Your Pastor: Shepherd or CEO?

New Horizons ^ | 2002 | T. David Gordon

[suzyjaruki]

Your Pastor: Shepherd or CEO?

Many observers have recently expressed concern that the biblical model of the pastor as shepherd has been replaced with the model of the pastor as manager. Some biblical priorities are threatened when such a managerial model of the pastorate replaces the shepherding model. In what follows, I will place the priorities of a managerial model in contrast to what I believe to be biblical priorities. I do not intend to suggest that such priorities are inherently opposed to each other, but I do suggest that lower values have replaced higher values.

Quality vs. Quantity
The effect of a managerial model on the church is that the number of people is a higher concern than the quality of those people. How many are reached by various outreach efforts becomes more significant than what actually happens to those reached, in terms of spiritual vitality. How many people attend a special program becomes more important than whether that program actually makes people stronger, more pious Christians. The apostolic "Grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" (2 Pet. 3:18) is not so much overtly challenged as it is shuffled over into a corner somewhere and forgotten.

Biblical ministry never sacrifices true quality of spiritual experience for its quantity: Paul visited the Ephesians for three years, declaring to them the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:18-21). His prayers for them and for others were filled with concern for the quality of spiritual life: "For this reason we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to ask that you may be filled with the knowledge of His will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding" (Col. 1:9).

We must raise the question of how large a congregation can be while still retaining a biblical ministry. If the God-ordained responsibility of church officers is to "watch out for your souls, as those who must give account" (Heb. 13:17), does there not come a point when the sheer size of a church makes such care difficult, if not impossible? Indeed, does not the very size of some churches promote anonymity? In the corporate model, bigger is always better. In a biblical model, it is not clear that bigger is necessarily better.

The CEO vs. Plurality of Elders
A given business has one chief executive officer, under whom various other managers function. The CEO is given final authority for decision making, and a good CEO listens to the counsel of the managers who work under him. Biblically, there is nothing analogous to this in God's order for his church. The pastor is not a CEO. He has no more or less governing authority than do the other elders; he is not more or less responsible for the church's programs and vision than the other elders. He does have a greater responsibility to administer the Word of God and the sacraments, but he does not have a greater responsibility in governance. Biblically, governance in the church is genuinely plural, as God provides for his flock those benefits that come only from the proverbial "multitude of counselors."

Such a managerial model degrades the role of elder to that of a corporate "yes-man." Many mistakes have been made when lower-level managers, themselves more familiar with the details of some aspects of corporate life, have been unwilling to express reservations about a policy that enjoys the CEO's enthusiastic endorsement. Similarly, there are churches in which the elders have abdicated their responsibility to govern by complying with the wishes of the pastor in areas where they respectfully disagree with him.

Equally problematic, when the minister-as-CEO model of ministry is embraced, is the degrading of the office of minister of the Word. Ironically, the minister becomes more influential than he should be in areas of governance, yet less influential and effective in the area of ministry of the Word. Hours in the day that ought to be devoted to prayer and the Word (Acts 6:4) become devoted to developing strategies and programs.

The Program vs. the People
One of the dehumanizing effects of the Industrial Revolution (and its first cousin, the managerial revolution) has been the creation of a work environment that rewards conformity while discouraging individual initiative and creativity. Reminiscent of the prophetic decree against idol worshipers, that "those who make them will be like them," those who stamp out cogs on an assembly line virtually become cogs themselves in a large corporate machine. For the program to run efficiently, individuality must be removed from the process. The program is sovereign, and people must learn to work within it.

Regrettably, this model has made its way into the church also. The church's strategies, vision, and programs are determined by the CEO and the managers, and the people must work within the program. The program is inflexible; the people are flexible. We might suggest that the opposite should characterize the church. God's (ever-changing) providence of people with particular gifts and particular needs (not necessarily perceived needs) should shape the ministry of a given church. Program-oriented churches should not replace people-oriented churches.

A managerial model can produce a minister whose interests are only tangentially related to the well-being of his sheep. Some ministers are happy to stay up to 11 p.m. at a planning meeting, but are less happy staying up to 11 p.m. on a hospital visit or with a couple whose marriage is about to dissolve. The Good Shepherd, by contrast, lays down his life for his sheep--not for programs. He expends his labors, his energies, his resources on his sheep. Paul, the apostle whom we consider a brilliant thinker and theologian, was also a shepherd, whose ministry to the Ephesians was accompanied "with many tears" (Acts 20:19), and who said things such as this about his affection for those he served: "But we were gentle among you, just as a nursing mother cherishes her own children. So, affectionately longing for you, we were well pleased to impart to you not only the gospel of God, but also our own lives, because you had become dear to us" (1 Thess. 2:7-8).

Oversee or Overlook?
Where the managerial model replaces the shepherding model, God's overseers become overlookers. Ninety-nine sheep are herded into a program, while the one straying sheep perishes apart from the loving pursuit of a faithful shepherd.

[suzyjaruki]

k2,
Waste no time in meeting with him! If ever there is a time that Matthew 18:15-17 applies it is now.

Pray for him and pray for the meeting.

[blue-duncan]

The artificial entity, the corporation, was invented long before lawsuits. It is really unbiblical since its purpose was to outlive the generation of the community that started it. When God calls a certain group together He renews it by His Spirit on a moment by moment basis. When the purpose of that community is fulfilled it should pass away and its members absorbed into a new calling and a new community with a different personality and a different purpose is raised up. The artificial entity with a life of its own exists outside the life of that new community and forces it to conform to its calling rather than what the Spirit may have for it. It is not always in conflict, but if you look at the majority of the small to medium size churches that have been in existence for a couple of generations, the majority of them have no real life. They are just doing businesslike their parents did. Like Hezekiah, better they should have died than live another 15 years and brought a Manasseh into this world.

[Muzzle_em]

Amen.
As a Christian, I used to have a knee-jerk reaction to statements such as yours, but as I've grown older and observed more, I'm horrified by what I see in the "mega-churches" that are springing up everywhere.

I agree with your belief that God wants a a close and personal relationship with us and wants us to share him with one another, not just congregate on Sunday, listen to one person tell us what (he thinks) we should do, throw money in the plate and go about our lives until next Sunday.

[jude24]

The artificial entity, the corporation, was invented long before lawsuits.

That's laughable....

Please, your ignorance is painful to watch. Lawsuits have existed for millenia.

[suzyjaruki]

When the purpose of that community is fulfilled it should pass away and its members absorbed into a new calling and a new community with a different personality and a different purpose is raised up.

I agree with you and I feel the same way about programs and ministries.

[madison10]

It's just a short walk from there to having the pastor think of himself as a manager/CEO.

Which is NOT a good thing, especially where money is concerned. Take it from a church secretary of almost 10 years.

[jude24]

The artificial entity with a life of its own exists outside the life of that new community and forces it to conform to its calling

That's exactly what the Church is. You're not supposed to just up and leave because a new charismatic leader comes around. Thats how cults get started.

[blue-duncan]

I get a sense of nostalgia in the article, a longing for something in the writer's past for a small group with a "shepherd" who can manage and personally care for the flock. The problem with that, I see, is he would not accept the small group model for shepherding. I don't get the sense he really buys into the gifts given to the members of the church along with the offices. His use of Paul as an example of a "hands on" shepherd, I think, is misplaced. Paul prayed for the churches but when he was present and in his letters, he is constantly reminding and exhorting leaders to raise up new leaders who would be able to raise up new leaders who could do the work of the ministry. Even the disciples in the early church appointed Spirit-filled people to do the hands on ministry so they could spend their time in study, prayer and teaching. Neither Paul nor the disciples spent themselves doing everything in the church. Their goal was "to equip the saints to do the work of the ministry." But the traditional church model fights that principle.

[Corin Stormhands]

I get a sense of nostalgia in the article, a longing for something in the writer's past for a small group with a "shepherd" who can manage and personally care for the flock.

God delivered me from a situation like that. It had reached near cult status with the Pastor being everyone's shepherd. People didn't make a move - didn't change jobs, buy a house, go on vacation - without the Pastor's approval.

Sadly it was my home church, so it was hard to leave. But politics came along and I left when I was accused of backsliding because I did a lit drop instead of going to mow the Pastor's lawn (with all the other men from the church).

[blue-duncan]

Perhaps I should have been a little more precise in my statement. I was responding to the statement that lawsuits have changed our freedoms in the context of why churches incorporate. My reply should have been it was not lawsuits that caused churches to incorporate, but the desire for perpetuity.

[jude24]

That might be true.

I still argue perpetuity of a church isn't a bad thing.

[scottro]

In these type of settings,one becomes an armchair Christian,never really getting to know the guy next to you and only superficially. The early Church sought after one another's needs and all parts of the body were crucial to its survival. We need to come out from the way we do church or even think about church. I used to think that because I wasn't in church on Sundays ,I was missing out on something,but now God is unveiling to me what Church really is. What about those who can't make it to a service or who really aren't accepted. Are they not as important to the body. We need to become the Church{Called out ones} and start to move in our gifting of reaching out to others and not become caught up in Christianity { spectator-ship} and participate with Christ on a daily basis.Who needs a ministry when one actually becomes the ministry and every day life becomes more meaningful to be that servant instead of trying to train or take the necessary steps to qualify {Serving Man's agenda} instead of God's.

[HarleyD]

Yes, I would agree.

[Gamecock]

Nice post Suzy.

If more pastors were shepherds the state of the church in America would be much healthier.

[xzins]

Do you realize that shepherds use serious farming techniques and are part of mega-businesses? Their intent is the most finely tuned farming organization that is possible.

I imagine in Jacob's day that he was a rather shoddy goatherd/shepherd.

[P-Marlowe]

From the article: "We must raise the question of how large a congregation can be while still retaining a biblical ministry. If the God-ordained responsibility of church officers is to "watch out for your souls, as those who must give account" (Heb. 13:17), does there not come a point when the sheer size of a church makes such care difficult, if not impossible?"

When it comes down to brass tacks, the author of this article is preaching against God's sovereignty. If God can draw people to a church, he can certainly provide for their needs. What kind of heretical nonsense is this guy spewing? Is God so small and weak that he can't meet the spiritual needs of his children in a church which he caused to grow?

Amazing. I believe that if God grows a church, he will provide the means to feed his sheep. Sometimes I think I'm a more consistent Calvinist than the majority of the GRPL's.

[blue-duncan]

Don't you think Jacob was wise to pay attention to the outcasts rather than the traditional, pure and pedigreed flocks? He seemed to have recognized in the forgotten, overlooked and rejected that there was real life and potential, much more than in the normal flock. He also catered to them and they increased in numbers and strength while the traditional flocks seemed to stay the same and weakened considerably. He also incurred the jealous wrath of the traditional shepherds because of his success in increasing the nontraditional flock.

[xzins]

He also catered to them and they increased in numbers and strength while the traditional flocks seemed to stay the same and weakened considerably.

Yes, he is practicing excellent farming technique....his management style as a shepherd was impeccable.

By and large, it makes no sense to try to divorce good management practices from proper shepherding.

[xzins]

Two things strike me.

1. The early Jerusalem Church was a mega-church and they managed quite well, and they practiced spiritual managment and shepherding.

2. The entire OT body of believers, if I remember correctly, were properly to worship in only one location -- the temple. Synagogues were not extensions of the temple.

[thePilgrim]

***Sometimes I think I'm a more consistent Calvinist than the majority of the GRPL's.***

Funny that I was given an unsolicited invitation and I never call myself a Calvinist. I'll now explain the reason why.

It doesn't matter what one calls himself. You can call yourself a Calvinist all day and it be no more true than if you were to call yourself a Martian. So, I usually leave such complimentary labels as being called a Calvinist to others. It saves me embarrassment for giving myself grand labels that don't apply.

Now, as to your accusations of heresy by the author. Note, that the goal and effect of most mega-churches is not a close community where everyone knows everyone else. This is from a recent article I posted here on FR:

Bill Hybels, founder of the Willow Creek Community Church, put the church growth principles into practice. When he decided to start his own church in the northwest suburbs of Chicago, he conducted a door-to-door market survey to determine why suburbanites stayed away from church. On the basis of his survey he discovered that they were bored by church, that they were put off by traditional religious symbols, and that they preferred to remain anonymous when they attend church. Consequently, he designed a church to overcome their objections.

---

So, you see that the goal of these mega-churches is anonymity. I guess if God does actually take care of the spiritual needs of the flock when they prefer to remain anonymous then why bother going to church at all. If the only reason for going is so you can say that my butt warmed a pew that morning then you should probably stay home.

You have actually presumed without proving the case that God has caused the growth of these kinds of anonymous churches. To be quite honest, I find that more disturbing than the idea that the author puts forth when he says: "If the God-ordained responsibility of church officers is to "watch out for your souls, as those who must give account" (Heb. 13:17), does there not come a point when the sheer size of a church makes such care difficult, if not impossible?"

If the Lord has given men personal responsibility to watch over your souls, then the author is correct to assert that size will make that difficult or impossible, especially given that the goal of these churches in the first place is anonymity. That, by definition, makes it impossible for God's ordained method of overseeing of the souls of the elect to function.

But, such is the method of these mega-churches. They would rather bypass God's Word on such things for the sake of getting the pews warmed.

In the service of the Lord,
Christian.