This entry was posted on Saturday, December 3rd, 2005 at 9:01 pm and is filed under Church Growth, The Church. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Pages:
Feeds
Categories:
- Administration (6)
- Apologetics (22)
- Church Growth (13)
- Culture (139)
- Devotional (21)
- Media (10)
- Misc. (31)
- Philosophy (19)
- Podcasts (22)
- Question (10)
- Scripture (21)
- Testimony (6)
- The Church (74)
- The Outlaw Church (3)
- Theology (82)
- Uncategorized (149)
Archives:
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
Meta:
No Senior Pastor?
12.3.2005 by Chad McIntosh
In Love Your God With All Your Mind, author J. P. Moreland, so far responsible for having planted three churches, four Campus Crusade ministries from scratch, pastured in two other congregations, and spoken in hundreds of churches during the last quarter century, has included his philosophy of ministry. (Moreland 188-200) In his first point, he maintains that a church should not have a senior pastor. He writes:
In my view, any philosophy of local church ministry ought to be clear about three very crucial ideas. First, the local church in the New Testament contained a plurality of elders (see Acts 14:23, 20:28; Philippians 1:1; Hebrews 13:17). The New Testament knows nothing about a senior pastor. In my opinion, the emergence of the senior pastor in the local church is one of the factors that has most significantly undermined the development of healthy churches. (Moreland 190)
He goes on to give several reasons as to why he thinks it harmful:
More and more people go into the pastorate to get their own significance needs met, and congregations are increasingly filled with empty selves [he expounded on this point earlier in his book]. Given these facts, the senior pastor model actually produces a codependence that often feeds the egos of the senior pastors while allowing parishioners to remain passive. None of this is intentional, but the effects are still real. The senior pastor model tends to create a situation in which we identify the church as “Pastor Smith’s church” and parishioners come to support his ministry. If a visitor asks where the minister is, instead of pointing to the congregation (as the New Testament would indicate, since we are all ministers of the new covenant), we actually point to pastor Smith. On the other hand, poor pastor Smith increasingly gets isolated from people and peer accountability, and eventually, he dries up spiritually if he is not careful. (Moreland 190)
He continues:
The local church should be lead and taught by a plurality of voices called elders, and these voices should be equal. If so-called lay elders do not have the seminary training possessed by those paid to be in “full-time” local church ministry, then the church needs to develop a long-term plan to give them that training in the church itself or elsewhere. No one person has enough gifts, perspective, and maturity to be given the opportunity disproportionately to shape the personality and texture of a local church. If Christ is actually the head of the church our church structures ought to reflect that, and a group of undershephards, not a senior pastor, should collectively seek his guidance in leading the congregation. (Moreland 190, 191)
More, he follows this reasoning in his practical suggestions to good sermons:
. . . “[T]wo reasons I do not think a single individual ought to preach more than half (twenty-six) the Sundays during the year. First, no one person ought to have a disproportionate influence through the pulpit because, inevitably, the church will take on that person’s strengths, weaknesses, and emphases. Now, who among us is adequate for this? No one. By rotating speakers, the body gets exposure to God’s truth being poured through a number of different personalities, and that is more healthy . . . As a result, the local church will have a growing number of competent leaders able to preach and consequently not be so dependent on one person.
Here is an important question: Would it inordinately impact your church’s attendance and effectiveness if the main preacher went to another church? If the answer is yes, your church is going about its business in the wrong way. Leaders are not being developed in the body, and the pulpit is not being adequately shared.
Second, no 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. (Moreland 194)
He then provides a couple of persuasive examples in his own life where these considerations have proven true and beneficial. And lastly, he gives a more precise summary of what he is claiming:
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. These elders are free to do whatever is necessary to the forms in the church in order to succeed in equipping the saints to accomplish biblical functions for the church. If this is correct, then the church must see herself as an educational institution, and the development of the Christian mind will be at the forefront of the church’s ministry strategy of equipping the saints. (Moreland 192)
Unfortunately, Moreland does not define what he means by senior pastor; though I think by the text it is clear what he is referring to. Now I’ve done my best to treat Moreland’s position accurately after admittedly not having read the entirety of his book. Note that he is not claiming definitive truth about said matters, only a personal philosophy attested to by the past thirty or so years of experience in Christian discipleship. Honestly, I’m not sure what to think about the like. Traditionally, we have always seen a church in which a senior pastor is appointed, which I think has been for the most part a success. But does Moreland have a point here?
December 3rd, 2005 at 9:42 pm
It might be a little too early to comment, but we’re planting our church without a senior pastor. Aaron and I are sharing pastoral duties, both claiming the titles of “Teaching Pastor.”
We’re only two months into this Echo Church [www.echochurch.org] but here are a few of my thoughts about this:
1) This is helped both of us do ministry. Our weaknesses are diminished and our strenghts emerge. Aaron is much more organizationally blessed than I, so our church thrives because of our partnership.
2) It takes a unique group of people to accomplish this. Aaron and I have been close friends for years and each of us have an immense amount of respect for each other.
3) I’m not sure this is possible in an established church. This is a paradigm shattering concept for people to wrap themselves around. I have personally seen it work in one instance [www.impactwest.com], but I think this could be accomplished much easier in a church plant setting.
4) Humility is the key. The biggest problem in the senior minister model is [as the band Living Colour sang] the cult of personality. Many people are threatened by people more talented than themselves, so this model demands ministers who are able to sacrifice personal gain for kingdom advances.
Like I said, we’re only a few weeks into our plant, but I really believe this is a model that will work in the future church plants. I can’t imagine doing this without having Aaron to work with. God willing, Echo will thrive under this style of leadership.
December 4th, 2005 at 6:24 pm
I do know of rather large congregations where teaching duties are shared, (and even some smaller ones) but there is still a “senior minister.” I don’t know, it seems that there still need to be clearly defined roles.
He says: “Here is an important question: Would it inordinately impact your church’s attendance and effectiveness if the main preacher went to another church? If the answer is yes, , your church is going about its business in the wrong way.” What church would say no to this? Tim is trying to disciple people in our church towards teaching but as far as fillling t he pulpit, these people have normal, 50 + hour a week jobs. Do you really expect them to have the time and want to learn enough to fill the pulpit?
I think Moreland does have some thoughts worth thinking over, but he seems to jump around.
December 4th, 2005 at 8:51 pm
I agree wholeheartedly with Moreland. And yet, here I preach 50 weeks a year as the only pastor (I hate that term for myself, by the way) of our congregation. I think it is a superb ideal. I don’t believe it is necessary to get there tomorrow. At least not for our congregation. I think it is hard for us to accept because we have been told for so long that we are supposed to do things a certain way. I’m sick right now and don’t have the energy to go into the long drawn out thoughts and discussions that this concept jumps into so I will just throw out some connecting points.
House churches - conducive to Moreland’s organization of church leadership
Christian churches - foundation already exists (plurality of elder’s to shepherd the church) for this type of church leadership (take a look at some of our larger churches that have multiple elders on staff and are almost if not in line with this kind of thinking)
Finally, to answer some of Mandy’s questions - an example from real life:
There is a gentleman in my camp association (50-ish) who is a member at one of our churches with a single preacher but has been supply preaching for a church about 45 minutes away. This guy has a construction business and works 50 hours a week in the suburbs of Kansas City. I’m not sure if he’s an Elder or not, but I would probably place money on it if I were a gambler. Is every church in the same position? No. Has God supplied every church with the workers and talents necessary to do the work of the church? Yes. You want/need Elders, leaders, teachers, preachers, etc. you pray, seek, and train them. Will we be there tomorrow. Not necessarily. But shouldn’t we always be seeking and working towards the ideal laid out in scripture? Isn’t that kind of what the Restoration movement was about?
December 5th, 2005 at 5:49 am
Neither one of you seem to grasp what a senior minister is. Both of you seem to equate it to who’s in the pulpit on a given Sunday morning. While this can be a part of a definition it is by far only a piece and not even an essential one.
Even in cases where you have mulitple preaching ministers (as I observed close up at Xenos while I was there) you have a single big dog who does the vision casting and strategic leadership. There’s not a church or organization in existence that can thrive or even just get by with two or more such people in executive leadership capacity. Ultimately what ends up happening is that either one conforms to the other’s ideas or they pull the organization apart in a magnificent explosion of managerial and egotistical strife.
December 5th, 2005 at 11:00 am
My father’s church seems to be pulling this off. Though their leadership structure centers not so much on pulpit sharing as it does relegating the “senior minister” to a preaching elder (co-leader whose gifts are used primarily at the lectern). They are still very much in a start-up phase of growth, but what they’re doing looks quite promising.
I think Moreland has a good point here, and there’s no question that the strict division (even if it is in title only) of minister v. congregation, does diminish the felt need of the congregation to grow, and does in fact tend to isolate a minister (both in regard to accountability and often in terms of challenging growth). This at least reflects my experience in ministry… I certainly do best when I’ve got peers working alongside me. (another reason I miss Tim) At any rate, I think Moreland does have a point, but implementing his vision seems to me a project that requires more than just a notion of “what not to do.”
December 5th, 2005 at 1:05 pm
Tim, who are the two you are referring to? Cause if it’s me, I don’t think you actually read what I wrote. My only reference to preaching in dealing with Morelands ideas was myself (and that briefly to give a picture of where I am at). The other reference to preaching was in response to a comment made by Mandy.
December 5th, 2005 at 1:06 pm
And good thoughts Ben.
December 5th, 2005 at 2:35 pm
You spent an entire paragraph talking about a guy preaching and using that as an example of bi-vocational leadership.
And as for the ideal laid out in scripture it seems as if Timothy was functioning in the role of Senior ministry, and the early church fathers took this even further with the use of bishops for an entire region. A pretty good argument can be made that though there was no one called a “senior minister” there were those functioning in that very role.
December 5th, 2005 at 3:52 pm
There is, no doubt, a division of labor in the early church, and certainly those individuals who were especially given to defending sound doctrine and refuting misguided teachings. I could agree that the church has had its leaders, but they always seem to be a plurality (mutually monitoring both congregations and one another… like Paul on Peter or Timothy. Surely more so than our present churches, wouldn’t you agree?
Honestly, what percentage of the average church would you says is ready to step into any teaching/preaching role? I feel like we’ve been failing miserably at discipleship with regard to the purpose of reproducing ourselves.
I wouldn’t blame this as much on those taking the roles of senior ministers, as the churches/elders that dump everything on them. My grandfather referred to this as the “hired gun” syndrome. A healthy body of believers ought to have elders-shepherding, teachers-discipling, and preachers-exhorting, servants-ministering, and the whole of the body-evangelizing. But what usually happens is the bulk of the church dodges out of its bodily function. We end up a paralyzed-incontinent body with a few mobile fingers crawling around the insipid bulk, trying feverishly to apply ointment to bedsores, dump sustenance down the throat, and change diapers. That may be a bit strong sounding, but when I compare the power/might of the church to that of culture, that seems to me a fair comparison.
Don’t you get the feeling that the present order (at least the way it has been working) is cultivating an atmosphere of contented weakness?
I honestly feel like my God is strong, but his bride is pathetically weak, as a result of her own apathy.
December 5th, 2005 at 10:01 pm
I think perhaps there’s some issues we need to explore on this issue. For example, if you take a look at denominations 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. Take the brotherhood churches, when was the last time you heard of one being the epitome of a thriving and innovative church? Chances are never. Heck, chances are you’ve never heard of the denomination at all because its failed to do much of anything. Do I suspect that the church has many failings? Yes, of course, by the same token, I doubt you can take those failings and ascribe a causative relationship to having a senior minister (or someone else who is called something else but who performs all the functions of a senior minister).
December 6th, 2005 at 11:36 am
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:
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.
December 6th, 2005 at 12:22 pm
Ben,
The biggest problem with your argument is that Steve was allowed to operate so successfully within the very paradigm that you’re arguing against (or at least critiquing). And this is where we come to the practical necessity of a senior minister. Were the various administrative and strategic duties of the senior minister not taken care of during Steve’s tenure by a senior minister someone would have had to stepped up to fill them. One of those people would have been Steve, who would have had less time to prepare and teach the way he did, and if we’re honest Steve is a far better teacher/discipler/whateverer than he is an administrator. Without the senior minister in place we would have been deprived of Steve’s gifts.
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.
December 6th, 2005 at 2:34 pm
I’ve finally figured out how to get Steve on here: talk about him.
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?
;)
December 6th, 2005 at 3:41 pm
Thanks, Mr. Walker, for your kind words. They are greatly appreciated.
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:
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?
December 7th, 2005 at 11:59 am
From what I’ve heard it sounds like everyone is largely agreeing. A church requires someone to preach, and strategically plan (which includes discipleship). While in some cases a rotation of several preachers in larger congregations can work ultimately the vision of a single person (with the input and work of a plurality) is necesary in order for a church to thrive.
December 7th, 2005 at 3:38 pm
We agree on many aspects in this, yes, but I don’t think you’d be willing to accept your own reductionism in the last post. Are you willing to work under the definition “One who is responsible for a single vision in said church” when referring to the traditional role of the senior pastor? I think there are several other hidden prerequisites you have in mind you’re not voicing that you think necessary for such a role to be sufficiently taken.
December 7th, 2005 at 3:45 pm
Its always possible.
But since you’ve not put keyboard to electrons on what those might be we’re at an impasse.
December 12th, 2005 at 11:00 pm
Its not your job to define what you mean? Who’s job is it?
December 13th, 2005 at 12:48 pm
Webster’s job… He’s been mostly out of work since the mid 80’s, and could really use something to do.