I had the privilege of growing up with a very tight knit group of friends who were all followers of Christ and who strangely enough all went into full time ministry. A centerpiece of conversation would always be around the idea of all of us coming together and doing ministry together at the same place. It could have been a church plant, an existing church, or any other place that would allow us to work and serve side by side. This is a dream I know is shared by many other individuals who long to do ministry with those in their close inner circle.
But one of the interesting snags that we would always ponder or chew on was who would be the “lead guy”? Who would be the one with the “Senior Pastor” name placard? When the buck needed to stop, who would stop it? When the red button needed to be pushed, who would push it? I know, you get the point. So we would always go round and round on who that might be or who it would probably be.
All of this leads me to what I’ve been thinking about a lot lately. Why is it needed in a community of faith to have that guy? Does the local church need the hierarchal leader or does the leader need the hierarchal structure? Is it possible for called individuals to share the burden of strategy, teaching, and vision and then be specialists in different areas?
I think it is. You can put four (for the sake of understanding & visualizing) individuals on a flattened plane of leadership. They come together to discuss strategy and the future direction of the church. They share the teaching load. I’ve always believed a fresh voice that has ample time to prepare is always better than the primary teacher model doing 80% of the teaching. Each time I teach for our main service, I’m reminded of the unbelievable amount of time needed to accurately handle the truth of God. Its takes so much time during that week that any other areas of giftedness barely see the light of day. My leadership gift is minimally used and my shepherding gift stays in the gift wrap. This concept would allow all gifts to be exercised and fully used. Shared leadership also decentralizes leadership from being on any one person. Whether its vision, innovation, or pastoral care—these don’t have to come from the same person. So if someone is stuck in a rut for a season, it’s ok. It’s a team effort. This team approach also minimizes any transitions in leadership. If someone goes off to another ministry or church—it can be celebrated and the proper sending off can be given, because the local church will move forward because it’s not grounded upon one individual, but on a team. This destroys the personality driven churches and ministries that happen intentionally or by accident. The accountability bar would be raised significantly as four would converge in sharing life and ministry together. All significant decisions would be shared by all on the leadership team. Each person on the team would be a specialist in an area or focus. For instance you may have one whose focus is student ministries, one whose focus is spiritual formation, one whose focus is creative arts, and one whose focus is children’s. The church’s strategy would dictate what those areas would be, but that gives you an idea of what I’m speaking of. So, each person apart of the team has a ministry focus to lead and an area to devote a majority of their gifts to. This leadership structure would have to be based upon trust, honesty, and true calling. And I believe those involved would have to have a strong leadership gift and ideally a majority of those on the team should have a teaching gift as well.
I have to admit that I’m at a church in which the leadership is healthy, grounded, humble, and of strong integrity. So I’m not writing this in response to a bad situation that I’m experiencing. Even though I know many who will read this are in very difficult situations caused by egotistical and unhealthy leadership. And I’m not even trying to presume that this way of structuring things is the only way, but an avenue to be contemplated. This has really been provoked by thinking of what could be and possibly what should be. And just maybe this is a glimpse into the future of the local church.
Where did the existing structure of what most local churches have in place begin?
I’ve always wrestled with this question and really never thought it mattered to answer it. I’ve come to the conclusion I’d rather figure it out than blindly moving forward accepting ecclesiastical norms. It’s very apparent in the Old Testament we had the “lead guy”: Moses, Abraham, David, and the list could go on and on…But when we look to the New Testament it’s not that clear. Sure there are leaders present and there should be—it’s a spiritual gift given by God. But can we really come to a genuine confidence in seeing the hierarchal structure in place through the New Testament Scriptures? What we do see is a community of faith that is constantly leveraging each other’s gifts, resources, and meeting the needs of those who had need. It’s interesting in the epistles of Paul that he wrote them to the Church at Philippi, Galatia, Ephesus, and Colosse. They were known by their location and their church community more than by the individual who was their leader. If there was such an individual.
I have a sneaky suspicion that the modern day model of the hierarchy of the local church began and became normal due to insecurities and sinful reasoning, not pure and holy motives. A leader's fear of being imperfect or held accountable. A leader's desire to control and manipulate. A leader's desire to be the man and to have all things fall and rise upon them. A leader's lust to build their own kingdom and promote their own agenda, not God’s. And even possibly a community of faith's artificial need to want a king and a kingdom to build eventhough the King and the Kingdom is already present.
A couple push back’s that I’ve received in regards to New Testament biblical examples of a hierarchal way of doing things.
The Trinity.
The other is the biblical text concerning husband and wife. There is obviously a hierarchy spoken of with the man being over the wife and Christ is over the Church. But can we really transfer what should be in the marriage relationship to the local church?
I’d love to hear your opinion on this subject and any insight or scriptural direction to the leadership structure of the church.
But one of the interesting snags that we would always ponder or chew on was who would be the “lead guy”? Who would be the one with the “Senior Pastor” name placard? When the buck needed to stop, who would stop it? When the red button needed to be pushed, who would push it? I know, you get the point. So we would always go round and round on who that might be or who it would probably be.
All of this leads me to what I’ve been thinking about a lot lately. Why is it needed in a community of faith to have that guy? Does the local church need the hierarchal leader or does the leader need the hierarchal structure? Is it possible for called individuals to share the burden of strategy, teaching, and vision and then be specialists in different areas?
I think it is. You can put four (for the sake of understanding & visualizing) individuals on a flattened plane of leadership. They come together to discuss strategy and the future direction of the church. They share the teaching load. I’ve always believed a fresh voice that has ample time to prepare is always better than the primary teacher model doing 80% of the teaching. Each time I teach for our main service, I’m reminded of the unbelievable amount of time needed to accurately handle the truth of God. Its takes so much time during that week that any other areas of giftedness barely see the light of day. My leadership gift is minimally used and my shepherding gift stays in the gift wrap. This concept would allow all gifts to be exercised and fully used. Shared leadership also decentralizes leadership from being on any one person. Whether its vision, innovation, or pastoral care—these don’t have to come from the same person. So if someone is stuck in a rut for a season, it’s ok. It’s a team effort. This team approach also minimizes any transitions in leadership. If someone goes off to another ministry or church—it can be celebrated and the proper sending off can be given, because the local church will move forward because it’s not grounded upon one individual, but on a team. This destroys the personality driven churches and ministries that happen intentionally or by accident. The accountability bar would be raised significantly as four would converge in sharing life and ministry together. All significant decisions would be shared by all on the leadership team. Each person on the team would be a specialist in an area or focus. For instance you may have one whose focus is student ministries, one whose focus is spiritual formation, one whose focus is creative arts, and one whose focus is children’s. The church’s strategy would dictate what those areas would be, but that gives you an idea of what I’m speaking of. So, each person apart of the team has a ministry focus to lead and an area to devote a majority of their gifts to. This leadership structure would have to be based upon trust, honesty, and true calling. And I believe those involved would have to have a strong leadership gift and ideally a majority of those on the team should have a teaching gift as well.
I have to admit that I’m at a church in which the leadership is healthy, grounded, humble, and of strong integrity. So I’m not writing this in response to a bad situation that I’m experiencing. Even though I know many who will read this are in very difficult situations caused by egotistical and unhealthy leadership. And I’m not even trying to presume that this way of structuring things is the only way, but an avenue to be contemplated. This has really been provoked by thinking of what could be and possibly what should be. And just maybe this is a glimpse into the future of the local church.
Where did the existing structure of what most local churches have in place begin?
I’ve always wrestled with this question and really never thought it mattered to answer it. I’ve come to the conclusion I’d rather figure it out than blindly moving forward accepting ecclesiastical norms. It’s very apparent in the Old Testament we had the “lead guy”: Moses, Abraham, David, and the list could go on and on…But when we look to the New Testament it’s not that clear. Sure there are leaders present and there should be—it’s a spiritual gift given by God. But can we really come to a genuine confidence in seeing the hierarchal structure in place through the New Testament Scriptures? What we do see is a community of faith that is constantly leveraging each other’s gifts, resources, and meeting the needs of those who had need. It’s interesting in the epistles of Paul that he wrote them to the Church at Philippi, Galatia, Ephesus, and Colosse. They were known by their location and their church community more than by the individual who was their leader. If there was such an individual.
I have a sneaky suspicion that the modern day model of the hierarchy of the local church began and became normal due to insecurities and sinful reasoning, not pure and holy motives. A leader's fear of being imperfect or held accountable. A leader's desire to control and manipulate. A leader's desire to be the man and to have all things fall and rise upon them. A leader's lust to build their own kingdom and promote their own agenda, not God’s. And even possibly a community of faith's artificial need to want a king and a kingdom to build eventhough the King and the Kingdom is already present.
A couple push back’s that I’ve received in regards to New Testament biblical examples of a hierarchal way of doing things.
The Trinity.
The other is the biblical text concerning husband and wife. There is obviously a hierarchy spoken of with the man being over the wife and Christ is over the Church. But can we really transfer what should be in the marriage relationship to the local church?
I’d love to hear your opinion on this subject and any insight or scriptural direction to the leadership structure of the church.
Jeff Henson
