But since you’ve not put keyboard to electrons on what those might be we’re at an impasse.

I’m still divided on the issue. While I agree with a lot of Moreland’s points, namely his emphasis that discipleship would naturally flow better within a church with a plurality of elders in primary teaching positions, I can still sympathize with the normative senior pastor models in terms of traditional success. I don’t think either of the two are pragmatically comparable, for the senior model has seen much more practice than the other. With that, I don’t think that the seniority of the senior model is at all a good argument for its superiority (not to get too wordy, as Mr. Walker would say). Many things have elicited great success though a bit more left than right (and sometimes wholly contrary to it!). I’m not saying the senior model is such an example, but the possibility is real. If it were, however, I’m confident that God could (or has) work(ed) through it no matter.

To cite yet more of Moreland’s words, he gives the following example in his own experience of having been in a senior pastor position:

…[N]o one who preaches week after week can do adequate study for a message or deeply process and internalize the sermon topic spiritually. What inevitably happens is that a pastor will rely on his speaking ability and skills at putting together a message. Unfortunately I have been in this situation myself, and my messages started sounding hollow and packaged. After several weeks of preaching, I started giving talk instead of preaching my passions and feeding others the fruits of my own deep study. In one church where I was a pastor-teacher [plural model], we rotated preaching among four people and each of us knew that he would have a four- to eight-week series coming up in, say, three months. That gave us the chance to work on a subject for a long time. By the time our turn on the calendar arrived, we were well prepared intellectually and spiritually. (Moreland 194, 195)

This would also give the appointed teacher(s) time to put together resourceful materials to distribute as the series’ progress. In such a situation, it seems to me the congregants would be much more likely to engage themselves in each series along with acquiring substantial resources on each for keeps-sake. Discipleship here appears much more practical and intentional, rather than, say, a single sheet of paper upon which several key points are given.

What would interest me is seeing the instantiation of more plural models, at least enough to determine a fair consensus of its general success in relation to the senior model.

Is this at all a question of Scriptural foundation?

I heard Steve cries like a girl when he watches Sleepless in Seattle.

Yeah, I said WHEN he watches Sleepless in Seattle. How ya like me now?

;)

I’m in no way arguing that the senior minister goes to work while everyone else fills a seat. But I am pointing out the practical reality that without someone filling the role of senior minister a church becomes far less capable. Imagine, for a moment, a baseball team with no administrators at the top. Can you imagine Randy Johnson and Jason Giambi trying to co-ordinate the season ticket sales and distribution for the Yankees? Or perhaps Mike Mussina making a decision about the long term marketing strategy of the organization. Even if they’re successful at these tasks do you think they’d be able to perform on the field as well? Of course not.

On the other hand, I’m not suggesting that the mere presence of a senior minister guarantees success, any more than the presence of a CEO guarantees success for a company. However, it does give the opportunity for success, if the senior minister makes wise decisions.

“In which there is no one dedicated to leading the church in the way the senior minister is you see denominations that are not strong at all.”

I don’t think Moreland’s goal there was to advocate a format of democratic/bureaucratic non-leadership… Rather a push toward universally competent congregations. We can’t argue with that.

And again, while I don’t think those failings result causally from the position of senior minister, I do not doubt that the static shepherd/flock structure of many or even most congregations allows both the leaders and the congregation to feel content with the status quo… as opposed to feeling constantly challenged to stretch toward a more mature and spiritually aggressive Christianity.

I have no objection to one person in a particular leadership role… last time I checked, I fill one. The indicator of whether we’re doing rightly seems to be: are disciples are being produced and do we have an atmosphere that makes spiritual maturity, an expectation rather than an exception. If that’s present in any church, I would feel good about its direction. But we’ve all been in or seen the churches where no one feels obligated to do anything other than show up on a Sunday morning, and the senior minister may even view that as a sort of job security. That is positively unhealthy. I do like what Moreland said about a church being led by elders:

The local church ought to be lead by a plurality of elders whose main job is to develop the ministries of others. They are to see to it that members of the body discover their spiritual gifts and natural talents and receive the training and equipping necessary to be good at their ministries individually and corporately.

There is something to be said about unpaid-powerful leadership in the church. (think of the Steve Walker types, who demonstrated to us that Christianity was something everybody can and ought to do, wherever they find themselves). Did he not make more of an impact on people than most of the paid leaders we’ve seen? It is imperative that the congregation not only hear what is expected of them from a pulpit, but see it being lived out by their leaders and peers. Often established churches view what is said from the pulpit as a challenge that they can selectively ignore, but it is quite hard to ignore a plurality of peers struggling toward and challenging us toward a greater maturity.

Moreover, if we agree that the church is primarily an institution of equipping, it only makes sense that we ought not be content with one person doing all of the equipping. (a university with one professor?)

It seems to me that this is what Moreland had in mind, and certainly what he seemed to be criticizing. And if he’s successfully started several churches and seen them flourish without him, it’s hard to argue against the functionality of it.