I wonder what kind of research has been done around the idea re: business models of leadership coming out of military models. Just curious?

Lately I've been reading online about the U.S. mega-embassy theme-park they are building in their newly aquired "Green" belt in downtown Baghdad.

Gladiator won the oscar with the line: "Are you not entertained?" as the blood kept spilling.

Most business models of leadership appear to be efficient and effective but know "inside" thier board rooms that they are not. In fact, the larger the organized organism the more inefficient and de-humanizing it tends to become: stats, quarterly results, all about performance teams producing "stuff". Ever worked for bosses in Christian ministry with PhD's in business? Augh... Anyway.

Most start ups burn millions of venture capital knowing it will take them at least five years to turn the corner... Some denominations have taken this approach into church-planting and many have burned millions with little or no results.

Big business beasts cost a fortune to maintain and consume everything around them to "grow" marginally over time.... and "growth" is a relative term. a.k.a The Corporation, IBM and the Holocaust, Bowling for Columbine, etc.

Growth... now there is an interesting term when applied to church. What do margins have to do with the marginalized? What happens when a good leader is completely rejected by her or his people? Bonhoeffer wrote of Jesus' rejection robbing the cross of its halo of glory. What happens when too many good people in any business or church setting are marginalized and rejected by a faulty business model of leadership?

To quote U2's Bono from his May 16th guest editorial comments at The Independent Online Edition:

"These firefighters [AIDS workers in Africa] deserve fire engines with sirens and low-flying aircraft with bellies full of of rain. At the very least, they deserve their situation to merit the classification of an emergency... Africa loses a hundred and fifty thousand men, women, and children every month to Aids, a wholly avoidable disaster, a preventable, treatable disease."

If more American mega-churches begin to have the goals and fluid tent-like functionality of NGO's there's hope for the marginalized and rejected of the world. Why? When the Church is about the work of justice and righteousness, the kingdom comes and the Spirit of Christ fills His workers.

Anything less is just a hand full of nobles organizing furniture around the throne room of a nation without a King.

"Perhaps many pastors can relate to Stanley when he confesses, “There is nothing distinctly spiritual” about his leadership."

Perhaps I've misunderstood or he has been misrepresented here, but if Stanley means there is nothing to distinguish his church leadership from that exercised by a normal corporate CEO, he should resign immediately.

There is certainly much that the church can learn from business, particularly in the realm of communication, stewardship and practical leadership. However, any spiritual leader must have other characteristics that take precedence. Engaging in prayer, seeking revelation in Scripture, prophetic dependence on the Holy Spirit and his gifts and other "distinctly spiritual" activities are essential.

Now that I read over this page again I can see what it is:

Andy Stanley's point is that saying that "his church looks corporate" is not a valid criticism in and of itself. There needs to be a specific flaw identified.

In this article Skye equates Andy's position with: "Everything corporate is good, get into it," which is not his position. I am sure that Andy sees similar flaws in the business world and its attempts to apply God's principles in the service of its own ends.

Here are some things I have actually heard:

"We don't want you to always hear from the salesmen. We want you to hear from some satisfied customers."
- An introduction to a Sunday morning "testimony"

"Our staff is required to work a minimum of 60 hours per week."
- A statement about the church staff's work ethic

"Anyway you look at it, it's something you just can't get around. Church is a business."
- A statement to refute some Kingdom-minded propositions from a church's laity

"We give raises based on the results you produce."
- A remark about how compensation is measured.

And then there are the titles: Executive Pastor, Senior Pastor, Director of Business, Executive Director, etc.

Serving churches with this kind of ethos reduces the Gospel to a "product," reduces its servants to "employees," and, in turn, changes the mentality of its staff from "serving Jesus and his church" to "going to work." People become commodities.

And that is hardly a "principle of God." No. It is contrary to the Kingdom of God.

Principle: a comprehensive or fundamental law.

Skye, I think it would be a good idea to understand what a principle is before you start applying it so liberally. “The rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them.” Just because a leader acts a certain way, that doesn’t make it a principle. Principles [a comprehensive or fundamental law] were created by God and you either work with it or against it.

Who is Jerry and what does he have to add to the discussion? “As I’ve observed the effects of the business world on people’s lives, it doesn’t produce the traits…” What does this have to do with God’s principles?

A UK study validates Jerry??? The fact that UK managers are unhealthy, depressed and getting divorced has more to do with their spiritual condition than anything else. The fact that they are managers in the business world has nothing to do with God’s principles.

A recent survey shows 25% of people trust corporate executives and 23% used-car dealers. Again, Skye, what does this have to do with God’s principles? Could it be that the “recent” survey of corporate executives took place after everyone lost their retirement because of corporate scandals? How does a used car dealer enter the discussion?

If you don’t believe Andy is advocating these “cultures of corruption,” why spend half of your argument making that point?

I’ll try to get the last point later…..

In order to lead you must be willing to forge ahead and show the way, but not be so far ahead as to seem out of reach.

A person's leadership style seems to be secondary to actually having the heart of a leader. Different people have different styles.

God made us all. God will use us all! The key is: availability, not ability!

Here is the major question that no one is bringing up. What does the New Testament say about leadership? 1 Timothy 3 gives us a list of qualifications that one must have to be fruitful in ministry. These qualifications are not always skills, talents, and corporate abilities but are character related. This leads to the question if our country has an all-time low in trust for corporate executives and their shoddy ethics maybe we should rethink implementing them when they do not call for Godly character and development.

Second, Ephesians tells us to be filled with the Holy Ghost on a continual basis. I have read many biographies of successful CEO's and my fair share of "Good to Great" books but none of them seems to get around to this. As pastors the call is not work soley out of our gifting on effective principles but by and with the Holy Spirit.

Third, Philippians and James 5 calls us to suffer well with those we lead and minister to. As Christians this is what distinguishes what we do from the business world, we love people like Jesus does this includes having a right understanding and solid theology of suffering that will allow us to persevere through trials and struggles with our people. If emulate our ministries to be structured just like the business world then we have foresaken the calling that the New Testament has placed upon us, along with selling short those who we are called to minister to.

I am not saying that principles that work in the business world have no place in the church, they do. We can obviously learn much from them, as many of the techniques they use are great. Yet we need to be cautious when they the cultures of our churches are more influenced and governed by what is working in the Fortune 500 world rather than what the New Testament has called us to.

I hate to sound relativistic, but why must all churches apply either a businesslike or non-businesslike model? Perhaps some churches are led to apply corporate models of leadership while others are not. As a current MBA student, I can appreciate the potential benefits of applying the business framework to many churches--particularly large ones. I can also, however, understand that such an application fundamentally alters the essence of the church. I don't think this alteration is necessarily good or bad, it is simply what it is. Both businesslike and non-businesslike churches can be glorifying to God.

The real issue is not whether a church is MBA-like or not; rather, the primary concern is whether a church is working to fulfill its God-breathed vision. Whether that vision requires the proactive management of throughputs, discount rates, ROI, and other "business" concerns is secondary to vision fulfillment.

Companies are about widgits, not about people, and widgits are a product that need to be sold so the company can A: Pay it's staff, B: Invest in research for newer/better widgits, C: Hopefully turn a profit besides making ends meet.

Christianity is about people, and people are not widgits.

Companies have a rigid corporate structure of offciers mandated by the laws of the land and guided (once in a grand while) by their own "professional" ethics.

Christianity is a based on servanthood (or it's suppose to be at least) it's product is intangible, it's guidance is based on trust, and there is no Law telling them how to organize or how to behave...which would make it rather odd to the outside observer.

In the corporate world the dollar is the master, if the master is not pleased then the consequences are lost of job, house, and sometimes family.

In the Church G-d is our master, and the funny thing is G-d doesn't have layoffs. Performance is rewarded no matter how good or how poor.

The comparison therefore is that the Church is TOTALLY DIFFERENT than a Company. The Church is staffed by servants who organize the worship, keep the books, and offer teaching to the MINISTERS (read: Laity) who are coming in from the world and looking for A: Fellowship, B: Some new teachings that will illuminate some of their own studies which will translate into better presentations of the gospel to those who do not believe, and C: pooling of resources so that others who are in need can get some help, or give it away to non-denominational charities who work overseas to bring the gospel to other people.

A company is looking to sell, a church is to give away. The two are mutually exclusive, they answer to two different masters, and we better get that through our thick heads lest we have G-d come down and read us the Riot Act.

Well, here's one thing I have noticed - most churches that have adopted a corporate model also seem to have bank accounts that rival those of small corporations. Or maybe we should state it conversely - there are probably a lot of small corporations (not to mention small churches) that wish they had the bank accounts of some of these large mega-churches. And it is usually the large mega-churches that adopt the corporate model. They claim that they are "forced" to do so in order to "manage their growth" and "facilitate fellowship". What a bunch of hooey.

Reading through again I understand your idea about "many church leaders are lured by corporate structures that promise to generate..."

One thing I've learned from the international organizational structure of 24-7prayer.com is that vision plus friendship equals task. In many churches and orgs, friendship doesn't even enter the equation. Many younger leaders refuse ministry contexts because of the distinct lack of relationship. There is no lure for a disemodied leadership matrix. This is why more and more true kingdom leaders are outside the current boxed church model.

The church is in the kingdom but it's a good thing that the kingdom isn't limited by the church.

Is it the "structures that have produced these ungodly qualities" or wouldn't it simply be human nature? And can't those ungodly qualities appear anywhere in any kind of organization regardless of model?

Corporate Approaches to Winning Arguments 101:

1. Quote someone out of context
2. Create a straw man from the quote NB a "straw man" (or person of non-specified gender if you prefer) must stretch the person's point beyond what they themselves actually believe - otherwise you are reflecting their position accurately and you don't have an argument...
3. Proceed to batter the straw person into insensibility - you do this by exaggerating the worst features of the point under discussion
4. In no circumstances should you point to any positives (either from the person's actual point or the straw man position)
5. Drop in that you don't actually believe the person's original point is really the straw man that you have just assaulted so thoroughly

This will guarantee your success in the boardroom, or wherever really - a principle is a principle after all.

I think it's true that there may be flexibility in the model of church leadership we use. However, isn't it important that the model we use from the world around us represents the values, priorities, and concepts we want to be associated with?

For instance, in Stanley's interview, he says something to the effect that Jesus picked the term "sheperd" not because it says anything about a pastor's role, but because shepherds lead sheep and there was a shepherd in a nearby field--serving as a fitting illustration. And that after Jesus, the illustration of shepherd is basically never employed again.

For the momment, let's assume we all agree that he's correct ... Even then, even if the role of a shepherd has NOTHING to do with pastoring or anything in ministry, even then we need to reflect (and reflect deeply) on what kinds of things the business world communicates. Are there GENERAL principles we can learn from people in those roles? Sure. But if we say "the business world does it this way...so should we," that can communicate some really dangerous priorities to those around us--some of whom may be more than a little naive to the heart of the scriptures. Do we really want our people to say, "Oh, so the pastor is like our CEO. And our church is like a business. Are we employees or clientels? And the product..."

Isn't product fueled by demand? What demand is there for the gospel? And when was the last time my boss (I'm a student working in "the world") cared about things like burnout or integrity or anything but financial profit?

Are there (very general) principles that can be learned? Sure.

But is there danger in declaring the buisness world as our model for doing church? I think much more than too many of us realize.

First off let me say that I hope Andy Stanley actually comes to this blog and comments on this issue because I think his words have been taken out of the context in which they were meant.

That said, why is everyone so bothered that he admits his church is based on a business model? Isn't it clear that whatever model he's using is clearly being blessed by God. You don't grow a church to 15,000 in just ten years unless God is working through your ministry. It seems to me that people are overlooking this or choosing not to mention it. (perhaps out of jealousy???)

It amazes me that people would sit around asking whether they should or shouldn't use a business model for their chruch instead of answering the question "how do we reach lost people and help those that we have to grow in their relationship with Christ?" Isn't that the point of all this? Does it really matter if a business model is used to run a church?

Final thought: in light of Luke 15, do you think Jesus would say to a church "don't use a business model" if that model helped to reach the lost?

Brett, lol

In the culture where North Point Community Church is located (suburban Atlanta), a business model is very familiar to the people in the that town. Apparently it is working: they are reaching people for Christ. But I don't think that it is the end-all way of doing church. I doubt that North Point could be duplicated in small-town mid-America. Something about corporations and small towns don't mix.

Terms "out of context" and "strawman" are making themselves comfortable here.

--
LEADERSHIP Sp 2006; Vol. XXVII, Num. 2

pg. 27 -
LEADERSHIP: What is distinctly spiritual about the kind of leadership you do?
STANLEY: There's nothing distinctly spiritual. I think a big problem in the church has been the dichotomy between spirituality and leadership. One of the criticisms I get is "Your church is so corporate." I read blogs all the time. Bloggers complain, "The pastor's like a CEO." And I say, "OK, you're right. Now, why is that a bad model?"
A principle is a principle, and God created all the principles.
--

There you go. There is the context. And what immediately follows...

--
LEADERSHIP: So what's the principle behind the CEO model?
STANLEY: "Follow me." Follow WE never works. Ever. It's "Follow me." God gives a man or a woman the gift of leadership. And any organization that has a point leader with accountability and freedom to use thier gift will do well. ...
--

He seems to be arguing here (from context) that not only is an Upfront-Person-In-Charge-Pastor equally valid with any sort of team leadership model, but that it is the ONLY kind that works. (By the way notice how he uses Jesus' words to describe the pastor's role as a CEO.)

--
page 28 -
LEADERSHIP: Should we stop talking about pastors as "shepherds"?
STANLEY: Absolutely. That word needs to go away. Jesus talked about shepherds because there was one over there in a pasture he could point to. But to bring in that imagery today and say, "Pastor, you're the shepherd of the flock," no. ...
LEADERSHIP: Isn't SHEPHERD the biblical word for pastor?
STANLEY: It's the first century word. If Jesus were here today...
By the time of the Book of Acts, the shepherd model is gone....
--

My question here is similar to my post above. But further, we do see the shepherd model in Acts and in the epistles. Acts 20:28 - the elders are told to shepherd the flock of God. 1 Pet. 5:2 "Be shepherds of God's flock..." I emphasize these comments because Stanley HIMSELF (in context) opposes the outdated shepherding model with the modern CEO model.

I've already stated above why the business model scares me, so I won't do so again. But I hope this clears up the whole "context" issue.

Brandon,
Is Joel Osteen being blessed by God? His church is huge! How about the Jehovah's Witnesses or the Mormons? They are growing very rapidly outside of the United States. Numbers mean very little regarding God's blessing.
And for the record, I don't understand why anyone would be jealous of a large ministry when the Bible clearly states that leaders will be held responsible for those they teach. Terrifying...

the Fundamentalist-

Here are a few "duplications" of NP in smaller towns, called strategic partners. You can find out more about the partner program on NP's website.

Wiregrass Church- Dothan, AL
Athens Church- Athens, GA
Redston Church- Birmingham, AL
Woodward Church- Birmingham, MI
Catalyst Church- Greenville, SC

I have served and been surrounded by churches that have nothing to do with corporate mentality or structures, and they don't do anything else either. They stay stagnant and maintain processes that are not any more biblical than what Stanley is using. North Point reaches people for Christ. The reason we are falling behind is not the fault of churches like North Point. It is the fault of thousands upon thousands of visionless and lifeless churches who are completely satisfied to ignore the community around them or offer anything that the outside individual can identify with.
You don't like corporate model? Fine, do it better another way. Show us something else we can try. Point the way.
I eagerly watch the emergent conversation hoping they will have the way, but to my amazement they often employ the same tools and tactics as the "big boys". I pray for the emergent movement. I hope they will light the path. The baton is being passedto them. But there is no new option yet being lifted up.
I may not agree with Andy Stanley on how to run a church, but he is far better at it than I am.

I find this thread interesting and disturbing. The chasm between our work and our worship is probably 1600 years old. That's how long the church has fought to separate what we call secular from what we call spiritual.

I don't think Andy is elevating the secular CEO figure above the spiritual pastor figure. I think he is saying the distinction becomes arbitrary at a certain point.

For example, I am not employed by a church, but my work is spiritual. (I'm an editor.) We have widgets where I work. We have a bottom line. But the best companies are never about widgets. They are about relationships--with their customers, with their employees, with their clients, with their students, with their patients--just like the church is about relationships.

In fact, the best companies are part of the body of Christ. The best companies, the ones that honor God with their work, they are themselves a kind of church! They are every bit as important and spiritual as the worship and education and edification that occurs on Sunday morning.

Don't hear me wrong. These forms of God's Church are not more important than the institutional church. But they are certainly not less.

Pastors, encourage your church members with this Good News: Excellent and honest work on Monday brings honor to God.

Skye gave us statistics. Here are some more. According to a Gallup Poll updated May 11, 2006:

48% of Americans are members of a church*.

35% of Americans go to church at least once/week or almost once per week.

32% of Americans went to church last week.

One out of every three people went to church last week? That doesn't seem like we are the edge of spiritual disaster to me. It leaves room for improvement, sure. But are we facing the death of church as we know it? I don't think so.

For the record, my family recently downsized from a megachurch to an innercity church of less than 500.

*The statistics interpret "church" as Protestant or Catholic.

Amen Chuck! I actually had a conversatioin with Andy Stanley on my blog a while back. You can find it here: http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=11022951&postID=113216650699333751

Good point on the numbers thing. Numbers don't ALWAYS equate to God's blessing. However, in the case of North Point I think it does. They have grown, in large part, because their members understand the importance of inviting people to their church. To me, that says that God is at work in the lives of North Point members (and consequently the church as a whole). They understand what Jesus meant when he said "I have to come to seek and save that which was lost" and they have followed His lead in that area.

It's also true that the bigger your church, the more responsiblity you have to God. That's why I believe not everyone is cut out to lead a large church. But for the record, I would be equally terrified to be the pastor of a small church that never grew because it's members didn't feel the need to invite their unsaved friends. Jesus was clear that we are to join him in the search for lost people. If Christians everywhere did that, then churches would be growing. Unfortunately, most churches (in America) are not growing. In fact, they are either declining or maintaining their numbers. I'm not saying that all churches should be a mega church or even a large church (500+). I am saying that all churches should be growing churches. If a church doesn't want 1000 members fine, split into two 500 member churches. Then when they grow to 1000, split again. (Hey there's a novel idea: healthy church splits!) Too many church leaders are content to maintain their church instead of grow their church. I would be just as terrified if I was in that boat as I would be if I was in the other one.

I actually agree with Brandon about churches splitting: it should be the natural outgrowth of Gospel work.
However, I don't think a small church that never gets much bigger is necessarily bad nor unfruitful. It depends upon why it is not getting any bigger. For example, my church is currently purging the bloated attendance roll, a job my pastor has been working slowly towards for the last several years. The goal is for the church to tranisition to an elder-led congregation, and there have been some other changes as well. During this time period, the focus has been primarily on educating and equipping the church so that there is a springboard to jump into more purposeful evangelism, mission work, outreach, or whatever you want to call it.
I guess all I'm saying is that numbers are almost always deceiving. I think Saddleback's unhealthy, but it's huge; I think my church is growing stronger, but it has less than 300 members.

Chuck-

It has been a while since I’ve heard “attendance roll”- do you mean membership? If so, or if not, is the goal to whittle down the attendance of your church or just the members that don’t attend?

If you are educating and equipping your people for purposeful evangelism, are you getting converts to go to different churches? I think the natural outflow of a growing Christian is to have conversations with people about coming to church with you, right?

I’m not sure that numbers are all that deceiving in churches that never change. Unless, your church has already reached everyone in the community and that would be excellent! Show me a church that has stagnated while fulfilling the great commission.

Think of the parable of the talents. When Christ comes back and finds His bride, that he purchased with His blood, whittling away this opportunity to lead people to Him; I wonder what excuse we will give for not multiplying? Will he accept the reasoning that we were preparing for growth like the man that buried his talent underground?

I have to say that I think this whole discussion would have been better served by a second interview with Andy, rather than an opinion article which served as an attack on a couple of his statements.

It is pretty easy to tear down a certain model of leadership (or even a certain leader) when he is not there to defend himself.

A couple of questions worth asking Andy Stanley include:
1) Pastor Stanley, when you say your leadership is not distinctly spiritual, do you mean God has no say in how you lead, or AM I MISUNDERSTANDING YOU?
2) Where does God, the Holy Spirit, and the authority of Scripture have a place in your ministry?

Instead of speculating what Andy was thinking, such questions would give us the truth.

Skye's closing is a thinly veiled jab at Andy as a leader. He twists Andy's words back on themselves, insinuating that "there is nothing distinctly spiritual" about his leadership. Easy to defend this statement, since those are Andy's words, right? I know it was a clever little ending to this piece, but maybe it would have been good to be a little less clever and a little bit more respectful to a brother.

I think answers to a few key questions would help Andy to clarify his position a little more adequately. And maybe give us a bit more information for deciding whether or not he is truly a pagan = ).

On an added note, anybody who can read a couple of lines about a person on a blog, and then suggest in a comment that they need to resign from ministry, needs to rev down a few notches. Seriously. We owe it to God, to Andy as a fellow brother, and ourselves to actually try to understand another person's point of view before we go and start condemning them. Those are harsh words and we should know better than that.

Well said Tom. You nailed it when you said "Show me a church that has stagnated while fulfilling the great commission." Great point on the talents thing too. To paraphrase something that Andy Stanley himself said in a message: the problem with too many churches (and Christians) is that they sit around reading a book about searching and talking with each other about the need to search BUT THEN THEY NEVER GO AND SEARCH. Personally, I'm weary of any church that uses the "we're preparing/equipping our people" as an explanation for a lack of growth. If people aren't ready or equipped, then by all means, do everything to equip them. But in the meantime (while you're equipping them) encourage them to invest in the lives of their lost friends and invite them to church. Let the pastor and his leadership team handle the evangelism until people are "equipped."

And while we're at it, I'm not sure how much preparation/equipping people really think they need to go out and evangelize. You don't have to be able to explain every detail of the Bible or the Christian faith. As Andy said in a message (paraphrasing again): Our job as Christians is to live out our faith and, when the time comes, to lay it down. He goes on to explain what he means by lay it down: based on John 3:16 - God LOVED, God GAVE, we BELIEVE, we RECEIVE. God loved everyone, gave his son Jesus for everyone, if we believe that Jesus' death payed for our sins, we receive salvation and eternal life. If you ask me, anyone who is a Christian should be able to explain that - no equipping necessary. Is there more to evangelism than just that? Maybe, maybe not. I'm honestly beginning to wonder if we've taken something rather simple and made it something really complex. I grew up thinking I needed to have a lot of knowledge, understanding, equipping, and "strategy" to reach the lost. Now I'm realizing I had everything I needed all along. Consequently, I missed out on an opportunity to share Christ with a number of people in my life (who are no longer around). I hate to think that there are churches out there who would make the same mistake as me.

So, if the shepherd metaphor is no longer appropriate for pastors, is it a dead metaphor for Jesus' relationship to his people as well? I guess a new paraphrase of the Bible which takes this view into account might be appropriate:

John 10:14-15 (NIV)
"I am the effective/productive CEO; I know my(clients/employees/target-market niche) and my (clients/employees/target-market niche) know me--just as the (Chairman/CFO/COO) knows me and I know the (Chairman/CFO/COO)--and I (manage and distribute both tangible and intangible assets for maximum productivity) for the (clients/employees/target-market niche).

It is sad to see such a one-sided attack. Since the first hint of this article came out a few months ago, I knew it was going to be an attack. This article holds the "business" model up without ever defining it and asserts, through very intentional language, that it and all pastors who use it are bad. Unfortunately, this is done at the expense of one of our pastors.

I am part of a large church that has combined many business principles, but has never lost the focus on people. It can be done. I am convinced that holding a pastor or leader up to the court of public opinion is wrong. Leaders and churches must evaluate their own leadership and direction in light of God's word and decide any course corrections.

We can evaluate them, but just as a pastor or leader is held accountable for their actions and teaching, so each one of us are judged by the same standard that we hold up against men like Andy Stanley. There is a fine line that must be walked here, I have often failed in being too harsh. But I have heard no other viable alternatives being offered--even "Jerry" only says he rejects the business model, but I bet his financial systems apply "business" models.

Referring to Andy Stanley's comments that: "A principle is a principle, and God created all the principles". Who says? There are plenty of cults that use principles that are not godly principles. Hitler used his principles to try to eradicate the Jewish race but Hitler's principles would not be godly.

All principles are not created by God. Stanley's comment almost sound like a pragmatist: It it works it must be right or the end justifies the means.

I love the work and ministries of NorthPoint, but agree that Stanley seems intent on success at the expense of spiritual formation. I find this ironic since their entire vision is to move people towards small groups where personal relationships and accountability are the methods for moving people to a deeper relationship with God.

In the interests of total transparency...

I am the solo pastor of a small, mainline denominational church with less than 150 members. We average about 130 in worship on a given week and are growing at a rate of about 10-15% a year.

Having said that, I am fully aware that any critique from my vantage point may indeed be "sour grapes" or even worse, a full out capitulation to the sins of envy and jealousy.

However, I do offer the following reflections from a 33-year old pastor trying to lead God's people. (Or as I like to say, shepherd God's sheep.) First of all, it seems to me that the true vocation of the church is to be, in the words of noted missiologist Leslie Newbigin, "the sign and foretaste of the Kingdom of God" in, to, and, for the world. If one agrees with such a definition, as I wholeheartedly do, then one would have to ask how appropriating business models for the church would help further such a vocation? It seems to me that such an approach would be very dangerous and even counterproductive in terms of producing the kind of Christian community necessary to act as the light of the world or the salt of the earth. Such models seem inherently tied to ower and market-driven success and are often defended in such terms. (i.e. Northpoint has 15,000 people attending so they must be reaching people with the Gospel, etc.)

Now I am not saying that it is impossible to incorporate the "pastor as CEO" model into the church, only that I question it's effectiveness in truly helping form a community where the Gospel is lived as well as preached. After all, doesn't following such a model make us all consumers and isn't that what we see happening throughout the church in North America today? As Skye has pointed out so insightfully, what we are seeing today is the "Walmartization" of the church. Using an "outdated" metaphor, the sheep are simply moving to different pastures not giving birth to more sheep.

What is the answer? I am honest enough to say, "I have no idea." It could be (and I pray that it is with all my heart!) that mega-churches are indeed having great success in forming communities where Christians are becoming more real, more transparent, more vulnerable, more generous, less self-sufficient and self-serving, where they are learning to deny themselves daily, take up their cross, and follow Jesus. It could be that the "corporate" model for leadership is helping them get there. For my part, I am just not sure.

I have to be honest. Andy Stanley came off to me in that interview as self inflated. how does one flippantly declare that "pastor" has nothing to do with shepherding unless they are under the impression (delusion?) that they are speaking ex-cathedra. I think the brother should read the Word more and his press clippings less.

I have been in full time ministry for 3 years now having come from a very stoggy set of Mega-Law Firm corporate environments. At times it is very natural for me to resort to corporate thinking, and I do think there are a great deal of things we as the church can learn from the corporate environment.

In some ways I think mega-churches have been so successful because of our mega-big box culture of Super Walmarts, Home Depots, Mega-stores, and big gulps. It's something people are familiar with and comfortable in. In an economic sense people don't really shop at the corner dime store anymore because they no longer exist. Whether thats good or bad, I do not know.

In the same way, I think there are some things that are natural about a church taking on some corporate characteristics. I think it can even be healthy when done in the right way. Take "Good to great in the non-profit sector". If your measuring the right things, and putting God First in all you do, whats the problem? Church structure has changed many times throughout history, often in response to the current conditions of the day.

If people today are coming out of corporate cultures (where healthy) and applying the priniciples (the things that transcend methods) that work and are actually God First. "I believe the healthy businesses that endure actually run on godly principles without even knowing it". Then what is so wrong with that.

Society is no longer an agrarian culture. Less than 8% of americans work on the farm, so Agrarian mindsets in the church are hard for most people to relate to.

In essence. I think there are valuable things that can be used in pretty much any structure as long as those who are leading are putting God First in everything they do.

If God is first and church inluences business, then if the reverse is also true and business people who are leading like jesus in the marketplace influence the church.. Well then God is at the center of it all anyways, isn't he?