A View From the Top
As I mentioned last week, I’ve been thinking a lot about hierarchical leadership in the church and the need for the church to move toward a shared leadership model.
Here are some things I’ve read that have stood out to me:
“A leader who leverages power is illegitimate. A leader who relies only on authority will never lead change; at the best, he will be a competent manager proficient in technical strategies” (Kevin Ford).
“Nothing distinguishes kingdoms of man from the kingdom of God more than their diametrically opposed views of the exercise of power. One seeks to control people, the other to serve people; one promotes self, the other prostrates self; one seeks prestige and position, the other lifts up the lowly and despised” (Chuck Colson).
“Authoritarianism is evil, anti-social, anti-human, and ultimately anti-God (for self-deifying pride is at its heart), and I have nothing to say in its favor” (J.I. Packer).
I’d prefer not to argue about what structure of church leadership is best or most biblical. I do that enough in my seminary classes. But I am curious what your thoughts are on one thing:
Why are most churches run the same way as most large organizations and businesses?
(If that confuses you, let me explain a bit more…Most large organizations have a CEO and a few people with power, though less power, who also play key roles. All of those leaders are superseded by some sort of a board that usually amounts to a group who do whatever the key leaders think should happen. Switch out the titles and you have how most churches are run.)
said: 
said: 
said: 
said: 
said: 
said: 
Tyler Braun.
I think it often boils down to the expectations of the modern church-goer. We expect the church to be an organization rather than an organism. Thus the structure makes sense for us and we don’t generally question it.
I think it’s primarily a question of pragmatism. So then the question becomes is there theological support (or opposition) for your pragmatism, which I know you don’t want to get into
Surprisingly, there is very little in the NT on how to run a church as an organization, but that is not an argument that you shouldn’t. Where there is absence of clear Biblical mandate, there will always be differences in the practical application.
Tyler, after the events of the last few years I’d have to agree with you. One of my main arguments for shared leadership is simply that it grows and develops individuals in their gifting for the benefit of the Kingdom of God. If there are only a few leaders, only a few get to exercise their gifts. There is the possibility for “single point failure” and there is less accountability.
In Ephesians 5 there is the less often quoted verse “Submit therefore to one another”. I find this verse to encapsulate the spirit of shared leadership. Yet pride must be crucified for us to do this.
And that is my answer. Most don’t share leadership because they simply may not want to. We like power, we like control, we like being in charge. It’s a lot of work to share all that – and to do wisely. It requires that we invest much time in others. I think it’s harder to some degree, yet think of the beautiful things that could happen when we bring others along for the ride…..
Can I throw a wrench in the works?
While I agree with the heart of your question in the first place, I wonder if inspired, Christian business leaders and CEOs aren’t following biblical models for leadership that they observed in the church in the first place.
Shared leadership in the church either has ALWAYS been the top-down model (even in the West until 1054), or emerges in Geneva under Calvin. And I don’t really think you can claim that moving to a consistory model helped Geneva always choose the right direction. Does it really make sense to solve the problem of bad leadership by increasing the number of leaders?
When our businesses, and political structures, and churches have worked well, maybe it’s because a noble, inspired, brilliant, strategic, visionary leader was surrounded with wise and capable advisors, and not with a cadre of yes-men.
If that’s what you mean by leadership sharing, then yes, it’s worth applying to the church.
Jeff-
Partially I agree with you. A lot of great things have come about because one person had a vision and had great people behind him or her. The problem becomes that when one person holds the power either people eventually become “yes men” or they leave. There are very few circumstances when this isn’t true.
Jesus, then an inner three, then 9 others who were rarely mentioned but all had a purpose to fulfill even though they weren’t key leadership…
….just thinking
As far as Ephesians 5 goes, it says submit to one another out of reverence for Christ, but then Paul goes into some pretty clear division of leadership. He puts some heavy weight on those who are leaders, however. Nonetheless, a clear division.
Is it possible that we implement “practical” forms of leadership within the church because it what we and the people of our local congregations are familiar with (i.e. what they see in the corporate/business world)?
Could our definition of practical/pragmatic be shaped by our ministry goals? –just thoughts
In essence, most attractional churches resemble this: branding, marketing (disguised as outreach), big events that require large attendance, programs that must operate at a profit, board of directors that oversee the goings-on, middle managers (except now with the title associate pastor of , etc. With the church looking like this, why wouldn’t it make sense to run it as a business?
Unfortunately, our mentality in ministry is to follow this ministry because so much emphasis has been placed on having a vision and casting it clearly and often. With that vision comes selection. The selection that states unequivocally that the vision is for one person and that all others must submit to that vision in humility and humbleness and with a teachable spirit.
One of the mistakes I reflect upon a lot is feeling like I got the green light to move forward and swiftly with launching a church plant based on a team model, yet having no team members. I tried to instill teamwork within the group, only to find that they were looking to be subordinates under the authority of a solitary leader.
I really envision missional communities coming together where people of humility recognize that they bring certain attributes to fulfilling a vision and that God may send others with different attributes and call upon the group as a whole to collaborate and influence the church and its ministry. It shouldn’t be about one person controlling how and when God moves within the church. It only perpetuates the leadership style already in existence and the flaws of such a style are becoming apparent as the culture shifts away from the traditional corporate model of the attractional church and starts moving towards being relevant in love and grace to a world that wants to know Christ rather than a well-oiled machine.
I think you nailed something that many overlook. Most people WANT to be led. They don’t want any part of making key decisions, they want to have other people to do that for them. Overcoming this might be even more important than having a shared leadership structure.
@b/ I don’t want to argue with you but the instruction to “Submit to one another” is a part of an address on how to live as believers. I understand there are qualifications for leadership, but I have seen more harm than good come from a church depending on one leader. And one of the biggest problems I’ve seen is the inability of that leader to listen to anyone else…..and as a senior staff member I got to deal with the very heavy fallout.
And even if you want to drag the marital relationship into the equation, God’s desire for husband and wife is not an authoritarian relationship, it is love and unity. I’ve been married 25 years – my husband doesn’t desire to dictate orders to me, but to BE ONE with me. So while organizations need someone to lead, the goal is not to wield authority but to promote unity.
I didn’t say anything about dictating or having authoritarian leadership. Those are assumptions. I don’t dictate my wife. But I lead because that’s what I’ve been called to do. The passage clearly demonstrates a legitimate distinction between who’s leading and who’s not leading. I’m also a “senior leader” but I also submit to my senior pastor. I lead people. He leads people and leads me. We are one. But he still leads and allows me to lead people. His level does not make him authoritarian, it makes him the lead pastor. It doesn’t mean that I can’t lead at a lower level or that we can’t be one in what we do. It just means that I’m not that guy.
And as far as the passage goes, I agree that its about living as believers, but you made the comparison that its about the spirit of leadership.
well actually i said it encapsulates the spirit of shared leadership – it’s not a verse on leadership per se, but one that speaks to the attitude necessary for it to succeed. There is no option for shared leadership if we can’t submit to one another at some level. A humble heart is needed to share….
Also my comments about authoritarianism went back to Tyler’s original post/question asked – they were not personal to you in any way since I don’t know you.
Anyway, I know there are qualifications for leadership. I actually train church leaders and teach that to them and to the team i’ve led for 11 years. I just really do believe in the wisdom of leading with the accountability of a team. I did this for years as a worship pastor and it strengthened my team and ministry. And it protected me on many levels. In my marriage, my husband does this and it protects our family and gives additional wisdom that one person may lack.
I love leading in community and see many benefits. That’s all I was trying to say. So sorry if my words offended as that was never my intent.
Why are most churches run the same way as most large organizations and businesses?
because most people are afraid of being different in another area and losing the tight grip we all have on self preservation. It looks nice but it cant work because the ideology of church is different from buisnesses.
For the sake of not leaving a novel, I’ll say that a lot of churches are run like businesses for two reasons:
(1) Most churches meet in a building, which creates a financial burden for the church. Not to mention- salaries, programs, new property acquisition (for some), etc. Money needs to come in for these things. The more people, the more money. What better place to look for a model than the top corporations in our society.
(2) Pride. Plain and simple. Any CEO or person in a significant position of power has the constant temptation of feeling like they were solely responsible for making that company, project, church, etc. what it is today. No one in those positions are immune to that temptation…not even in the church. Pride leads to greed, which leads to manipulation.
Of course this is not all churches and pastors….just a general statement for possible reasons the church tends to operate like Wal-Mart.