Some Reasons Why the Lone "Senior Pastor" Might Not Make Sense Anymore
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
At Life on the Vine, we recently added a fourth pastor. Some people told me such multiple leadership would never work. There would be no single face to attach to the vision of the church. Therefore the church would never grow.
Balderdash (is that a word?). The church continues to grow. Signs of healing, new mission, new souls finding God abound.
I now preach approximately half the time. On a typical Sunday morning, the preaching is approximately 25 minutes. But you should know that at our church the gathering does not gather to just hear the preacher. The worship gathering does not culminate and focus on the preacher delivering a masterpiece. Our time together is meant to be a gathering fully engaged with meeting and responding to God, all He has done, what He is saying. And then we are sent out from here collectively into mission. And so honestly, many times I think I've blown the sermon really badly, yet the time together did not miss a beat. The proclamation of the gospel reality over us all is important, but it is not the isolated core of the service. We come to worship to hear from and respond to God corporately.
Much has been written about Missional church leadership. Frost & Hirsch (and Dwight Smith) have advocated the APEPT model of leadership from Eph 4. Roxburgh has another brilliant description of these principles. I myself have argued that we must dump the CEO- pastor-leader that the church has too often modeled from the secular business. I have argued that "the CEO-pastor-leader" is a construction that only makes sense in the Cartesian worlds where man is in control (this world is misogynist if you ask me), where leadership is technique driven (ironically I would argue, that even Greenleaf makes NT servant-leadership into a technique to achieve desired results at the hand of the leader in control), and people are units in a sociological structure devoid of the organic nature that we see characterizes the gifted nature of the Body of Christ (1 Cor 12: 4-31). Because of all this I have argued that missional leadership must be multiple, organic, recognized and affirmed within and among a body (not determined from above in a smoke filled room by a CEO and board of the mega corporation it oversees).
Again, many have said this could not be done. But from the beginning at "the Vine" there has always been more people pastoring/leading than just me. I admit I was at the outset the most visible leader. But from the very beginning I've been bi-ministerial having other jobs and getting income from other sources than the church. This enabled us to quickly add many more leaders on the staff in a church that now has about 150 people (we started withy 10 people). And so the idea of a senior pastor at "the Vine" has never quite fit.
So out of our experience, here some reasons why the "senior pastor" role won't work at Life on the Vine church.
1.) Because it doesn't make sense to build a church around a personality. People start coming to hear that one guy (most often it's a guy) And as the crowds get bigger, this pastor becomes distanced from the congregation at which point he loses the ability to speak into people's lives that he knows. Instead, as the crowds get bigger, he must get less specific and more generic so as to optimize his speaking into more people's lives. Soon he becomes a talking head on a screen, a personality people come to hear almost like the proclamation of the gospel is some form of entertainment or consumption. And when he burns out or leaves, half the congregation splits as well, and the people who remain are left holding the bag for the big mortgage the personality left behind. If I left "Life on the Vine" as pastor, I believe it wouldn't miss a beat. In fact, last summer, when I didn't preach all summer the church grew by 20% over the summer.
2.) Because there are no supermen(women). No one pastor has all the gifts. (1 Cor 12:14) Indeed most pastors have gaping deficits in their abilities to carry out the ministry. With multiple pastors, the whole ministry of the church is fed from the many gifts. And all are invited to participate in the empowerment of the gifts as modeled by the many faceted leadership. The fact that the ministry of the body of Christ is not one man/woman resists those who make church all about receieving passively from the ministry of one person. My personal belief is that there should be women pastors as well. Because there are things I could not ever see or understand that a woman can. In our church, I am strong on preaching for growth and sanctification, in training leaders for ministry, in leading a vision for a missional emerging church. I have deferred to and learned from those who have gifts of prayer, faith, preaching, teaching, organization, artistry, and mission. I see how Frost & Hirsch's APEPT model characterizes our ministry.
3.) Because isolated pastors can become blinded to their own lacks and get tunnel vision and become egomanical. But multiple pastorship in submission to one to another work against this. I can think of three times in the last two years where I was leading the church in a tunnel vision fashion and one of the other pastors called me on it and the resulting turn reinvigorated the church body. I never would have seen these things if I had not been in mutual submission to these other co-laborers in reverence to Christ as Lord.
4.) Because pastors cannot lead alone. The pressures and demoralizations are too great. But leading alongside others enables enormous edification, uplifting, carrying burdens and continuing discpleship of the leaders in community. I had a burn out last year. Geoff got me through. I'm doing great, the church grew stronger.
5.) Because pastors benefit from being bi-vocational … or should I say bi-ministerial (since being in the secular workplace is ministry). Pastors who have jobs outside the church can get to know non-Christians or spend time in non Christian setting and workplaces rather then being entirely bound to the church. Dan Kimball speaks to this in his new book (thanks to Scot McKnight's review on his blog). Up until last year, I had always worked outside the church. Now my other job is at a seminary. But I will forever be affected by the many years I spent working outside the church and I will ever be seeking non Christian connections.
6.) Because it models the diversity and interrelatedness of the Body. The same as number .2) but for a different reason. The notion of a senior pastor puts up a false impression that one person is especially qualified and elevated to ministry. But with multiple pastors, he/she does not stand alone. The whole body is with him/her one and the same, ministers of the gospel in and outside the church as a way of life.
7.) Because it keeps pastors from becoming fake images which inevitably leads to moral failure and/or disappointment. With multiple leadership in mutual submission to each other in Christ, there can be no temptation to put any of the pastors on a false pedestal as an image of the perfect Christian. For everybody knows too much. Given the mutual intersubjectivity of the leadership, and the smallness of the church, there is no reason to try to act like an archetype for everyone else to immitate.
9.) Because it is hard for pastors to foster servanthood when they are put on a pedestal separated from the people. All pastors should have to clean toilets, serve the poor, and vacuum floors after potlucks. We should see ourselves in submission to the Body of Christ not over it. (Mark 10:42-45). This "amongness" is not possible as a senior pastor.
10.) In summary, because the senior pastor position is an impossible position to live up to. Therefore by accepting this role, we are setting ourselves up (and the church) for inevitable failure.
I could think of other reasons. And I am sure that in other contexts and ways of being the Body of Christ, the senior pastor position may still have validity. But for our church, in seeking to be missional, these reasons seemed to siuggest the senior pastor position won't work. Are there other reasons? Can senior pastor make sense in emerging missional contexts? Are there some good examples out there.
For the furtherance of God's mission in Christ into the world ...
Posted by David Fitch | 11:34 AM
COMMENTS:
These are really good comments for me to think about as I move toward ordination. In fact, I was just talking with a church planter today about the idea of churches that have two main preaching pastors who share the preaching responsibility and then serve the church where their other gifts allow. Thanks for getting me thinking about it more.
1:38 PM
I met my husband in a Plymouth Brethren assembly. Though we're SO not those Brethren people any more (and I'm pretty sure we never quite were to begin with), one thing those people understood well was the power of plurality of leadership. We've also spent time in a Charismatic congregation that used the same multiple leadership model.
For some of the reasons you mention, this model can be a great and healthy one. It works best when the church stays fairly small in numbers. It slows down decision-making, sometimes to a crawl or a dead stop because most multiple pastor or elder-run congregations tend toward decision-mkaing by consensus. It also seems to be most successful when the leadership team is not interested in growing their reputations, resume, marketability or salary because they're involved in "full-time vocational ministry". This can be a darn hard sell to many seminarians who've invested thousands and thousands of dollars in training.
1:55 PM
I've read many analyses of the flaws in this model over the years, but among the top two or three was this article by a woman teaching elder among the Society of Friends.. here is the link..
http://friends7.notlong.com/
2:50 PM
I quite agree, David, with your thoughts on multiplicity of leadership. Great and helpful observations, here.
5:52 PM
David,
You do hit the flaws of a "senior pastor" model. I'm one of the last emerging persons to have not read Frost and Hirsch--too many good books to read, and too much other good stuff happening.
I am so with you on the CEO-pastor-leader critique. There were many things that didn't sit well with me on that model.
I have been blessed as I have seen LOV practice this model. It's been refreshing to see this flesh out so far.
7:38 PM
David,
This is a great post! I agree with you completely on this. I have a question concerning multiple pastors. Do you think that it is necessary (or beneficial) among multiple pastors for one pastor to be the head pastor? Thanks.
-alan
8:01 PM
*stands and claps*
So how can we help develop this concept and begin to teach it so others might benefit?
8:34 PM
OUTSTANDING!
I believe that churches today all over North America need to look at this. Starting with megachurches... all of the ones that have been associated with or looked at have this Sr. Pastor [also read Pastor as CEO model]... this concept could help to divert the church from having more spiritual and moral failures of its leaders like we have seen over the last few years.
Alan... I think that there is a place for multiple pastors on staff. I believe that there is a place for a lead pastor to oversee the staff... and that God has placed his mantle on to lead that local body. But even in this type of environment... we need to have a structure that allows for accountability, for the lead pastor to lead with other pastors, elders and deacons in place. Lead pastors need to truly be servants... not CEOs.
8:11 AM
great post. i guess i say that cause you're preaching to the choir. at our small mennonite place here in atlanta i share preaching with my good bud and co-pastor. i'm bi-ministerial, if you call homeschooling our 5 kids a ministry..i do...
we try not to make the sermon the climax ... we have time for everyone to share how God is speaking to them through the lectionary passages for that week..
so we have created space to live out some form of the idea of the priesthood of all believers.
down side...it's hard to bring about change, even small ones...sometimes i wish i could speak into the darkness and light would appear...but i can't and at the end of the day, i'm thankful for many of the reasons you mention.
thanks for offering your insights and causing me to be thankful for the way we are the church.
shalom
chris
8:31 AM
By the way, another good resource for this is "Reframing Paul" by Mark Strom...
"Paul urged leaders to imitate his personal example of how the message of Jesus inverted status. He was at pains to dissociate himself from the sophists, those travelling orator-teacher-lawyers of his day (1 Cor 2:1-5). Though undoubtedly educated and skilled, he did not imitate the sophists’ eloquence and persona. In so doing, Paul set himself on a collision course with the contemporary conventions of personal honour—and with his potential patrons. He refused to show favouritism towards individuals or ekklēsiai. The gospel offered him rights, but he refused them. Christ was not a means to a career. Yet the agendas and processes of maintaining and reforming evangelical life and thought remain the domain of professional scholars and clergy. Their ministry is their career.
Dying and rising with Christ meant status reversal. In Paul’s case, he deliberately stepped down in the world. We must not romanticize this choice. He felt the shame of it amongst his peers and potential patrons, yet held it as the mark of his sincerity. Moreover, it played a critical role in the interplay of his life and thought. Tentmaking was critical, even central, to his life and message. His labour and ministry were mutually explanatory. Yet, for most of us, ‘tent-making’ belongs in the realms of missionary journals and far-flung shores. As a model for ministry in the USA, Britain or Australia, it remains as unseemly to most of us as it did to the Corinthians. At best it is second best.
Evangelicalism will not shake its abstraction, idealism and elitism until theologians and clergy are prepared to step down in their worlds. Some might argue that since the world often shows contempt for the pastoral role, then professional ministry is a step back. But that is to ignore the more pertinent set of social realities. Evangelicalism has its own ranks, careers, financial security, marks of prestige, and rewards. Within that world, professional ministry is rank and status."
9:44 AM
One P.S.: At one of the churches we attended with plural leadership (4 teaching elders), one of them was addicted to porn and was carrying on an emotional affair with a congregant. And the rest of the leadership team shielded him for several years, in the name of helping him work through it in community.
Anyone from the congregation who smelled a rat and began asking questions about some of the oddness that emerged from this dysfunctional arrangement was told they were the ones with the problem. Eventually, the truth came out, but a lot of lives were damaged in the process.
Plurality of leadership will not guarantee health.
11:00 AM
Thanks for the insights. I am personally dealing with many of these same thoughts. See, the founding and senior pastor of the church I am serving at resigned last Spring, and many people in the church left the church because of his impact. If he is no longer at the church, they no longer desire to be at the church. Many expressed that they chose to come to the church and remain at the church over the years because of the leadership of this man. They did not seem to have a commitment to the body, but rather to a man. Noticing this, I began to question the effectiveness of having a lone, senior pastor who has so much influence and power. Also, now that the senior pastor has left, the remaining staff are struggling to overcome the "culture" established by the senior pastor. Currently, in the intermin process, there is a more team approach to preaching, teaching, and decision making. I have enjoyed the process, however, I have to admit, it is very different than what I am accustomed to. Your thoughts are helping me in my own journey in discovering new methods to build up the body of Christ as God intended.
3:37 PM
Good points, David. Thank you.
Plurality of leadership does seem to be the Biblical model and the one that most reflects the Kingdom values. This idea isn't new with emergent churches. It's actually been around quite a long time, however, few churches have been able to put it into practice. One confusion that I've noticed on this topic of late has been the idea that plurality of leadership means a complete egalitarian model, meaning, that there is no directing authority or “first among equals”. I think this idea is flawed.
Firstly, it doesn't seem to be Biblical. James seems to have moderated the Jerusalem church council, and there are numerous other examples where the apostles directed instructions to specific leaders, etc.. Secondly, experience tells us that there needs to be a coordinator or moderator when working with groups. For example, try driving a car with all the passengers' hands on the wheel – deadly.
I am aware of at least one emergent type church with the complete egalitarian philosophy where the accountant left because of the legal danger he felt he was in. Decisions were overridden by various leaders and there was no one to look to as authoritative. This put him in the awkward position of likely being held responsible for any irregularities.
The “first among equals” position is needed, but it isn't an autonomous authority. It is a recognized role delegated to a leader with that gifting (character and competence) by the eldership. Some have called this “head and shoulders government”.
8:42 AM
Adam,
Good words... I personally am always suspect of the word "egalitarian." For it comes to us from the politics of America where we are asked to strip ourselves of differences and become same so we can enter into public discourse. In this case I also don't like the term. I have never seen the church as a democracy despite the fact that numerous free churchs (and even Yoder) seem to have felt democracy to have the Biblical impulse. rather I see authority as based in the gifts and the differentiation of the gifts as emerged and recognized in the church. This does not mean that one sdtands over or usurps another. 1 Cor 12 makes sure this is not treu. It does mean that a person recogtnized in his giftedness is given authority and empowered to flourish and exercise in that gift. rather than a democracy, we have a pneumatocracy ...
Blessings DF
11:53 AM
I personally don't like the language of "first among equals" since it often appears to be used to justify bringing in hierarchy under a more friendly label. I dont think its accidental that the root of heierarchy is hieros (priest). David, wondering too about "we added a fourth pastor." Isn't what you intend to say is that you added a fourth pastor to staff? My guess is that if you are functioning as you describe you probably have about twenty pastors in your community, but only some are receiving a stipend.
12:48 PM
David, your post skips #8. Is there a #8 or are there only 9? (Or maybe you just don't like the number 8 :) )
6:46 AM
David,
Pneumatocracy...I like that. That really captures it.
Len,
The first among equals model can pose problems, just like any model can. I think it is impossible to create a structure that eliminates any potential problems. Certain structures and models are better suited or more likely to reflect Kingdom values, but I find that you can't insure an absence of abuse or error. Even Peter used his position of influence wrongly (Gal. 2:11-13). The complete egalitarian model is not without abuse, either. Democracy can easily become mob rule.
Additionally, I've noticed over the years that sometimes it's the followers who almost create authoritarian leadership. Yes, a leader's ambition is at the heart of it, but passive and immature members can demand a kind of leadership that reflects a hierarchical model. They want an all sufficient leader to meet their needs and resolve their accusations towards God and life. Servant leadership and powerlessness are look at with suspicion or as indicative of incompetence.
BTW, how did you get quotes to not come out funny when posting to David's blog?
9:24 AM
Adam, too true.. no perfect models and even if we had a perfect model we would fit imperfectly in it.. lol.
re: quotes, you have me there.. not sure what I did..
10:53 AM
I loved the APEPT model when I read it.
Nice work, now if I could only get my home church to go for a similar style... Get away from the monarchy that has entrenched itself.
re: quotes. It depends on what character encoding you are viewing the page with. Mine defaulted to Cyrillic/Russian CP-866... Which is highly strange; that is not even the Russian standard encoding. Switch it to Unicode UTF-8, and everything looks great. There is probably some bad code in the template for David's blog - or just the font that he chose that is tripping our machines out.
Cheers.
3:39 PM
I love the "searching for a model" tone in much of the comments....very modern ;)
I love this David and agree totally. I think instead of seeing David's experiences as a model, perhaps it's better to see the principle instead and realize that the application of that principle is going to be different in every faith community - esp. if you're striving for an organic "methodology".
a "team head pastor" also, for the record, is not the same thing as what David is describing. Creating a team hierarchy is pretty much the same thing as a single CEO hierarchy. So you can't just be palimpsest and make a surface change. There has to be an entire DNA shift from the get-go.
6:09 PM
Neumatocracy - that's a new one on me. I like it. And and the famous architect Frank Lloyd Wright called late democracy "mobarchy". Again, D.F., I like your post.
Also, what language is "heiros" "priest"? That's really interesting. Thanks,
Jason
8:08 PM
heiros is the biblical greek word used for priest in the NT
1:30 AM
Is it not significant that we are twice referred to as a "priesthood" by Peter in 1 Peter 2:5,9?
Why would we choose to jettison or flee from this biblical reality?
Is Scripture too impotent to convince us of this Truth? Or are we attuned to facilitators of a different paradigm?
8:47 AM
I truly appreciate your comments. Being Bi-vocational, my wife and I (she commented above) we're forced into a 'priesthood of all believers'. It was in our hearts to do anyway, but the church structure of the day, including the organization we are a part of, is still very hierarchal, which for them, can work. However our vision is to be missional to the community around us, which, as in many places today, is very skeptical of some sort of CEO structure.
You've encouraged me as well! I last gave a message a week ago, but won't do so again till the end of March! Our church structure seems very similar, which coming from you, encourages me, that we might be on the right track!
3:37 PM
Brother, how large is your church?
Just wonderin!
7:30 PM
150 - he mentioned it in the post
6:38 AM
Dearest A-nonymous :)
Thanks!
Jason
11:33 AM
David said:
Good words... I personally am always suspect of the word "egalitarian." For it comes to us from the politics of America where we are asked to strip ourselves of differences and become same so we can enter into public discourse.
Well egalitarian doesn't mean androgynous and is usually used (these days in evangelicalism) in the service of allowing heirarchy without bias against the female gender. With Mr. Krell, it seems there should be an identifiable leadership WITHIN the whole people of God set apart by gifting rather than position (Fee).
7:10 AM
-b ...
It seems to me that is my point ... egalitarian does defines relationship by individual "rights" and yet the removal of differences (religious, gender, ethnic etc.) when we come together to discuss how we must live. Ultimate freedom without any given teleos to pursue ... making the freedom hollow. But in Christ we have a diffderent politic. A unity formed around the Table,participation in His body, a unity not in rights that separate but a participation in Christ that brings us together into One. Likewise the gifts of the Spirit, distributed from the ruling Lord in His authority (Eph 4), are the source for authority in the church. Yet they do not deny the differences gender wise (this seems to me what Paul is talking about in 1 Cor 11 when he implores the women to wear a heasd covering as an authority unto her)...
All this to say (in a hurry cause I'm running to catch a plane) ... the authority of the bchurch is not democratic, egalitarian, but a full participation of all members in the gifts .. a Pneumatocracy .. There certainly in differences in leadership, those gifted in preaching, teaching and leading ... but it is born out of a mutual particiaption in the Body and a mutual submission one to another in the Lord
8:17 AM
thanks for these thoughts, they are quite helpful. assuming that when you say you now have four pastors you mean that you have four pastors getting a stipend (on staff, whatever you want to call it). i am wondering, if you ahve some time, if you can explain how you decide who gets a salary and who doesn't. the reason i ask is because there are instances where you have a leadership team who voluteers and "pastors" who get paid. wondering how you guys decide what "deserves" (for lack of better term) a salary.
would love to hear your thoughts if you had some time...
11:00 AM
David,
I am doing two presentations this May at Pepperdine University on the Dark Side of Leadership in which I will argue some of what you said. One of the reasons so many of our Senior Pastors fall is because of the lone pastor model or the super hero/ super pastor syndrome. In addiction models this is called the "golden boy" syndrome.
Any resources that you know of in this area that you would be willing to share, please email me at smpuckster@mac.com.
Peace.
5:24 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home