I've never thought of it in these terms, but Skye, you're on to something.

I wonder if the relative stability of the U.S. political system is an example of what you're talking about. For all its aggravating inefficiency and polarizing tendencies, it's definitely NOT a monarchy. Certain personalities will rise or a term or two, but the system is larger than any one individual. It requires executive, legislative, and judicial roles ALL working together.

Sort of like a church requires Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, and Teachers.

Other variables that I find interesting in a discussion like this are the reward structure, the training (the seminary), and the denomination's mandates.

If the pay structure and the seminary both assume a senior pastor, and the denomination's lines of responsibility operate only if the buck stops with a senior pastor, how does a congregation break out?

I'm not sure that I agree with this assessment. Thinking about pastors that I listen to on the internet...they are major personalities that have a very young congregation.


Mars Hill- Rob Bell
Mars Hill- Mark Driscoll
The Village Church- Matt Chandler
Imago Dei- Rick McKinley
Cornerstone- Francis Chan

many companies are beginning to forgo a hierarchical leadership style because of the same failings -- power struggle. if you wish to empower, you must be willing to give up power.

I'm not sure that I agree with this assessment. Thinking about pastors that I listen to on the internet...they are major personalities that have a very young congregation.

Mars Hill- Mark Driscoll

Actually, Mark Driscoll's church has adapted this broad type of leadership strategy. He discusses it in-depth in his book "Confessions of a Reformission Rev." The idea is that the church operates with a team of elders/pastors (same word), chosen and qualified as prescribed in 1 Timothy and Titus, who each have different roles in maintaining the church. Mark Driscoll happens to be the head teaching pastor, and yes, he does serve as the figurehead for the church, but in the meetings he has no more vote or control than any other elder. And, as he points out, this works because all of the elders submit to their one senior pastor, that being Jesus Christ.

Personally, I am in favor of this model. I think it provides much needed accountability, as well as (and most importantly) fitting with the teachings of the Scriptures, both in the New testament and as pictured in places like Nehemiah 8.

Thank you for this article.
You should write a part 2 that talks about "celebrity book authors" too.

The pedestal should be shorter than it often is, but I think the responsibilities of the pastor should give the pastor a degree of authority. Teams with no clear leader seldom achieve anything worthwhile. But teams that are empowered to offer new strengths and new perspectives to a leader are invaluable. That's a tight-rope walk.

It is about time the church gets back to the original plan. Team leadership was taught by the Lord Jesus to His Disciples and we see it worked and lived out in the book of Acts.
Although we Evangelicals don’t have a Pope, we have a Pope every Pulpit.

M.K. Bufford

As someone from a liturgical church background I'm fascinated by the return of many evangelicals to ritual and liturgy. Within my own tradition I've seen the opposite reaction from young people as they defect to more contemporary worship styles. Perhaps the reason for this shift has more to do with the natural tendency of each generation to react against the previous one?

"Actually, Mark Driscoll's church has adapted this broad type of leadership strategy"

Todd:

I am not one to point fingers, but using Mark Driscoll as an example of team leadership might be missing the mark by a mile. Let's not forget the Mars Hill incident that happened last year:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004020898_webmarshill18m.html

This recent situation now suggests that Mark has a life-long tenure. I don't say this lightly or slanderously, I know this on good solid information from friends that attend and are members and (btw) still love the church. They have confidence in Mark and his ability to now steer the church with no real threat of ever being overturned. I on the other had cringe at the thought.

Todd's example actually smacks of the problem I believe that Skye is referencing (in part) regarding celebrity Pastors and to some youth/young adults the danger they see. Perhaps it is because of the abuse of authority in the church that many youth have seen. Perhaps it is because some are realizing that the “body of Christ” means just that, a body, not just a head. Or perhaps yet they are all rebels, as some believe, just wanting to over-throw authority. I am learning a great deal from those challenging themselves and others to look to Christ and the early church for keys to living today. Interesting post Skye.

I'm glad somebody spoke the truth about Mark Driscoll's "leadership".

Authority and celebrity are not the same thing.

The unfortunate combination of forceful personality and authoritarianism (very different than authority, I would say) gives us our very own "reformed" pope of Seattle.

Resurgence, indeed.

But of course they don't get to be formally called "bishops", so their somehow different than those "limp-wristed churches" with episcopal oversight/structure.

Driscoll is a bishop, and a very bad one.

I think there's a tremendous difference between how the leadership of a church(whether it be by a small group of individuals or a larger team) perceives their church's structure and how the (younger) members perceive that structure. For example, a church with a relatively well-known pastor and/or worship leader may think--and may be--moving toward this less hierarchical mode of leadership, but members, especially young ones, may still be drawn to the individual personalities of those leaders who also happen to be famous.
I don't agree that celebrity status is losing it's hold on younger generations. I've been a part of a mega-church led by nationally know leaders and have seen their allure for people of all ages. The bottom line: Regardless of what young people may think of "celebrity" as a social concept, they'll always be drawn to it, always look for role models and leaders who remind them of who they want to be. Even Christians--who claim to only need Jesus--need to see Jesus in the lives of the people around them, and simply put, Christian celebrities happen to be the most visible role models there are. If anyone needs evidence of how much "celebrity" affects even Christians, look to the career of Beth Moore, Osteen (already mentioned), Chris Tomlin, etc., etc.
So if members of the Christian avant-garde think they're somehow departing from the old personality-led model, they very well might be; but I rather think they're in the minority.

I know this sounds like I'm missing the point but bear with me. As someone who works with children in a church context there is no limit to the worship of celebrity...Hannah Montana, High School Musical, etc. I know you wanted to start the article off with a bang but using Celebrity Deathmatch was bad (not because of morality) but because it was popular for highlighting celebrities. I struggle with connecting hiearchical church government with celebrity death match for these reasons.

Now, on to the point. We are enamored with celebrity status because it's in our nature to be. In or out of the church. The Catalyst website (which ironically linked me to this article) perpetuates the same notion of celebrity status in their methods of hosting a conference. If you've been to one, or actually any big Christian concert/conference it's the same thing. It's not necessarily bad, it just is. In fact, I'll probably see the Next Level Church pastoral staff on stage in the next year or two. Thus the cycle continues.

So shared leadership is supposed to be something new?

I became a Christian in 1980 in a non-denominational church with a membership of about 600 that was governed by a board of elders, of which the pastors were members. The pastors were hired based on a vote of the entire congregattion after the board of elders made a reccomendation. That reccomendation was partly based on the response of the members to the board of elders after prospective pastors gave guest sermons. The board of elders were nominated by members, vetted and reccomended by the board and voted on by the members. A totally circular system of mutual submission. This church had been operating this way for decades.

I don't think I have visited a Reformed Evangelical church that did not operate this way. I thought it was the norm.

Most churches, even megachurches, have a plurality of leaders on the board. The senior pastor may technically have just one vote. This is true at Willow Creek for instance. But can anyone of you name an elder at Willow? But we all know the name Bill Hybels.

This post isn't about governance structures. It's about whose personality permeates and drives the church.

Leadership in the church...lord, there are somethings which just makes me shake my head and wonder why you even bother with us.

People, as a brother in the lord, and someone who has a very clear picture of what the church is about, what it's purpose is, why it is here, and the reason of why we're all showing up on whatever day it is we feel compelled too...you all...seriously, all of you, including you Skye, have failed to see the church for what it's purpose is if you're so damnably focused on it's "Leadership."

You-the-guy/gal-in-the-pew-are-the-leadership.
The guy in the pulpit is just a servant who gives you encouragement to go forth and minister to the world.
Those people who run the office, they're your personal admins who organized and direct your resources for when you need assistance to continue your ministry in the world.
And if your church is not like this, then you, the leadership of the church, better turn the whole thing around because it's doomed to failure if you don't.

This post isn't about governance structures. It's about whose personality permeates and drives the church.

But that's just it. There is always a personality which permeates and drives the church. The problems I see with churches like Solomon's Porch (which I haven't been to, but I've seen on PBS and read about from Tony Jones) is that they deny the fact that God calls specific people to LEAD the church. We see this with Peter in Acts, then with Paul. We see this with the raising of Timothy above all others in Ephesus. We see it looking back into the Old Testament with Nehemiah where, though Nehemiah had been given the ministry of leading the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the church there, it was Ezra who was placed as the figurehead and teacher.

It appears to me that what people are arguing for is little more than a glorified discussion leader, when we see specifically in Scripture that God calls people to more than that. Peter and Paul were certainly cults of personality, which is why we see in 1 Corinthians that Paul is warning people not to divide over their teacher (1 Cor. 1:10-17). Yet in this, Paul both instructs them to unite under the singular name of Christ (v.10) while still affirming his calling as a figurehead to teach the people (v.17).

This is a God-thing, and to deny it, I believe, is to either doubt the efficacy of God to work out his plan appropriately outside of our manipulation (i.e. "the culture can't handle being taught in this manner") or to doubt one's actually calling to be a leader of the flock; neither of which being a particularly encouraging thing.

I actually resonate with much of what I hear from Sheerahkahn on these threads.

However, this time I just can't agree.

Congregationalism is a horrific thing. I've seen it destroy more churches and pastors.

Some kind of check on the congregation has got to be in place.

Either a "presbyterian" system or something.

I can name the entire elder board at my church. Can you?

I just don't know if knowing the elder board really will make a difference.

I knew all the people on past church boards and the names of many other church boards.

They all were power hungry, adversarial, mean-spirited.

What's worse?
One tyrant that people worship or many tyrants that people "know" and thus vote in to power because of a glorified popularity contest?

It all stinks.

Let's define some terms. First of all, there is no such thing as senior pastor, or associate pastor in the NT model. Pastor means "shepherd," hardly the first figure in the church. That role is assumed first and foremost by our Lord Jesus. The greater authority is exercised by apostles, not pastors, according to Acts.

I agree with the point brought up earlier, that His church must be established on apostles, prophets, teachers, evangelist, and pastors -- each contributing to the Body of Christ with the unique gifts given by the Holy Spirit... not one-man-does-it-all.

James couldn't be more right...

as someone post-college but under 25, i think i can safely argue that my generation has not in the slightest become disillusioned by celebrity. i mean, this generation has more celebrities who are famous for no apparent reason than they're in the spotlight than any seen yet.

i've seen many leadership teams, particularly worship teams, be every bit as exalted as the senior pastors of old. instead of having one cool person, we have a cool clique. i have a hard time seeing this as progress. anyways, when the root of the problem is celebrity worship and idolatry, changing the person in the spotlight isn't going to do squat. you can't fix the heart by getting plastic surgery.

personally, i have no quarrel with the senior pastor model. nor with the team model. i've been to healthy churches that use both. but the model really isn't the issue here, is it?

The model is at the heart of the issue here. When you have one person or one team leading a "church", you have what is known as "clergy" and "laity." You have a "leader" and "followers."

You end up with a "performer" and an "audience."

This is why we "go to church."

This is not being the Church. This is Going To Church.

Shifting around the model and bringing back everyone (and I mean everyone) into the equation instead of just a pastor/priest/ elder board/committee will help immensely. This is what the labor pains are that everyone is seeing. This is why so many are leaving and why so many are disillusioned with the church.

No one is growing because no one is participating. You can't if you're just sitting there every week, letting someone else do all the work. And why work when you're second class anyway?

Friends, it sounds great! Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, and Pastor/teachers. I would love to see that in my church, but we simply don't have the personel to take up the role(s). Are these not God-given callings? Surely none of us can simply decide to suddenly become prophets, for example, or apostles! So we are praying that the Lord would send laborers into his harvest: 'natural' evangelists (who don't make everybody feel under pressure), apostles who would function as truly visionary and authoritative leaders (without lording it over the rest of us), and pastors (who will genuinely care for souls). We also need 'bridging' laborers, who will faithfully preach the Word of God to our youth - without compromise - showing them how relevant God and His Word are to their very existence and purpose. Oh Lord Jesus, send laborers! Let the word of your gospel speed ahead! Build your church! Your Kingdom come!
[Incidentally, if my understanding is correct, according to the Granville Sharpe rule, in the Greek 'pastor/teacher' is the one person. Ephesians 4 describes a four-fold ministry, not a five-fold one.]

Joe: No, no, no.

You don't have the personnel to take up the roles? You're thinking in terms of full-time positions, aren't you?

Well, stop.

Pray for God to send laborers all you want, but first pray for where God wants to send YOU. "Natural" leaders are probably the worst for churches. They don't need to rely on God at all. I'm not saying to shoehorn yourself into a calling that isn't yours, but if you have 5 people in your church, you have 5 different callings.

Don't wait around for some perfect evangelist to show up. Evangelize! You'll probably get better at it. Don't wait for some perfect empathetic shepherd to roll into town. Care for people! It's mostly the thought that counts anyway.

What are we waiting for? You're right that God will send all the workers you ask for, but you'll probably be surprised to discover that one of them is you.

The priesthood of all believers doesn't mean there are no priests. It means we are all priests.

Ultimately, when God wanted to do something in Biblical times, He raised up 'a' leader. If that leader had sense, they submitted their plans to the people around them for input and wisdom but finally one person had to make the call. The problem with a leadership structure that allows for no single leader is that the decision making process can be stuck in analysis paralysis.

This may not happen in the first generation of leaders who will have come together with the fire of vision and unity, but as they are replaced, the team can so easily become struck by 'leading by right of veto'. By this I mean that, human nature being what it is, people gravitate toward voting against someone else's suggestions. I've seen this in operation over and over in churches in the UK resulting in churches that have been stalled for years. Nothing happens, and there is frustration, but no one wants anyone else to feel that they are in charge.

c'mon, url - that was a great comment! stop depriving your readers of a good chuckle every now and then... :)

just to suck up a minute: i enjoy what you're doing with OoU - the newsletter, the theme of recent posts. keep up the good work. we seem to have a very diverse group of core comment-writers here - that's probably a feather in your cap.

of course, your 'good work' shouldn't involve censoring my comments, you butthead...

mike rucker

Mike Rucker-

Your previous comment wasn't posted because it was too long. Comments are supposed to be 1500 characters max as noted.

BTW, thanks for elevating the maturity of the conversation on Ur.

-Url (the posterior pinnacled pundunt)

BTW, thanks for elevating the maturity of the conversation on Ur.

ha! cheap shot, but funny nonetheless. even the slightest glance around this blog's motley crew of commentators reveals that, at the very least, God has one heck of a sense of humor...

carry on, Url ... we love ya.

mike r.

I really believe that team leadership in the church is important and as 'the pastor' of a church, I feel that the personality mania that has been in place (and will never go away, think 1 Corinthians and Paul and Apollos)is part of the problem as well... to me shared/team leadership is essential but hard and maybe a way to keep some pastors and churches from going over the edge