Yes, I totally agree...from the biblical and practical standpoints. Churches with Senior Pastors may continue to grow faster than multi-leadership churches, but they will not grow deep in missional discipleship. We need to see and follow multiple leaders living on mission in their various ways, giving close attention to creatively leading their people into incarnational lives.
Great post.

David - you say things very well. I appreciate your clarity and insightfulness.

I imagine many will still see CEO as preferred model for a long time to come because we do like to be in control!

Okay, it works for you. But let us not assume that what works in the context of this one church will transcend contexts and automatically work in another.

We've made that mistake far too many times over the past couple of decades, right? Someone tries something ... it works ... they write a book ... then everybody tries to emulate.

The true key to being missional, even in leadership (especially in leadership?), is to discern and understand what best fits the unique context of your church and community.

Geoff Baggett
http://geoffbaggett.wordpress.com

Sounds interesting, but how is this possible financially?

We attend a megachurch and one of the best things that happens is that 5 pastors rotate preaching CONSISTENTLY! It is awesome-no one is superpastor, no one is the "final word", we get the benefit of so much wisdom.
Now if they only let some of the gifted women preachers do their thing- it would be a perfect church!

I appreciate your post. Our church leadership is working through these issues right now. We are also taking under advisement the directive of our church 'denominational' leadership which has recently embraced a new leader who is very pro- Carver/CEO, and has written a book to that effect.
Our church is currently functioning under a system of multiple pastors, perhaps similar in success to your model. It's refreshing to hear others speak of it's Biblical fidelity reinforced through the evident practicality.

I agree, tag team wrestling is much better than a rope-a-dope method of celebrity pastor burnout. This will be, should be, more popular for the future - inside of a post-Christian culture of America.

'how does it work financially?'

It doesn't work very well at all - and there-in lies the challenge.

Are we too concerned for our paychecks and not concerned for what we create as we accept paychecks?

i have always tried to put to words my fellings about the CEO pastor. when i read,

"I have argued that "the CEO-pastor-leader" is a construction that only makes sense in the Cartesian worlds where man is in control, where leadership is technique driven, and where people are units in a sociological structure devoid of the organic nature that we see characterizes the gifted nature of the Body of Christ (1 Cor 12: 4-31). Because of this I have argued that missional leadership must be multiple, organic, recognized and affirmed within and among a body (not determined from above in a smoke filled room by a CEO and board of the mega corporation it oversees)."

i was relieved because you said what i have always tried to articulate.

the comment above is correct, what works with one chuch doesn't work in all churches. but i don't hear you saying this should be applied to every church, of even that it is "more" biblical.

i was also encouraged to see the bi-vocational leadership model mentioned.

No "Sr. Pastor": I've been saying, preaching, and writing about this for many years. In fact, it got me fired from my last church. My gifts are preaching and compassion. Blessed is the leader whose church allows him to be himself.

The post is interesting, but # 1 is a tale of the worst possible scenario, not necessarily an accurate version of normality in most churches. I also say the pastor who leads their leaders is doing exactly what they are supposed to do. Even in the shepherding analogy of scripture. The shepherd would hire under shepherds when his flock was too big to manage on his own. He did this as an act of great stewardship and care, not because he wanted to isolate himself from the sheep. When I hire staff I do so not because I want to disconnect or because I am too important for other jobs, I do so because I want the people within our church to receive the very best care possible.

To state the senior or lead pastor becomes out of touch is not an experience I have nor is it one I see in any growing church. Usually it is the opposite. Maybe the Holy Spirit helps. For a senior pastor to leave and have the church disintegrate is not as much about him preaching but about leadership. It is about the team placed around such a preacher and the ability to build a church that is more than just teaching and music.

As for no single pastor having all the gifts, this is true in every church no matter the leadership design. Even the gifts listed in Ephesians 4 are not all the gifts. The purpose of the gifts in Ephesians 4 is to equip and bring all the gifts to the surface and help them be in use within the body.

I applaud the team at Life on the Vine for their courage and innovation in leadership. Keep doing it, sell me on its success and give practical input as to how the team works. Show me how decisions are made within the church, how vision is cast, how goals are set and how people are cared for. This post, and forgive the bluntness, feels like you build a straw man only to take it down.

At first, my thought was that this is something only for large churches that can afford multiple pastors. Then I realized that my little church - we run less than 100 usually) has one dynamic pastor and a fantastic associate pastor. No, we don't pay the associate right now. But I'm sure when we do grow numerically, we'll remedy that. They do compliment each other in their gift make-up. But I can certainly see the idea taking some time to catch on and facing some resistance.

The "senior pastor" model may work well enough in some congregations--particularly if the senior pastor is open to letting his members' giftings grow, and isn't rigid about his "program." On the other hand, the "APEPT" model also works well in some settings, as long as the people given to the church with leadership gifts are not too rigid about boundaries of their "offices" or too insistent on their authority because of those "offices." The structure is less important than the dynamics within the structure. The key is flexibility to let the Holy Spirit develop the gifts of all of th members, even when some of the things He is doing are felt to potentially threaten the authority of the leaders.

Personally, I like to approach things in a Biblical manner. Maybe I'm being too spiritual... I don't know. All I know is, isn't that how we as believers should approach issues? The APEPT approach is certainly Biblical, and moreover, God had pre-destined 12 Apostles(11 minus Judas plus Paul). Right there, we can see how the primitive church had multiple leadership from the beginning. Multiple leadership, be it Pastors, Apostles, etc. should be effective for growing a HEALTHY church. One person CANNOT do it all. Scripture says that in the multitude of counsel there is wisdom. God bless everyone.

Good article. Getting away from the cult-like mentality of "senior pastor" churches is good for Christians and good for the work of the Lord.

I would also agree. I think there are a number of non-western Christian leaders that are writing about the danger of the CEO-pastor model. Please see Ajith Fernando's book - Jesus Driven Ministry.

hmm. reading the comments makes me leary. i can see 10 years from now people writing articles about how they have moved away from the APEPT model to something else. we need to be very cautious about declaring any model to be biblical. not that i think the model is bad. but it is just that, a model. i think one could claim (and quote chapter and verse) to support the notion that almost any model is "biblical."

Hmnn...While I agree with this article for the most part, there are two things that I do think we need to think about. 1. I'm a Lutheran - and there are some really SMALL Lutheran and other Evangelical congregations in places like Iowa and Nebraska. What do you do when your church is too small for multiple pastors? 2. I've been watching the "multi-site" trend which seems to (especially in its "video" incarnation) promote one super-pastor who preaches to all the satellites. But overall, I'm a fan of the "monastic" model of having several "brothers" and a friar to keep watch.

Well done!!!, our local group of believers are having a great deal of problems because nobody can lead, after our Pastor left, so now nobody wants to take any leadership rol.
And if you do dare to try, you need to wait until we get a Pastor to see what it needs to be done or if he agrees. ( to go out and evangelize, do you think that he would agree?) But anyways.
My husband is been reading the bible and agrees with a church with multiples "pastors" or leaders of the church, so we can do things like the bible says no like traditions that men set up and want the church( group of believers to be)
That is why they are more pastors looking for a job and a paycheck not a calling anymore.
We are doing home bible studies now, but we would like to be in a church like you describe. We are missionaries at heart and we want to be involved a 100%.
Again we have to remember what Jesus said about calling somebody on earth father, teacher or PASTOR, he is the only Shepperd or Pastor of the church those are titles that men give, so we can talk with power.
But the power that God left is the Holy Spirit in us, and that is the Power that we have and we can share his word without fear.
Thank you Brother David to listen to the Holy Spirit to guide you with this desicion to have a different church in America.
A new testament church !!! Amen !!! too bad I live in Florida, if not I would love to be part of that gorup of believers meeting in Illinois.
Maggy Mead

Thanks for the insite. Israel asked for a king and look where it got them. Churches ask for Pastor and get a similar result. God gave us the stories of Israel so we can learn from their mistakes. God knew one man can't handle the whole bunch. I Cor 12:27-31 describes the APEPT again. I Cor 14:26-40 does not discribe a singular leader.

Since when does "it works" make a difference? We are told what to do and how to do it. We don't know the eternal results of our obedience. Jesus' teaching didn't work. He drove away his disciples with his teaching. John 6:60-67 Was he wrong? Let's do the things as he taught us (Matthew 28:20) and let him take care of the results.

Most members of the church are bi-vocational, why shouldn't all of them be? I Peter 5:1-4

Thank you brother and continue to share the work of the Holy Spirit to encourage us to love one another. Heb 10:24

Ivan, Check your Bible again; there were 19 Apostles mentioned in the new testament. Pastor/teacher is one gift to the Church. The Pastor/teacher has to fit in somewhere in the structure of the local church along with the plurality of the elders and deacons. Whether he is one or many he is not the final word. The local church has to function with unity in its leadership.

I am so depressed. Having served as a Senior Pastor for three decades, now I learn that I have been unscriptural and really unnecessary. I'd write more, but I have to go sit and sulk. Hope our church doesn't get wind of this. I can see our staff marching in with torches and pitchforks next week--"get the monster!" Actually, if I can find an apostle or prophet around, I'll see if I can get a word from them about the propriety of this. Sorry for the dispensational comment. Excuse me, but I've got to go and do some "missional" stuff with that old CEO model holding me back. Spurgeon's probably to blame for this Senior Pastor model. When in doubt blame the Baptists.

Multiple pastor leadership is great if you can afford it and find the right people. But since large churches that could afford it make up such a small percentage of American churches, the idea seems very impractical to most churches.

Now if the emphasis was not on multiple pastoral staff, but rather multiple ministers who volunter in pastoral roles, then you could do it in most churches - at least financially, but again the main problem would probably be finding the right people.

Since so many churches have trouble finding just the right one pastor, it seems like they're asking for more trouble by finding just the right two/three/four pastors.

There is nothing wrong with the CEO model if s/he's the kind of CEO that empowers others to use their spiritual gifts and brings the right people onto the bus and gets them in the right spots so that the whole church, whole neighborhood, and whole families are blessed. Peter Drucker has many good things to say about a really good CEO that many pastors can learn from.

I'm not sure how much the problem is the model/style of pastoral leadership - multiple pastor, senior pastor, circuit rider, bi-vocational, etc - so much as the character of the pastor, the competency of the pastor, and the chemistry of the pastor with the church (these three C's come from Hybels book, Courageous Leadership - here's a guy that seems to blend together the CEO model with the multiple pastor model).

That’s a good start. Now start praying about why we think our churches need to be bigger than 10 people and if all the millions we American Christians are paying for real-estate is a good use of the money God has given us. Is it being a good steward when God gives us 10 talents and we spend 8 of it on buildings, staff, advertising, etc. and 2 on feeding the poor, widows and orphans?

i couldn't help but think of the fad many churches went through with "Body Life" back in the 70s when i read your article. Now, even the church led by the leader of that movement has agreed that not everyone is gifted to lead a "body life" church. Sounds like God has give you all several like-minded pastors who are able to work together for the Lord! Praise God! Perhaps the plurality of leadership that you praise in your local congregation could also be seen in a plurality of leadership styles throughout the Body including the Senior Pastor, Teaching Elder, Multiple Pastor, or other models that we find the Lord using in local Bible teaching churches?

Extending your idea even further, perhaps it would be a great idea for churches to share facilities. I think we (the Body of Christ) assume way too much overhead with every church establishing its own campus. Why not start building larger complexes capable of housing multiple congregations with shared community spaces? Who knows, maybe it will enrich the spiritual lives of all involved.

CEO Pastor? I think that the problem stems from a wrong view of what a CEO does. A CEO, depending on the size of the company, is a vision caster. He says what should be, and then finds people who can get it done. In a church you need this kind of leadership, a Jesus or Paul like model. But, you also need to have people who can make that vision a reality

The cacophony of prophetic voices in this area is reaching a crescendo...and it's a beautiful thing.

If you have not read David Fitch's book "The Great Giveaway: Reclaiming the Church's Mission" you need to...its prophetic correction much needed to the extreme narcissism that is passed off as church leadership in America.

We've tried team leadership and failed. But then through perseverance and a second church plant, we're starting to see fruit, but as a senior pastor who lets his team know that while he's got to lead, they are a team, affirmed, listened to, collaborated with like a team. Be cautious of idealism driven by the desire to throw off all constraints because you've gotten a sour impression of CEO leaders. You don't want to end up with a two-headed monster. We know this from experience. A combination of leadership coupled with a transformational (better word than organic)missional statement has given us the access to whole relationships we need as a church. The flock needs care, but the team still needs a leader who has the courage to make the difficult decisions.

Interesting article, with some very good insights. I would add: "Because it's biblical."

Dennis: You wrote that the Pastor/teacher has to fit in somewhere, but according to scriptures such as Acts 20:28, 1 Peter 5:1-2, 1 Timothy 3:2, 5:17, and Titus 1:9 the elders of a church _are_ the pastor/teachers.

And dennis (a different Dennis, I assume): Are you suggesting that because the Senior Pastor model is long-standing that it is correct? A Roman Catholic priest could have responded to Luther using the same logic (and some of the same wording).

It's challenging that the NT gives us accounts of elders, qualifications of elders and instructions to elders. And these leaders are always shown to be serving as a team. However, there is no scriptural account of a Senior Pastor, we are given no qualifications for a Senior Pastor and no instructions given to a Senior Pastor. How is this role not at least extra-biblical? Should we really call ourselves Senior Pastor when it is Christ who is the Chief Shepherd (1 Peter 5:4)?

Christ is the Chief Shepherd, or Senior Pastor, of the flock; we are the under-shepherds. No matter what terminology we use (elders/overseers/bishops/pastors), if we appoint one leader over the others, the burden of proof is on us to show how this is biblical.

This is so refreshing.

Even in our small ministry on the campus of LSU, we find it easier to delegate tasks when the leaders of our group have been trained in every area. There are soon-to-be engineers, doctors, business men and women, and pastors in our club. Yet each of them will have widespread ministry experience because they are challenged daily to the tasks of a minister: preaching, counseling, worshiping, evangelising. This is a great news that many people will be encouraged with. Thanks.

Jeanne E. Loupe

I attend a church where there is no such thing as a senior pastor. In fact, one may be hard-pressed to recognize the pastor. THe reason for this is that we believe that many are gifted as pastors and that the body of elders lead the church, however they are to allow for the gifts of the individuals. Because of the priesthood of all believers, all men in fellowship can exercise their gifts freely, as the Spirit leads. So on Sunday mornings several men may minister the word. Others raises songs/hymns, others pray etc. In fact it works out to be quite a moving service where you see the Spirit using several instead of one (in particular). THis allows the assembly to get a "balanced diet" and moves each member to exercise their gifts.

Hear, hear, to Josh F.

The organizational model of the church, quite honestly is thpppfffft! Senior pastor, no senior pastor? Who cares? As long as there is definite authority with clear accountability, what that should look like is pretty open.

The problems ennumberated above aren't the result of a Senior Pastor Model.

Scenario 1 - is bad because the church never planned to split in the first place. If Abraham and Lot had it to do over, I'm guessing they would have planned to split before their people got violent with each other. If the church is to grow at a nation-building rate, if we're to be fruitful and multiply, then we ought to know we need to scatter. Zoom in on a cell and you see the chromosomes - it's built for meiosis and mitosis. It's meant to divide!

Scenario 2 - Upholds the need for differing roles, sober judgment, and team involvement, but Senior Pastor needn't equal Superman.

Scenario 3 - This just says that Senior Pastors are vulnerable and have needs, too.

It sounds like a fantastic adventure to drop the Senior Pastor role, and I hope it will be fruitful for you. But it's no more a cure for the church than oligarchy is for tyranny. Proceed with grace.

Each church is to be lead by elders, 1 Tim. 5:15; Titus 1:5, not one man. The CEO model for church leadership is not found in the Bible. Instead, Jesus is the head of the Church. Eph. 1:22; Col. 1:18.

I think the main problem is too many senior pastors have been seduced into the market driven CEO model (1) because they take themselves too seriously (2) they've confused the churches mission...we're called to be faithful to God and in doing that we are faithful to the world whether they know it or not..we're not called to be relevant on the world's terms...this makes the church a religious club in a market ecnomony, not the prophetic people of God.

A leader among leaders is inevitable. My brother was in a church where all the elders were to be equals. Everyone looked to everyone else. Nothing got done. They finally decided it didn't work and wanted a more assertive senior pastor.

I'm not saying the senior pastor should do everything or be the dictator. I believe there needs to be a shared leadership. I think that is Biblical. But eventually someone will be seen as THE leader. This happened with the 12 disciples. Peter became the spokesman. And there were the "pillars" among the apostles. James was the leader of the church in Jerusalem. When Paul wrote about elders in the church he wrote to Timothy and not an open letter to the board of elders. Do you think that Timothy may have been the leader among leaders, the senior pastor? The early church established its leadership model after the synagogue. There was always the "chairman" or the "leader" of the synagogue.

So I would say to Curt, "If you don't think there is a senior pastor model in the Bible then what was Timothy's role. Why didn't Paul write to the "elders"? The most obvious reason is that Timothy was the leader of the church, the senior pastor if you will.

Let me also say that I tried the elder model in my last church where elders were given significant authority to do things. That was nearly a disastor. Why? Some of it was because of a lack of initiative. Some was because they didn't know what to do. They needed education. I had to give more direction or things would have decayed significantly. I didn't do their jobs, but I had to point the way.

Maybe it would have worked in another situation, but I think that the situation often dictates what kind of organization can be developed. So I think it is unwise to just say, "This is THE model."

Quite confused actually.

What is "biblical"? Eph 4:11 is a verse describing something. It is in the bible. Yes. But to claim that it is "biblical" seems to suggest that it is "the" model -- it is imperative. How about those other models written by so many other different spiritual leaders who also claim their model to be "biblical"? Perhaps there are more than just one single "biblical model".

Is Moses a "CEO-pastor-leader"? How about David? How about apostle Paul himself. I have done a study on Paul's concept of "co-worker." Though Paul works with many other people who he called "co-workers," it is unmistakable that he looks more like a strong leader leading a team of co-workers.

This is my observation: each generation is reacting against something unsatisfactory of the previous generation. The new generation tries to find something relevant (or "working") for them. To establish their legitimacy, they go back to the bible and find something fits them. Then, something "biblical" is found.

"Form" is fluid. The essence is building up the Church. "Form" is a function of time, culture, and context. Surely you will govern a church with only 10 members very different from a congregation of 1000. The way you govern a church with mostly professional investment bankers is quite different from the way you govern a church with mostly new immigrants working in restaurants. If this is the case, then, let the wise and successful share what is good for their setting, and let us learn from them. However, let us not too quick to claim that it is biblical, for it put a huge burden and, indeed, guilt on those who strive to be biblical.

Great article! I fully subscribe to the multiple pastor/elder model. Why? Ask the New Testament writers and see for yourself.

For all the questions about how well this "new" model might work and for all the defensive remarks which do not favor such a view of leadership, we really should be asking "what does the Bible have to say about the subject?" If anything else than that answer matters to a person or a church they have strayed from a NT model of church leadership!

For an in depth study of this issue from a biblical perspective I invite you to read my article at:

http://www.spread-the-word.org/digging_deeper/leadership_fr.htm

Two primary models we do see from scripture:

#1 - Senior Pastor Led
#2 - Elder Led (team of pastors)

It does not matter if something is losing it's "appeal", if it is the biblical model of authority/shepherding presented us. Either of these models done the appropriate way will fall into none of the 3 categories mentioned. "Appropriate" that's the key word.

Kind of sounds like a "trend". Be careful! Be biblical! Scary when people try to do new things that border on being unbiblical...like the "trend" in casual, come just as you are churches. I have found that those churches fall apart as quickly as they first grow because there is a lack of respect and depth. Tradition is good and solid. Why are we constantly trying to change the church that Jesus gave us the perfect, Pastor-led, Christ-honoring church?

Just another church-growth fad that we will be rejecting in 10 years because a gazillion churches went down in flames trying to emulate the "success" of one particular church.
WHEN WILL WE EVER LEARN?

Mostly what we see today is a misuse of the word pastor. Most pastors function more as an apostle then as a pastor; especially in the really big churches.

I believe that the average church body is massively unbalanced. Putting pastor/teachers back into their gifting as either word sharers or separating some out to be apostles would reveal that there are likely a high percentage of gifted teachers in any congregation. It is the elders who should have the wisdom to guide the pastor/teachers. The apostle is the father figure watching from a distance, guiding them and possibly many other groups as well.

The entire contents of the NT came to us through the hands of the apostles and prophets. This gives us a clue to importance God placed on these offices which we have grandfathered out of the church. Paul was certainly never a CEO style Pastor. Paul was an apostle keeping several people groups on track and accountable. He was a spiritual father to many, but he didn’t run a church. The Church structure Jesus left us with was overseen by apostles, confirmed by prophets, and the day to day stuff was happily sorted out by the rest of the body. The word pastors, only comes up once. In the whole bible

Until we get back to a model of churches that primarily plant other churches, raising up leaders from within; at the same time giving up on these ultimate churches, fine tuned to spec. We are going to be bumping into each other instead of ushering in the kingdom of God .The church in Antioch didn’t worry if they could afford a bunch of pastors, they were a bunch of pastors giving to each other as they had need.

Good discussion. The multiple leader model will work in every way if we also eliminate the notion that every leader must be a paid clergyman. Single leader models bring burn out, lay dependency, impossible transitions from one super-pastor to another, etc. I see the Multiple Model work in churches if there is agreement about it.

I am nearly 50 and in my 20th year of ministry. I would love to be a part of a church like this!

Yes. I'm so glad to hear you articulate these thoughts. Church isn't leadership, it's the body of Christ. It is vital that church is given back to the body and that leadership falls into line with what Christ intended to build.

The conversation so many are having regarding church is so healthy. Thank you.

Thank you for your considered way of sharing what "works" for you. Might I suggest that much of what we see in your model is reflective of the pendulum swing of culture? What I mean is that the Boomer generation created latch key kids who saw their parents as authority figures who were overbearing, needlessly controlling, detached from their children, narcisstic in their entitlements, and of course, CEO's of everything. The pendulum now swings in the other direction as Boomer kids reject the authoritarian model for a "lets all lead" model in which no one takes the lead and which ultimately ends up as mob rule. AKA "can't we just all get along?"

We all like to cite biblical models for everything we do and this could be the utilitarian view of scripture inherited from the Boomer generation. Use everything, learn nothing, empathize with no one, expect everthing, and demand compliance. How about the model of Jesus as leader with disciples who go out? Quickly someone says "but you aren't Jesus" and human-wise I am not. However, the words "greater is he that is in me than he that is in the world" would seem to indicate the indwelling Christ in a believer will lead as Jesus led. Also, the Great Commission presupposes that "lo I am with you to the ends of the earth" indicating He WILL lead (as CEO) if we will FOLLOW.

The problem many are fighting may not be the CEO model per se, but rather their own earthly father's model. To reject the visionary leader model is to still be controlled by the fear of authority figures. Deal with the fear factor people have toward their earthly fathers by directing them to what the ultimate father's relationship was like with His son Jesus.
Teach them that the God of scripture is not merely a projection of their detached earthly fathers, that we can know him and not be afraid of him. We must lead people to know God as he is. By the way, ever noticed the fact that God is ONE is not a leadership role model, it is a state of being.
Thanks again for the opportunity to think deeply.

I remember visting your church 7 or 8 years ago and there weren't many people there.

I was pleasantly surprized to learn you were in the process of hiring a 4th Pastor.

I remember being part of a Christian fellowship in college with average attendance of about ten each week.

We attempted to elect three co-equal Elders to lead the group during the next school year and ended up with four due to a tie vote for third place.

Demoninational pressure to have a single leader forced us to pick one of those four to be the official group "President".

So the guy with the most votes they decided should be the President, yet he was only around for one of the next four terms.

Then the rest of us, followed the leading of the Holy Spirit and next thing we knew more people were getting saved than we quite knew what to do with and within nine months attendence hit 2,400 one weekend.

About two years later attendence hit 12,000.

Just as the four original "Elders" were finishing college and graduating and getting married and leaving the area, finances were available now to hire one person to be the full time campus Pastor.

Then an amazing thing happened.

The growth of the group stopped.

I've been a believer in churches being run by a plurality of Elders ever since.

I have not seen it done often enough.

But I Praise God its working at Life on the Vine.

The last time I visited there the name of the church was something else.

I wish more churches would do things like you are.

God Bless,

This was excellent. When I worked with two other men on a new church plant in Brazil, we were able to use one another's strengths and compensate for individual weaknesses. When I worked with an "established" church in the American southwest I was expected to be the hired gun.