad english with a real christian love ;-); secondarly, I can agree with your formulation also if I have some difficulties to understand why God chooses clearly Moses and Joshua but he doesn't choose anyone else after they go inside the promise-land (and why so great problem with the role of the king?).
My answer to your question probably is clear by my assumptions: I think at the best a senior pastor must stop to exist, in the sense that the collegiality has to stand above his will; at the worst, in the situations when love and armony don't win the struggles inside the team, he must take the situation in his hand and must decide with his will what is impossible to decide in the team.
So, if you want, the senior pastor must be the second chance during a decision-process: if the team doesn't achieve a common answer or a common solution for an item, the senior pastor rules.
Italian Servant.
P.S. Why don't promote a little more the international dialogue also with some ad hoc posts ;-)? I'd like it...
January 13, 2008 3:32 PM
George,
Does first amongst "equals" also mean equal compensation and pay?
How far does your model of "team" actually mean equal?
January 13, 2008 5:03 PM
Italian Servant:
Why kind of ad hoc posts would you like to see us write? Are there issues we could address that would be of more relevance to the international AG?
Also, after Moses and Joshua, God did in fact raise up individual leaders to guide the nation, didn't he? Wasn't that what the Judges were?
Anonymous:
Pay should be determined by a matrix of professional responsibilities, education, and length of tenure. I can envisage situations where an older associate with wide responsibilities may in fact make more money than a newly minted, first-time senior pastor.
George
January 13, 2008 5:41 PM
George,
I'll suggest probably in the future some good arguments for "international blogging" ;-) (well, you will tell me if they'll be _good_ :-D!); the Judges arrived after the repeated crisis, but they were never thought as standard-leadership (I think it's very clear the book of Judges about this issue). This is why I think the individual-leader arrives in bad moments and then "goes out".
However, I don't believe in the first-among-equals-on-a-team leadership. In every moment, there is one-head-leadership or a team-leadership. Generally, the first-among-equals-on-a-team leadership is a nice way to say one-head leadership (as the example of david - he was the king, the other ones were simply advisers) or at the best is a way to say that one-head-leadership and team-leadership alternate.
Ah, I forgot to say that in Italy there isn't any example of AoG team-leadership church. So, this is only my opinion according to what I read in the Bible and you don't have to think that this is "the Italian Thinking" ;-)
God bless us,
Italian Servant
January 14, 2008 3:16 AM
I find myself boring about this argument... I think it's not so important as the discussion about baptism in the Holy Spirit that is in the next post... so for me this discussion can be closed.
Thanks: I hope you didn't repent about this freedom you gave me. I repeat that I'm ready to go out if this is not the right place for me.
Now, I've to come back to my spaghetti... :-D.
Italian Servant
January 14, 2008 8:32 AM
I think Italian Servant is on the right track of thinking on this issue - there is actually very little biblical support for the single senior pastor leader model but plenty of support for the plurality of elders model.
also really great book to consider reading on this topic is Timothy S. Laniak;s Shepherds After My Own Heart: Pastoral Traditions and Leadership in the Bible (New Studies in Biblical Theology NSBT) (IVP, 2006).
January 14, 2008 1:15 PM
George, Lane, Paul,
I thank the anonymous for support to my position on leadership, but I am really surprised that I was the first one that began to speak about the biblical aspects of leadership after 20 comments on this theme. Also after seeing the open-dialogue on the FTs, I notice that nobody is trying to estabilish the biblical truth and praxis. Instead there's something a refusal of this kind of approach. I understand that it seems the tipical story of the old pastor that discourages the new generations, but the first above-all issue that this blog MUST challenge is: what kind of hermeneutics and exegesis we want to have in Assemblies of God? Against the common places about the pentecostal believers, Azusa Street was not born from EXPERIENCE (Seymour wasn't yet baptized after 6 years, if I remember correctly); Azusa street was born on a NEW (OLD) DOCTRINE about spiritual experience. And this doctrine came from a naive, ingenuous,
literalistic view of the Word (Parham's teaching is so stupid for us, wise 21th century pentecostal servants). So we'll have a lot of problems about women in ministry (yes or not), baptism in the Holy Spirit, tongues, omosexuality (why not?), leadership and so on if we don't choose a clear hermeneutics for our movement. Academic world is saying to pentecostal churches that hermeneutics is just like philosophy ("choose your best solution and continue to love and work with your friends"), but the community of faith is first of all a community of truths before than a community of experiences. Today in our discussion the focal point is this one: are we able, starting from a common hermeneutics, reading together the Bible, to arrive at a common point about a doctrine? if we are not able, so let's continue to follow pragmatism and almost-political thinking. But this kind of arguments seems to me very different from Acts-15-dialogue and not really useful.
This week I was shocked by this page: http://www.cbmw.org/Blog/Posts/Wayne-Grudem-on-the-State-of-the-Gender-Debate-and-the-Way-Forward
Wayne Grudem is prophetizing a "large realignment of the entire evangelical world between those for whom the Bible is still the ultimate authority and those for whom it is not". I think this one will be a issue also for pentecostal denominations.
Maybe it's not important every single detail of the 16 FTs, but it's important if we have a common approach and feeling to discuss about the Bible. If we don't have a common approach, starting from the Bible, we are like all the other philosophers in the world: not useful, repetetive, arrugant and so on.
I propose to speak together about this issue with a specific post. I'll wait for it from you.
I think we can start from your review, George, of "Full Gospel, Fractured Minds?" of R. M. Nanez and the issue can be: "is there the chance for a radical middle between past pentecostal ignorance and close-mindness and present academic, intellectualistic trends? and what is the clear definition of this wise radical middle approach, specially for exegesis?".
I repeat that this is according to me the real focus of all the present debates.
I close with Matthew 11.25.
God bless us,
Italian Servant
January 14, 2008 2:09 PM
Blessings everyone.
I have just heard about this blog from some men at my church and have really enjoyed what I have read so far. Thank you so much for being willing to discuss what can be very difficult topics.
I hope it's ok to post a comment even though I'm not a pastor, but just an AG member.
It just so happens, I have been studying this topic lately and really have been amazed at what I found.
First let me say I don't think there is a mandated way in scripture to govern churches. I believe because of what Jesus did in Math.16:17-19, he opened the door for leaders to chose the structure of government. He gave his disciples the keys of heaven and whatsoever they bind or loose will have heavens support.
It is my opinion there is pro's and con's to both structures of teams or single leaders running a church.
If you are looking to have a church that models the first century churches then you would have a team structure. I can not find any proof in scripture of one pastor over a particular church. I am not saying it's wrong, but I can't find any proof in scripture.
The result of my study show that authority resided in the congregation who elected men and women to various functions of leadership (Elders,Overseers,Deacons, ext.)
They functioned as a team and submitted one to another. It's not that there was equal power either. Some because of there gifts may have greater influence on decision, but the final authority resided in the congregation as a whole. This way the whole body could use there gifts, and the whole body is lifted up.
The idea of one pastor (paid clergy) being over one church didn't come into effect until the 2nd and 3rd century. It is not unbiblical to have your church set up in a way that one pastor leads and has the final authority on matters. It's proven to be very effective. Many great mega churches have been built this way. The main problems is one not every pastor can handle the pressures, and temptations that come with the responsibilities of that much power. We have lost a lot of great pastors because of it. The other great problem is it can create a certain laziness in our congregations that, we come to church to watch all our leaders perform and entertain us. Then there are many who don't developed there gifts so the whole body is not lifted up and many Christians remain infants.
I personally find the team structure to be the most effective in general, but it definitely depends on your body of believers.
The team structure is not perfect , it can be very difficult to get a group to agree on something without encountering arguments. The word says the “testing of our faith produces patience that we may be complete and perfect lacking nothing.†We need to definitely grow in this area.
Thank you
And may God bless you greatly
Tony Pino
January 17, 2008 9:31 AM
Tony Pino,
I totally agree with you.
January 17, 2008 12:58 PM
Tony Pino,
I totally agree with you.
January 17, 2008 12:58 PM
Most of you who commented on this blog topic ("Who Leads the Church") also weighed in on the following blog topic (Paul Grabill's IPE Topic).
Here are a couple of questions for you:
1) In essence, on the Grabill topic, as a "team" of ag bloggers, weren't we using shared authority, team-based leadership in an attempt to solve a problem or develop a "shared vision" about an issue?
2) Did it work? Did we come up with a team-based consensus that all participants were happy with and felt they "owned?"
3) How does "my way or the high way" attitude make team-based, shared authority leadership difficult? Is there any solution to this?
4) Because team-based, shared authority leadership takes so much give and take, and even a willingness to "compromise" (a swear word, I know), didn't the Grabill blog topic discussion show that it is tends to be quite messy, and looks a lot easier on paper than it works out in reality?
Just a thought.
January 19, 2008 8:40 AM
This is not a team...i think that has been made clear over and over. An online community is not actually communtity....and it is certainly not a team. I dont buy the comparison.
January 21, 2008 12:34 AM
But i do think team leadership can be messy...
January 21, 2008 12:35 AM
I do agree a so called leadership team can be messy. I know that we in America like things neat and clean. We like all our different steps to a successful christian walk. We have so many diffent books written by different pastors about steps to have a great church.
The overwhelming evidence in scripture and historical writings point to the early church moving in multitude of leaders in each body of beleivers with the congregation with the final authority as a whole. It was the way Jews operated there synagoues. It makes sense since the majority of beleivers at that time were jewish.
I for one think the mess that may arise in team leadership is healthier than the mess in single leadership, because iron sharpens iron, and we need that accountability as imperfect beings who live in a time were power, sex and money are quickly trying to pull the church down.
just my thoughs
Tony Pino We have been engrained in the single (one senior pastor) leadership over one body for 1700-1800years now.
January 21, 2008 11:09 AM
I again agree with Tony Pino, and that's not because I'm italian too ;-)
February 1, 2008 9:04 AM
Traditionally, AG churches have been led by strong senior pastors. My church is a good example. According to its Constitution and Bylaws, when the church hires a new senior pastor, the remaining staff from the previous administration turns in their resignations, which the new senior pastor is free to accept or reject. After serving a probationary term of one year, the senior pastor is voted upon. If he or she receives a two-thirds vote, then he or she can serve as long as desired, without having to worry about another vote. (This assumes service in good behavior, and there is a provision by which the Board of Deacons can ask for his/her resignation.) The senior pastor is an ex officio member of every committee and has broad authority to hire and fire, although the Board of Deacons and the congregation have final authority to approve the budget. My guess is that this is a fairly typical arrangement in General Council affiliated churches.
More recently, AG churches have been experimenting with team-based leadership models, whether in terms of a pastoral team concept or an elder leadership model. James River Assembly is a good example of a team-teaching church, although I'm not sure what the governance structure there is.
Here are some questions for discussion. In your responses, please be both frank in your assessments but also civil toward others.
1. Do the Scriptures mandate one model of church leadership? If so, what is it? Please cite specific passages. Alternatively, do the Scriptures give evidence of a variety of leadership models?
2. What are the pros and cons of these models? (My two-cents' worth is that the senior-pastor model provides unity of vision, mission, and values, but can drift toward authoritarianism. Team-leadership models, on the other hand diffuse ownership and empower many, while tending toward disorganization and the disavowal of personal responsibility.)
3. How effective is each model in accomplishing the mission of the church? (Here, I'm assuming that the end determines the means and that form follows function.)
4. How does "culture" (national, ethnic, generational, etc.) shape our understanding of leadership in the church? Is that a good or bad thing?
In the history of the church, the predominant leadership models have been episcopal (pastor-driven), presbyterian (elder-driven), and congregational (member-driven). Interestingly, all three models combine elements of the others. For example, in the Catholic church, the Pope is elected by Cardinals who are never appointed without the consensus fidelium ("consent of the faithful"). In Presbyterian churches, the elders govern, but it is the pastor who has special responsibilities and prerogatives, and the congregation often elects the elders to its session. Finally, in congregational churches, the members elect the pastor and the deacons, and they delegate authority to the pastor and the deacons to accomplish specific tasks. In other words, the traditional models of church governance all are mixed models, but with one of the elements being primus inter pares ("first among equals"). I'm not sure if this information will help the discussion along on this blog, but I've always found the information interesting nonetheless. Do with it what you will.
posted by George P. Wood at 5:09 PM on Jan 7, 2008