Hmnn...I think I have more problems with this post than I did with the last one. Overall, I don't think the CEO-pastor model is good, but this second post almost eliminates the pastoral office all together.
4. While I agree that it's important for pastors to get "out of the office box", I think it's a fallacy to state that the only way to do so is by becoming bi-vocational. Sure you meet non-Christians at work, but shouldn't you be meeting them someplace else too? The other question is - what are you congregation members doing to bring the Gospel to people? You need to meet non-Christians, sure...but do you need to meet ALL of them?
5. "especially qualified" - Yeah, I guess this works if your church doesn't demand someone who really is qualified through a seminary or some other course of study. But I think at least having SOMEONE who can actually speak with authority is a good thing, and not necessarily a hierarchical move to dominate the priesthood of all believers.
6. Since when is leadership "subjective" even "mutually subjective"? I don't think that's a very Biblical idea - pastors have leadership roles like Paul and Peter had leadership roles. Leadership isn't a bad thing.
7. Agreed. In fact, it makes an even bigger statement when the pastor acts as servant when everyone expects him to act like a CEO.
8. This isn't very well developed. How is it "impossible" to live up to a "senior pastor" role? What is that role?

All in all, I can appreciate where you are coming from (believe it or not). I think this article, however, throws all too many stones in a glass house at random. This may be effective for some people to read because in its overstatement it gets at the root of the problem - BAD senior pastors.

I do think it is sad, however, to relugate the role of leader to being unimportant or irrelevant to "missional" congregations. I also think that it is sad that it appears that this is a "bait and switch" operation where we're going from a dictatorship to a bureaucracy. Sure it's a change, but perhaps not as momentous a change as some might like to think.

As for your tag line at the end - don't be a wuss. If you were just writing this "for our church" it would never be published here. Tell us how to change our leaders, tell me how I can change myself and my presuppositions, tell me how I can more effectively bring the good news of Christ! And for goodness sake, tell us more about your horrible experience with a senior pastor that made you write this article!

In the first part it seems that most responders complained of the economics of the possibility of various ministers. I think that goes against the concept as outlined in scripture and in your point #4. Why bog the church down with a salary? True religion is taking care of the widows and orphans (James 1:27). Have we run out of those to spend so much money on buildings and people?

"Pastor" is only mentioned once in the entire Bible (NIV). Is that enough scripture to justify what we have done in the church? Or are we as guilty as the pharisees in wanting to follow the traditions of our fathers?

Thank you brother for being the example. I know it is hard to be the one doing things differently.

"7. Because it is hard for pastors to be servants when they are put on a pedestal. All pastors should have to clean toilets, serve the poor, and vacuum floors after potlucks."

It's always fascinating to check out what the bible has to say about these kinds of issues that face the church. A quick look in the book of Acts reveals how Peter and John handled this very thing. "In those days when the number of disciples was increasing, the Grecian Jews among them complained against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food. So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, 'It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables. Brothers, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word." (Acts 6:1-4 NIV) Isn't it wonderful how going back to the Word reveals God's provision and instruction about even the lowliest of things? What is so amazing about this passage of scripture is that Stephen was one of the men chosen for this task of waiting tables and through this humble beginning, he rose to prominence and became the first martyr for Christ. I note that none of the twelve apostles waited tables.

Side note to David Mead's comment, "True religion is taking care of the widows and orphans (James 1:27). Have we run out of those to spend so much money on buildings and people?" I see this verse quoted frequently regarding taking care of the poor and heartily agree with it. HOWEVER, I never see the second half of the verse quoted and it is just as important so here it is, "and to keep onself unstained by the world" (James 1:27b) The verse before talks about "bridling" the tongue(ouch)"without which one's religion is vain." Many sermon topics in this book!

I very much appreciate David Fitch being willing to offer his changing understanding of the role of pastor. I also notice that one of the big issues that he mentions is the pedestal concern; how can pastors keep their integrity intact when being seen as being beyond human?

Certainly, moving to a bi-vocational, multiple leadership model would alleviate some of the pedestal temptations, but another set of temptations will simply arise in their place, for that is just the human condition.

I think the bigger concern is this: why was it necessary to write number 7 at all? To quote: Because it is hard for pastors to be servants when they are put on a pedestal. 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 always possible as a senior pastor.

Yes, that "amongness" is possible if one choose to make it possible. How many female clergy reading this post rolled their eyes at this comment? We women, who have braved the condemnation of the male pedestal-priesthood club to follow God's call to the pastorate or some other form of ordained ministry know very well that much discipleship takes place when cleaning toilets and feeding the hungry or scrubbing the kitchen after an energetic youth supper.

It is often at those times when we all get our hands dirty together that profound life-change takes place. We get to discover the smallness of our souls in the hugeness of service to the needy or in the cleaning of dirty diapers and toilets where bits of infant digestion float, waiting for the loving, cleansing work of someone. No, I don't do these things routinely,but I personally make opportunities to do them as priorities in my schedule, not as left-overs.

This is like the discipline of tithing; take it off the top, or it will never happen. We don't have to be bi-vocational to serve and to get off the pedestal. We just have to be willing to celebrate our humanness and step off that unrealistic pedastal with a sense of humor, thankfulness and grace.

When you throw a rock down a dark alley and someone yells "ouch!" you can be sure you've hit something! Sounds like the author of this article has hit upon something, judging from the several comments against his church's view of leadership. Too bad, so many of us prefer to blur the lines between old and new testament leadership and between apostles and NT pastor/teachers. However, that (and perhaps willfull ignorance) is the only way to defend our modern-day CEO-style church leaders!

Once again, for all the questions about how well this "new" model might work and for all the defensive remarks which do not favor such a view of leadership, we really should be asking ourselves "what does the Bible have to say about the subject?" If anything other than that answer matters to a person or a church they are straying from a clear NT model of church leadership!

For an in depth study of NT leadership from a historical, conservative, and biblical perspective I once again invite you to visit my article at:

http://www.spread-the-word.org/digging_deeper/leadership_fr.htm

I would concur with the concerns raised. I like the model and I think that it has merit. But there are those who are called of God to do this as their primary source of income...

The team-leadership model has been gaining traction lately with the passing of the torch from boomers to Gen-Xers, but it's not just a recent trend. For my masters thesis, I studied churches planted with a co-equal team of leaders rather than a single senior pastor. Some of those churches were planted 50 years ago.

You would expect these "bureaucracies" to be mired in endless debate, but they have a radical belief: If Jesus really is the head of their church, then he’ll make his will abundantly clear, as long as every leader is humble enough to seek it rather than his own agenda. It might take them longer to make decisions than a single CEO, but somehow many of these churches are impacting their communities more than any other church around. (For more, you can find the thesis here: http://www.harborhawaii.org/docs/TeamThesis.pdf )

One important thing to understand: a biblical team-leadership model does not preclude a single leader from naturally rising in prominence and influence. Look at how Peter was prominent in the early days of the Jerusalem church (when they needed an outspoken preacher), then James rose in prominence later (when they needed a level-headed mediator). Neither of them was ever designated “senior pastor” that we know of.

In our own 2-year-old church, we’ve experienced many challenges that come with plural leadership. It’s definitely not the most efficient way to run a church. But is efficiency a biblical value or a contemporary American one?

It is interesting that Fitch doesn't use NT church models to defend or explain his vision of modern day American pastors. What he does, it seems to me, is pull together the Christ-like character traits the Spirit imbibes into us, as reavealed in Scripture, and create a new kind of pastoral leader for our age.

So, the church model descriptions in the NT - are they the model for today, are they prescriptive of what churches ought to do through all the ages, or are they descriptive of that time and age only?

Based on church history, it would seem that the church veered away from pure NT models quickly. Is it lack of imagination that prompts American Christians to scour the NT for a model to do church, rather then consider how Jesus would minister in our 21st century?

It seems that Fitch, in one sense, has gone down the descriptive path. I like his description, though I don't think it is universal, just descriptive of his ministry in his unique time and place. Though I will probably adapt some of it to my ministry, he's got good ideas.

Is it strange that as our leaders debate appropriate leadership models, there is little notice taken of the context in which our churches currently exist? Our culture has become one of "entertain me." Those who entertain best are stuck on pedestals (sports, movies, music, news anchors, you name it). What is one of the most common American rituals overcoming virtually every level of diversity? We all go home and stare at a TV at night - passive entertainment.

NOW turn around and look at what this culture has done to our churches. We go to church and expect to be entertained. Doesn't matter if there's one entertaining/energizing guy or five. As long as they're good at it, they'll be put on a pedestal. Maybe it's time to get past the podium/sermon concept...do we really want to emulate our culture and encourage a church full of passive listeners? Yes, there are always those 10% who do 90% of the church's work. But if you're questioning leadership models, take it a step further. Question the whole set up. Maybe we should consider running our churches in a discussion format, like a Bible study? When everyone in the pew is virtually trained from birth to expect to sit, listen and be entertained, you will automatically reap people on pedestals. And they'll walk away retaining just about as much as they did after a good hour watching "24" or some other great show.

Our church has a wonderful little habit at the end of every service: we get out of our pews, form a circle around the outside of the room (we're not a small church, so this can get tricky), hold hands and pray. It's amazing how much this simple act forces us to look at the way we "do" church. Why must choirs stand up front to sing? How about in the back behind everyone, so that we're not focusing on which neighbors made it to choir practice or who looks most holy as they sing? What if the audience was permitted to raise their hands and ask questions in the middle of a sermon? Or what if half the service was a concise teaching, then everyone breaks into their small groups to discuss? What if?

I certainly am in no way qualified to come up with the solutions, but please, please, re-think the entire paradigm....not just one element (the leaders) within it. We are culturally conditioned to expect leaders to lead/entertain/know it all/do it all. Leadership models will make no difference if the entire context is not equally addressed. A leadership model practically presupposes a passive gang of sheep. If Christ is the head, why do we call a hand a "leader"? How do we get outside "doing church" and focus less on the leaders and more on turning ourselves into the Body??

Perhaps there is no better way than to have one, five or ten "leaders" sermonizing from a pulpit to passive listeners. I'd like to believe the Lord will show us a better way to get past cultural habits of passive entertainment by a gifted few and find a new way. I want to be part of a Body on Sunday morning, not part of an audience...no matter what its leadership model.

On the idea of being bi-vocational as support for your shared leadership model, I am not convinced. The secular workplace is only one context, there are others that I think provide opportunity for witness. In my opinion, ALL pastors should be "in the world", whether Senior Pastor (CEO-type) or the missional type you suggest. Examples I know of:
1. Senior Pastor is head swim coach at local high school,
2. Senior Pastor plays in mens roller hockey league,
3. Senior Pastor is contributing sports writer for local newspaper.

I think that a CEO style leadership is probably ideal for the types of organizations that we have become accustomed to as a church.

A different type of leadership style would require a more fluid and organic structure which would produce a different form and model of church.

If we tinker with the leadership style we should be willing to also adapt our expectations of what the structure will look like and how it will function. It won't necessarily be "church as we've known it."

It seems to me that the author of this amazing article has courage from above in sharing with the public this great biblical truth he lives.
Keeping in mind that many pastors I know are truly great men of God and, fortunately, some of them are my best friends, I still think that the CEO-model ministry is biblical also – in terms that we may see it in the Bible or from it in many life examples. They are from ancient Hebrew kingdoms to some impressive modern mega-papacies and everything good (and bad!) in between. Without question, the one-man ruling model is very reliable and effective to some extent.
However, those of us who already know the latest results of Barna’s researches, giving a clearer picture of true “spiritual” achievements of such approach, may not be as optimistic about effectiveness of the senior pastor model in part, or “professional” Christianity in whole. I think we’ve got to find the proper balance between the two models. Indeed, He longs to communicate with His people as directly as possible and the multiple-ministers model serves better to bring more people into a full, Spirit-filled circle of ministry.
So, I’ll be as bold as to say that the so-called CEO-pastor, one-man show, one-big-guy private kingdom, Moses’ pyramid-type ministry, although widely accepted, failed first of all in quality of work, and even in almost greenhouse-like conditions for Christian culture in America.
If I would be allowed, speaking from my humble experience as a young minister in Soviet harsh reality some 28 years ago, almost every local revival that took place before my eyes happened not thanks to the church leadership of such type, rather in spite of it. What works perfectly for controlling things is not good enough for the Spirit of the sovereign God to move them accordingly.
Returning to the CEO subject, do you think, brothers and sisters, looking on those thousands of smart Christians, dutifully making their sermon notes, how many talented preachers of the Gospel we bury every Sunday? How many best dreams, historical opportunities for the Kingdom were suspended or lost during only the last decades? And, finally, how many great and dedicated to the work of God CEO-pastors have never become apostles, evangelists or, let’s not be afraid of this great biblical definition, the Holy Spirit-inspired prophets?

Dear friends, I am sorry for the mistake in my prvious post. Please, read "22 years" instead of "28". Sorry, Out of Ur, and thank you.

What a wonderful discussion! Our little church in Iowa began with 10 families and 8 men who were convinced that God wanted us to support a former Senior Pastor who had been tossed out with the bath water. Over the last three years, 5 of those men have seen their secular/ministry jobs moved out of state. The 3 remaining decided to co-lead the folks who worship with us.

Sometimes it has been easier to call ourselves co-pastor but we really are just Elders called to serve in this place. We 3 tend to work in our giftings but we shovel snow, mow the lawn and clean the bathrooms too. We are all bi-vocational and some of us preach more than others but we all serve each other and the people we lead. Our leadership is cumbersome sometimes but only when we walk in the flesh and fail to submit to one another. WE CHOOSE TO SUBMIT TO ONE ANOTHER DAILY. That is the key to our leadership style. We are co-laborers and we love each other.

What is wonderful to watch is how everyone in our church knows that we speak and lead as one and they know they have 3 "pastors" who love, care and minister to them. I am pretty sure that we will never go to just one Senior Pastor as we are convinced that was not God's intentions with us in the first place.

It has been a wonderful ride trusting God and allowing Him to use this to refine us as leaders This leadership style has allowed our congregation to grow and become fellow pastors right along with us. The CEO-pastor model doesn't work for us and THAT'S OK. Our leadership style may not work for anyone else and that is ok too. God can use either way just as handily, don't you know. It is nice to know that there are others that have enjoyed God's blessings through a non-traditional leadership style and I would really enjoy sitting down and having you all share with us how God has led you to where you are and how He is blessing you.

Hi,

Just a thought as I reread this discussion. I just returned from a pastor's conference where we talked about the missional church. There's an ingrained attitude among the "uni-vocational" clergy that I saw there and see here. It's and Us and Them attitude. That works against the approach espoused by Mr. Fitch and in Ephesians 4:11. God gave "....pastors" (it's a function, btw, not an office) for the equipping of the saints so that they could do the work of ministry. It's not about you. It's about God working through you so that the rest of God's people can co-labor with you and with Christ. It's not Us and Them. It's just Us. And Him.

I noticed that all of your decisions regarding the "pastor" were exactly that: your decisions. Never once does it say that God told us to do it this way.

Man-made decisions with no mention of God - no matter how spiritual that man/woman - is far more frightening to me than the current role of "pastor" in our churches.