Yes, Yes, Yes! I believe the issue of CEO style leadership will be as big of an issue in the 21st century as Martin Luther had with leadership in the 1500s. This issue is critical to reform in modern western style evangelism.

I agree. For sometime I have resented the word leadership and believed that all of the leadership books have only contributed to the confusion. We are servants and we need to use that and define it so that we are reminded that we are not the leader, but God is.

Oh, please. Leadership is simply stewarding the influence that you have. The word may not be used that way in the Bible, but such leadership is shown throughout Scripture: from "clan leaders" Abraham to Moses to Joshua to Nehemiah to "thought leaders" like Jeremiah and Malachi to "apostolic leaders" like Paul and Barnabas.

They had influence, and they stewarded it. That's leadership. And it's biblical.

A church sign in my town currently reads: "Followers of Jesus become leaders of men" or something to that effect. I wouldn't tend to reject this if we didn't live in a pragmatic culture that's reward-seeking and will see leadership in church as an end toward which following Jesus works. The sinful mind will quickly turn Jesus into leadership guru instead of crucified savior who demands primarily that we follow, not lead.

I agree with Dave here, there's a matter of emphasis needing to be addressed. There may be a valid discussion on leadership in church, but the word is simply loaded with an incredible amount of sub-Christian meaning. And that discussion is only to be had as a footnote to the discussion on following. Jesus, that is.

Contrary to point one, the term overseer is primarily a secular word, taken captive by the church to communicate aspects of the role of NT church leaders; their role of governing, managing, etc.

It is sad to me that people are quick to dispel and criticize the notion of leadership simply because the evangelical church has so easily and broadly accepted a CEO style of leadership (to its shame). The solution to bad leadership, however, is not to disparage the notion of leadership in principle (as the author has done), but to teach a biblical, humble, mature, servant leadership worthy of imitation.

Perhaps this is his intention, but the title and emphasis of the article says otherwise.

I think the New Testament gives us a few salient points on this topic that weren't touched on.

1. Leaders are always plural. Be they elders or apostles, leaders never act alone.
2. Apostolic leadership is temporary. Apostles are a rare breed of leader who exercise serious authority; Paul even compares himself to a church's mother. But this heavy weight of authority is tempered by transience. Apostles preach the gospel, raise up a church, and in a handful of months depart, keeping only occasional contact to encourage or correct.
3. Responsibility was mutual. A church was corporately responsible for discipline, exercise of gifts, evangelism, encouragement, order in the meetings, care for one another... everything. Epistles are never addressed solely to the elders, even in churches as off the rails as Corinth. Elders were to be honored and respected, but were far from "in charge."

I think we do a major disservice to our brothers and sisters when we elevate certain people, positions or duties to isolation. The church is blocked from its full functioning in many capacities, which stunts growth in Christ.

I believe the Body is incredibly blessed with many faithful brothers and sisters; the best thing we can do is learn to share life together completely, so we can trust one another in Christ's Spirit and build our Lord's house as he desires it to be.

I often hear people say "It's all about leadership".

I first I just shrugged this off as another cliche, but more recently have come to conclusion that the Biblical example is the complete opposite and that "it's all about servanthood".

To me this is symbolised in all Christ's actions, right up to his death on our behalf.

"There are thousands of pages to be written on how the submissive (radically subordinate) leader is actually the revolutionary leader."
Good for you that after your observations you had the humility to let the cat stick his head out of the bag a little.
Is it just a question of semantics? People, based on their life experiences and such, attach different meanings to the same words.
Maybe 'leadership', stewardship, servanthood is all the same, really. About taking on responsibilities at the church, whether cleaning the restrooms or serving communion...I think the way the 'leadership' is done, the attitude, is vital...egotistically and top-down, or in a spirit of humility and consensus.
I admire and like your bringing this topic up, my Pastor sort of follows the business model and that gets things done no doubt, but sometimes I think I'd prefer a Mr. Rogers (more nurturing) approach.

I agree that the CEO management model of the business world is not appropriate for a Christian church. But the key word in that is management. In the business world the primary responsibility of the people in charge is to manage everything and everyone below them. The traditional way to do that is to remain at the top of the pyramid structure and reach down.

The reason that model should not be used in a Christian church is because the primary responsibility of the people in charge of a church is to lead, not manage. In biblical leadership there is an ebb and flow of being in the front of the people, showing them the vision and pulling them in that direction and then a time of serving them and ensuring that they have the resources to accomplish the vision.

Look at Moses, once God had shown him what His vision was, Moses spent a lot of time in front of the Israelites trying to convince them that God was going to free them from slavery and make them His people. Moses was also working almost by himself to show the Pharaoh that he needed to let God’s people go. Moses was out in front working to create the momentum and environment that was going to be needed for the nation of Israel to move forward. Then in God’s timing the Pharaoh released the Israelites and they left Egypt. At that point Moses’ responsibilities became more about serving the people and making sure that they had what they needed to move forward. If we look at the scripture of the leaders in the Old and New Testaments we see that this pattern is repeated as they are out in front pulling people forward, followed by a time of falling to the back and making sure no one is left behind and that everyone has what they need.

I don’t think we should say that being a biblical leader is only about being a servant. I think that it is about being the voice that cry’s out God’s vision and then being a servant to help others to move.

The point is that to be an effective leader you need to know where you should be and making sure that you are there at the correct time.

What world are you living in? Have you not been to a leadership Summit in the past 10 years? WCA does an amazing job training leaders in leading according to the Kingdom's principles and not some title based hierarchy. This is a critique of a straw man that does not exist much anymore, if anywhere in thriving churches.

How strange it is to go to Church on Sunday and see the "Executive" Pastor pastoring, or to see the "Chief Financial Pastor" laying out the church budget...business models for church...and yet...I feel...strange. Disconnected.
Like a dream where I'm no longer a participant, but an observer.
I give my tithe, the music is surreal with instruments and voices to melt cold stone, and the Executive pastor delivers talented sermons.
It is all strange to me...I feel like a stranger in a strange land when I walk through the doors of my church.
On one hand there is good stewardship of resources and people, on the other...I look at the other hand and something is amiss.

I'm not sure what to make of it...good or bad...and yet...the music strains to be more connecting, to be more perfect, and the preaching seems a bit...well...less...of something...I'm not sure.
I feel like something is missing and I no longer know what that something is other than I know it's not there anymore.

So I look at the other hand wondering...did something drop out of my hand, or was there anything there to begin with?

I'm not sure about the CEO model of the church, but something has changed in the Church...and it has ever been so subtle that I no longer know what that change is...it seems to always have been like this, and yet I know it hasn't.

I have to say Mr. Fitch, you have made me aware of a change that I wasn't aware that something had...huh...I need to think about this.

As some have pointed out, there have always been leaders. However, I tend to think that the way we structure and view our leaders is not Biblical. Not this this is necessarily wrong- just not Biblically prescribed.

According to Phillipians 2 and the Gospels, we see that Jesus' leadership style was to serve. Looking at Galatians, we see that leaders (whatever you want to call them) appear to have roles. However, all relationships in the church are to be reciprocal in nature; we all have gifts, and are to bear each other's burdens and share our gifts with one another, even those who teach. This does not support any kind of paid ministry position, or give any kind of special authority to those who teach.

Organization structure is only a tool; as long as it is functional and supports Biblical principles, it's okay. However, the problem is that the way many churches view leadership does not support the kind of reciprocity we read about in Galatians.

Dave, I just want to thank you for putting in writing what I've been thinking for several years now. Is "leadership" biblical? Yes. Is the church's interpretation of "leadership" biblical? Often it is not, and for many of the reasons you describe. How many individuals in our churches would be interested in holding office if the title were simply changed to servant (not servant-leader, etc.)? I have to wonder. It doesn't sound quite as attractive, does it?

I’m with you Fitch - What we see today as “Leadership” is unbiblical.

Some being “Leaders” means some are “followers.”
And we have separation. Some are greater then others.
Jesus said we’re all brethren. Mat 23:8-10

I have seen the dangers and spiritual abuse of
"Titles," of "Pastors," and of "leaders."
Spiritual abuse for both the "leader"
and those “being led” by a man.

“Titles” become “Idols”
“Pastors’ become “Masters”

If all of the “Disciples of Christ” in the Bible
referred to themselves as “Servants of Christ;”
Why isn’t that good enough for us?

My experience with **Today’s** “pastor/leader”
and having been in “leadership” shows me...

Everyone who assumes the position of “pastor/leader,”

No matter how loving, eventually...
No matter how humble, eventually...
No matter how much a servant, eventually...

will “exercise authority” and “lord it over” God’s heritage.

That’s always the beginning of “spiritual abuse.”

Pastor/Leaders = exercise authority = lord it over = abuse = always.

AAhhh! Now “Servant/Leaders.”

Can't find that term in my antiquated KJV Bible either.

That sounds real good. But, eventually”...

“Servant/Leaders” = lord it over = abuse = always.

Jesus trained His disciples to be “servants,”
NOT leaders.

Jesus is the only leader. And the best. Yes?

And other sheep I have,
which are not of this fold:
them also I must bring,
and they shall hear my voice;
and there shall be one fold,
and one shepherd.
John 10:16

One Voice- One Fold - One Shepherd.
If Not Now; When?

Be blessed.

In His Service. By His Grace

@A.Amos Love...

Sounds like someone in leadership burned you. Perhaps you need to search your heart, and determine if there is a root of bitterness springing up.

You say this: "Everyone who assumes the position of “pastor/leader,” no matter how loving, no matter how humble, no matter how much a servant, eventually will “exercise authority” and “lord it over” God’s heritage."

You are forgetting that Jesus Himself takes on the title "Pastor" (Good Pastor, even; John 10:11 ff, the translations all say shepherd, but it is the same word. Jesus can and does "exercise authority," but He does not "lord it over" the flock in an ungodly way. This good shepherd commissioned Peter, and many others after him to "shepherd the flock of God" (John 21:16; 1 Peter 5:2-3), avoiding the temptation to "lord it over the flock." God Himself "gave" pastors and teachers to the flock in order to equip them for serving one another (Eph 4:11-12), and to be an example themselves (1 Pet 5:3).

Those who lead/shepherd/pastor must do it in the grace and strength of Christ, imitating Him, not worldly models of leadership. If it is possible to grow in Christlikeness (and it is), then it is possible to lead with Christlikeness.

Jesus isn't the only leader/shepherd, He is simply the "chief shepherd" (1 Peter 5:4), and the promise of God is that all those who imitate His shepherding faithfully, leading the flock of God according to His call and His will, and in keeping with His word "will receive the unfading crown of glory" (1 Pet 5:4).

If leadership isn't biblical, then the purchasing department in heaven better hope they can get a refund on all those crowns they ordered before the foundation of the world.

#3 is the biggest of these, I think. When he knelt down and washed his disciples' feet, he took every misconception of the word "leader" and turned them into ashes.

I have what a call a "Soap box angst" for the return of the pastoral office and skill set instead of the leadership culture that has replaced it.

Leadership tends to see people as a commodity.. pastoring see people as people /

I just got to old to play these games with these "leaders" and walked away. I'm tired of it.

This is an outstanding example of a straw man argument. It begins with a profound misconcpetion of how leadership can be understood in the business world and elsewhere. It follows up with a misapplication of biblical principles applied without appropriate context to the straw man set up for destruction. A shallow and disappointing analysis that does no justice to the Scripture or our understanding of leadership.

Hi Brian - Thanks for the thoughts.

I'm familiar with most of the scriptures you mentioned.
I just see them differently now that i've left "The Corrupt Religious System." And the "Spiritually Abusive Leaders" that are rampant in Today's 501 (c) 3, Non-profit, tax $ deductible, Religious $ Corporations, most call "church."

Went to your site - Christ Community Church.
I like your idea of a plurality of elders. That's better then most I've seen.
If you call, or think, yourself an elder I hope you meet ALL qualifications.

My challenge is - I've never met an elder/overseer who meets ALL the very tough qualifications that Paul gives. Seems most congregations today - avoid, overlook and twist the qualifications so they can have official "titled" elders.

Hard as I try - I can't find any who qualify for just the first qualification.
**Must Be** **Blameless** ;-)

1 - A bishop (overseer) then *must be* **blameless**... 1 Tim 3:2
2 - For a bishop (overseer) *must be* **blameless**... Titus 1:7

**Hmmm? “Elders/Overseers” *Must Be*...

That *must be* is the same Greek word as:
You *must be* born again. John 3:17.
Seems to be a small word - but very important. Yes?

*Must Be* is Strongs #1163, die. - It is necessary (as binding).
Thayer’s - necessity established by the counsel and decree of God.

“elders/overseers, *must be.* Hmmm? Very important or...?

**Hmmm? **Blameless**... How important is this word?

Strongs #423 - anepileptos - inculpable, blameless, unrebukeable.
Thayer’s - that cannot be reprehended, (cannot be, rebukable, reprovable,
cannot find fault) not open to censure, irreproachable.

Dictionary - Without fault; innocent; guiltless; not meriting censure.
Synonyms - faultless, guiltless, innocent, irreproachable, spotless.

1 Tim 3:2
ASV - The bishop therefore must be **without reproach**...
NIV - Now the overseer must be **above reproach**...
NLT - For an elder must be **a man whose life cannot be spoken against.**

How many, who honestly examine themselves,
seriously considering this one **qualification,** (*Must Be* **Blameless,**)
can see themselves as **Blameless,** without fault, above reproach,
and thus qualify to be an “elder/overseer?”

And if you can see yourself as **blameless?**
Is that pride? And no longer without fault?

The Bible talks about “elders/overseers.”
And **qualifications** for “elders/overseers.” (*Must Be* **Blameless,**)

Can you have one without the other? Hmmm?

This is only one of many tough qualifications.
And there are tough **qualifications** for the children also.

Ever meet anyone, with their children, who fulfills ALL the qualifications?

What do you call an elder/overseer who doesn’t meet the qualifications?

I’m Blest - I’ve returned to the Shepherd and Bishop of my soul... Jesus

Thanks Dave. There is no strawman in what you say. The institutionalized form of the pastorate has marginalized the fulfillment of God's purposes around the globe more than any other corruption in the household of faith. From what I can see, as long as you expect a crowd of people to line up in pews for a weekly Bible lecture (called preaching) by a hired expert, then you will have top-down leadership.
Some functional marks of top-down leadership.

1. Non-reproductive - No one will be "fully trained" to be "like" the leader. Luke 6:40 The position will be grasped and clung too, not entrusted to faithful men who will teach others also. 2 Tim. 2:2 It produces perpetual dependency.

2. Non-mutual relationships - Relationships will be distant and shallow compared to God's design. There will largely be no mutuality. The leader doesn't want it and the people don't want it. They prefer pretenses and posturing in mutuality rather than reality. "I love you all..." as spoke from the pulpit with no functional "one another love" to back it up. The chief shepherd is ALWAYS mutual and intimate with every sheep. Local shepherds should be no different. Give up the crowd orientation and it can be done by mortal men.

Top-down leadership has been given God-breathed status. Evangelicals do basically what Catholics do, but without a pope.

"Top-down leadership has been given God-breathed status. Evangelicals do basically what Catholics do, but without a pope."

Wow...I...uh...wow.
I want to say, "it can't be that bad...can it?!?"

And yet...anything other than...that is...wow...Tim, you've pretty much laid out a solid piece of argument there that leaves me no wiggle room but to say...you are right.

And now...I have no idea what to do with that awareness or admission.

Sheer
It is not quite that bad, but there are many very sad similarities.
A high percentage of evangelicals will not take minute of time directly in God's Word. God's Word only comes to them through "their pastor".

An even higher percentage of believers will never- their whole life- walk in the church door prepared to "spur one another on to love and good works" Heb. 10:24,25. That is ALL reserved for "their pastor" and sunday school teacher.

Maybe 99% of believers will devote 84% of their "giving" to buy hired leadership to boost God's work in THEIR life and only 16% of their "giving" will go beyond themselves. This is pooling for them, not giving to others. With top-down leadership, the whole concept of giving is severely corrupted, and much more.

What to do? Be a Berean. Not everything you have been told is true. You have to figure it out. Acts 17:11. I can help along with others. Check out the realities of organic church. Wow - what a huge difference.

chrnagai provincesthanks, thanks, thanks, at last, somebody who understands. i think it is good to have a council or committee in the church to consult and help the congregation in things like worship order, paying bills, community help, etc., but not to behave like a selected kind of people who are always around the pastor to manipulate and flatter him or her, making other brothers and sisters feel uncomfortable, or acting as if they were superior to all.

I have repeatedly made the mistake (or was it?) of trying to be a servant to all when placed in a postition of leadership in the business world.

To make a long story short, the typical results have been abuse and rejection. It seems those farther up the food chain consistently expect me to start lording it over others - something I'm simply not wired for.

So the biblical model of servant/leader does not appear to "work" in the business world. That is, if you humble youself, you probably won't be exalted. You will probably be further humbled. At least this has been my experience. I suppose that if my goal is to ultimately be exalted, I have missed the point and probably haven't really humbled myself.

I have been struggling with the issue of "status" over the course of my career as it seems that often I am being managed/led by people who I know are far less capable than I am.

Perhaps I should not be trying to implement a Christian model of leadership in the business world (makes you a sheep among wolves). Perhaps the leadership model described by Jesus is meant exclusively for the church. Perhaps there is still a dangerous amount of pride in me and the Holy Spirit isn't through dealing with that yet.

I agree with the comments about WCA Leadership Summit, the one that listed many biblical characters who were good/or not good leaders (which we study in IWU's leadership program) and others that are more aware of the proper emphasis of good leadership. It's better that pastors become aware of good leadership principles than to just preach and turn everything else over to a business exective to "lead" the church. SLD

As a churchgoer for over 47 years, I've come to agree with Mr. Fitch by observing all kinds of leadership in the churches I've been in. Pastors, elders, presbyters...were intended to "lead" by Christ's example. This was not the case in any church (of varied denominations) I've participated in, in many different leadership roles I've had, I'm sorry to say. That's not to say that I don't believe it is possible to follow the Biblical model, just very rare to find (I'm still looking). Nobody "burned" me, but I'd like to see the "church" lived out in this world the way that Jesus modeled for His Kingdom, so that His glory could be revealed. I hear His voice, and I recognize Him and follow Him, not any man.

I think the points in the article were valid which described the world using the word “leader” to mean a top-down, “in-charge”, “lording it over” position, and too often the people in local churches come into positions of leadership with worldly experiential thinking that even teaching on “biblical leadership” has a tough time over-coming. The response about modern elders, deacons, and pastors having trouble meeting the biblical requirements in I Timothy and Titus is also well-taken. Yet we know there were elders, deacons, and pastors, not to mention apostles, prophets, evangelists, and teachers, in the early church, and it seems clear that Paul both expected and reported such to be functioning in each of the churches. Our task then is to model our church “leadership” today on the biblical truths and examples seen in the Scriptures, expecting that such leaders will be led by the Spirit and the Word to fulfill the calling God has placed upon their lives in a way that is faithful and fruitful. The fact that this is somewhat rare in no way lessens our responsibility to obey God’s word in such matters.

Dave,
I am an American involved in ministry here in Kenya. I find that the great tendency is to merge cultural thinking with Christianity. One of the ways that shows up is the"big man" concept, ie in Africa the leaders of nations in times past have always been "big men, presidents for life/ie quasi dictators-sometimes benevolent, sometimes not, always willing to use power to crush any and all who would oppose. These same tendencies are far too common here within many churches- both ecclesiastical types and new Pentecostal ones as well. It is understood one never questions the pastor-he is the "big man". There is almost a papal thinking process at work-he is infallible...
The damage this does is incalculable! Every time a member begins to rise up in God's annointing, the "big man" feels his domain is threatened, and he looks for ways to push the person(almost always a man here) back down"where he belongs". Too much freedom- perhaps the Holy Spirit begins to move and empower many- cannot be tolerated- as fear of loss of control overpowers the desire to experience more of God's Glory. The result? Only one star of the show, the Holy Spirit quenched, women accept to settle for minor support roles, men get frustrated and leave (men comprise only 15% of most churches here), and the ONLY calling that pays is the role of pastor-its the only one considered prestigious, honorable, and may I say- profitable. So naturally everyone who wants to go into ministry only goes for the calling of pastor- to the downfall of all other gifts to the body-very sad. When humility finally begins to rule in the hearts of leaders rather than pride and ego, true revival and the equipping of the saints can really take off.

YES YES YES!!!!!!!!! EXCELLENT. I am so refreshed to see that someone is writing about this. The only organized gathering that I have been to that practices this way and has for years is the Plymouth brethren. However, I have noticed in some of the gatherings one man taking the lead. It angers me greatly when I go to a gatherings website and read all the right things and then there is a goofy picture of a man called a pastor or a video message. These pastors have deluded themselves into thinking that they are important and dangerously believe that they are chosen by God to be where they are. A lot of these men live lavish lifestyles, own nice homes, nice cars and all of it is financed from the tithes of others. This sickens me more than anything and IT IS NOT CHRISTIANITY. These men are the main reason people hate the body of Christ. The church is a collective effort where all men lead and participate. What baffles me is that the book of Acts so clearly demonstrates this but is completely ignored. The problem with so called Christianity today is that they have strayed from the word of God and are influenced by warped tradition, other religions and manipulative men. As one post put it, when you elevate certain men and positions the church is diminished it its full “functioning capacity” which hinders growth within the body.

Agreed. You are right. It was the religious leaders of Jesus' day that Jesus was so critical of and it was they who crucified him. I have written a book subtitled "Church Leadership for Non-Leaders." That defines leadership in the way I think Jesus had in mind. It is at www.outofthepews.com.

As I look at the Bible it appears that there certainly were leaders such as Paul, Timothy, James, Peter, etc. It also appears as though they made important decisions such as appointing the 7 to serve in Act6, or writing letters to the churches to be read aloud and then passed on, or determining what requirements should exist for new converts. There were also those who paid for this ministry to occur either out of their own income, or the selling of property. Paul notes that he did not receive money from anyone choosing to work instead but that doesn't mean everyone it was true of everyone. It indicates that there was a precedence for people being paid for similar work.

I don't believe the typical church model is inherently evil though, because of sin, it is of course afflicted with power struggles. I think those who serve as pastors could benefit from hearing how some things are done in the business world and then filtering that through Scripture. For example, many Business leadership books talk about a need for integrity. That's something the church could use. I like what I've read about the "organic" church, but I know that because of sin it to will be plagued by power struggles. The letters written to the churches of the NT clearly show sin is real and unfortunately infects the church.

I do think the church, traditional or organic, needs more grace. Grace in our own lives, grace for one another, grace so overwhelming that we see our total failure to do things right, or to be holy, and how completely in need we are of him to save us.

Last night, as I was going to sleep, I felt the Lord challenge me: "Leadership does not mean leading others... I never used that word. If you are going to imitate me, be a SHEPHERD." Shepherd's have a leadership role, but it is not a "follow me because I am a leader" role. They know their flock, what they can handle, where they should go, what their needs are... I think Christ calls us to be Shepherds and that is drastically different than merely leaders in "leadership." Thanks for the comments and article!