I am a great admirer of Sally (and many of the contributors to this book). I understand that this is a "manifesto" and that manifestos use grand gestures and make sweeping statements. But I am troubled by the lack of specifics here. Which churches are we talking about, exactly? Which leaders? Can we have some case studies, please, with names attached (or at least specific pseudonyms) and with some depth and detail? Because otherwise I feel like this is just a caricature of a much more complicated reality. I travel a lot, though not as much as Sally and perhaps not in such churched parts of the country, and I have yet to be in many congregations that I could bring myself to call "robotically religious." Human beings are complicated, and they can indeed be lured into a kind of passivity, but when I sit in megachurches I find that the people next to me are more like me than I might want to admit--though often they are more engaged and eager to be in church than the churchgoers I meet in smaller and less entrepreneurial places.

I'm also concerned that we get the diagnosis right. It is not just large churches that can suffer from a monomaniacal pastor. I have encountered this at least as frequently in small churches, even in those with very progressive politics, theology, or methodology. (Indeed, one of the best covers for out-of-control leadership is a veneer of consultative, participatory dialogue. See SDS and a host of other sixties-era movements, passim.) Very often, these dynamics are precisely why a church is small.

I am no fan of big box megachurches, personally--have never attended one and almost certainly would never attend one for a host of reasons. But I am very often humbled when I get to see many of these churches and their leaders up close. My life and work have brought me into proximity to a fair number of successful people, inside and outside the church. I'd say there's a pretty consistent ratio, across all fields and spheres of culture, where about 40% of those who reach the very "top" have done so by dint of one or more conspicuous character flaws (ambition, greed, pride, ruthlessness, or simple busyness and Sabbath-breaking). And 60% are just absolutely incredible people who inspire and draw out the best from their followers. I haven't found this ratio to be any different in the church world, including the megachurch world, than in the business world or in academia. And should the emerging church movement bear the abundant fruit we all hope it will, the same will be true, I suspect, for its leaders--in fact, the same is probably true already.

Thanks for the thought-provoking post. It's an area I've been wrestling with. I agree - the one person, top-down hierarchy excludes and encourages passivity. But I also see that even successful emerging churches have a leader - one who still has a vision for the community and encourages dialogue. The vision is usually more fluid and open to direction from the whole, but God has still initiated a call and direction through one or a few people.

I've seen God use churches with strong CEO type leadership in amazing ways. I've seen lives transformed. I've seen non-passive people engage the world missionally through that model. Do I agree with it? Not really. But I'm trying to reconcile what that means. A shepherd cares for the whole flock, but he or she still leads the flock in a consistent direction ...

So I'm still processing how this works. I'd appreciate more thoughts.

Once again we get a "my way or the highway" bash from the Emergent movement. You complain of a "one-size-fits-all" mentality among the modern church, yet you are calling for a similar move within the Emergent church. Strict, CEO-like leadership is not a good thing in the Church, but neither is a haphazard, let 'em feed where they like attitude. People are creative, and in today's society, fluid. They take advantage of "time-shifting" and "content-shifting" in ways never seen before. But the bible still calls pastors and leaders to LEAD! Leadership must be open to creativity, fresh ideas and relevance certainly. But leadership that subsists on the whims of everyone will never succeed. This is not leadership. It's some kum bi ya utopianism that ultimately cannot function. God recognized this when He gave Israel kings. He didn't want them to need a king-leader, but they failed in what should have been a more positive theocratic structure, in the biblical sense, not the modern-day sense. "Sheep without a shepherd" a wise man once lamented.... Thanks for the dialogue and the interesting points, but in your attempt to be more open and forward-thinking, I'm afraid the Church will get lost in a mire of leaderless communities wandering which ever way seems nice at the time. Culture is changing, postmodernism's hold on life is unmistakable, we must change to impact people where the are today, but the Bible must remain the supreme source of our guidance as we lead.

I know this entry means well, but it seems to be laden with barbs. The picture of the entrepeneurial church is really a caricature. The writer must have been wounded in her past by hierarchy. But I think scripturally, there is room (even a mandate) for hierarchy if one looks at Paul's epistles. How it is wielded is another matter. Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

When I first was reading this excerpt, it seemed as the same from within our emerging church. More complaining about the traditional than anything else. Then she started explaining her idealistic alternative. It now has become one of the most eye-opening experiences. Lets get the church to express their opinions and formulate worship, theology, and mission. Give the church bulletin boards, forums, comment boxes or whatever. Lets truly find out what living faithfully in today's world is like. We need to let the church evolve to the best form that fits during changing times. Of course, this is also the internet and open-source mindset in general.

Isn't the shepherd model also a top-down model, though?

Let us take a look at a specific within the above article.

"The mechanical paradigm of organization largely explains why modern church leaders are trained as CEOs, not shepherds.

Sheep have their own ideas of what, where, and when they want to eat. They may not want to lie down by quiet waters and go to sleep at eight. They just might want to check out the watercress down by the streambed. Or they might want to head out over the next ridge to see if there are any other flocks out there."

With all due respect to an obviously well-educated author, I feel it is important to remember that sheep were never characterized within the bible as anything but stupid. A trip to sheep pen should further convince those who doubt the bible's definitive interpretation of sheeply intelligence.

The fact is, as a pendulum swings, we must not shoot past the very real necessity of leadership in our drive away from the autocratic leader towards a truly pastoral leadership. Conversations are fine, but it is nice when people know what they are speaking of. Otherwise it turns into mindless, banal chatter that does nothing and serves no one.

Anyone who has any expertise in any field knows that there are pretenders and talkers who like to speak and know nothing. We've all experienced these people who like to draw attention to their ideas and opinions but who have no founding for such ideas and opinions. If these individuals are flatly ignored in such secular areas as the sciences, are God's people doing any good when fools and false teachers and true wolves are trying to "enter the conversation" on spiritual matters that have eternal consequences?

We have an "autocratic" leader, God, who is fully out for his own glory. And he at times doesn't seem so pastoral...there are times he is downright stubborn and unpastoral! If the Bible has any worth amongst new generations of pastors and leaders, we need to recognize that elders were given the responsibilities of benevolent dictators, for the GOOD of the church. We can speak all we want to of "new paradigms" and "progress ideas", but are we really supposed to move past God's ideas and paradigms?

Not that the CEO model is God's, but surely post-modernism hasn't for the first time discovered "real" leadership. Is post-modernism, and Emergent by extension, so arrogant to believe that we have moved past God's definition of leadership into something "new"? In the end, it is not the Emergent Village I will stand before, it is God. Jesus was the perfect, King and Lord: humble servant AND avenging authoritative King (Revelation). We must be both as well...humble servants and confident Princes and Princesses in the Kingdom, sure of the King.

@Ben E.

I think you are taking the suggestions a little too far out of its range. I don't think anyone within the emerging church would say that we don't need any leadership. We just need a shift in how the leadership operates. Instead of being the sole writer, leaders need to be more editors to a large group of writers.

@miracle

But isn't that just the problem many of us see with some of the emergent paradigm...that they think that we humans ARE writers? I don't mean to take your words beyond your intended usage...I understand that a monovision is a bad idea since the body should operate AS the body, unity not uniformity...diversity without division. But isn't their a revisionist flavor to the emerging church towards the actual Words of the Bible?

As for me, when I read the bible and try to search for God's will, at no time do I feel like a writer. At best we get to be transcribers and with fear and trembling careful translators in a world which finds the One true God incomprehensible.

And, as I can't speak for all, I'll say that at times Emergent and some other general emerging camps seem to me to be holding up post-modern thought as their authority to BE editors in their attempt to interpret God and the bible with a less stolid and more "pastoral" hand. And we must never be the writers OR the editors.

The hubris of this piece reveals itself in the introduction of Ms. Morganthaler:

"Sally Morgenthaler writes about our cultural shift away from an autocratic CEO model of leadership toward a more reflexive and cooperative model, --and why many churches have failed to get the memo---."

It seems that Ms. Morganthaler's complaint isn't so much that mega-churches exist, as that they aren't particularly interested in letting her and other emergents move in and take over. Why aren't these people starting their own churches and proving the success of their way of doing things? People who seriously want to minister the gospel DO. No one ever really gets in their way. People who want a career writing books and traveling around speaking at seminars have to send a memo to churches because that's where the money is. Most of us have to settle for a job in the secular world singing "This Little Light Of Mine" knowing we're exactly where God wants us.

I'm interested in hearing why we're so quick in the modern church to abandon the shepherd metaphor. It's arguably the most commonly used metaphor for ministry leadership in the bible. God calls himself the shepherd of his people, as does Jesus. God, in the prophetic literature, calls the human leaders of his people shepherds.

Jesus commands Peter to be a shepherd of Jesus' sheep. Peter commands the Elders of the gentile churches (1 Peter 5) to shepherd the flock of God, and uses a grammatical construction that conveys they are to do so for all time). Paul tells the Ephesian Elders they are to shepherd the people. Even our English title of Pastor actually means, literally, "Shepherd."

The shepherd metaphor, in addition to actually being biblical, is also far more organic and relational (which typifies the structure of the church as Paul sees it). So why choose the mechanistic metaphor of CEO? Maybe it's because CEOs never have to do anything so prosaic as shepherding.

Paul: I wouldn't want to argue about the relative intellectual prowness of sheep. Still, despite the negative attributes of the species, it remains the case that the bible consistently refers to us as sheep--specifically God's sheep. Nice thing is, he loves us anyway.

Of course, I don't even get why we're called sheep in the bible. They're smelly, get themselves into situations from which they cannot extricate themselves; the males are unbelievably fixated on sex and given to extreme aggression; the young expect their mothers to provide for them long after they are able to care for themselves. They tend to respond as a group to just about any stimuli, rarely thinking for themselves, and are easy prey for just about any creature smarter than themselves.

I can't for the life of me figure out why God would want to compare us to them.

I agree with Sally that many pastors do still "run" their churches like corporations. I have even heard pastoral colleagues of mine defend this approach by suggesting this is what North American consumer Christians really want.

That may be true. But it does not make it right.

I also agree with others who've posted here to remind us that leadership still matters. I agree. And we cannot apologize when we feel the call to, and do- lead.

I think we really do need to re-think how we "do leadership" though. "Leadership and the New Science" by Margaret J. Wheatley is a great resource to spark some fruitful conversation on this topic.

At the end of the day, it’s helpful for us to remember that the terms “leadership” and “organic” are not mutually exclusive categories.

Someone wrote:

"And we must never be the writers OR the editors."

Response:

Sorry, we are ALWAYS the editors. Subjectivity happens. That's not a sin. It's not even a problem- provided we walk humbly and knowingly with this fact.

Postmodern perspectives are not trying to blaze new trails for us. Rather, they are trying to shed light on what has always been part of the interpretive process.

The concept of the priesthood of all believers is heavily diluted in the industrial paradigm. Most of us in big churches are affectionately called "volunteers" and are "motivated" by those at the top of the pyramid to find our role in the body by filling a slot on their org chart. (For some great exposition on this topic, check out the post making its rounds in the blogosphere called "The People Formerly Known As The Congregation" -http://www.kinnon.tv/2007/03/the_people_form.html. It is a provocative statement that echoes some of Ms. Morgenthaler's sentiments in the above piece.)

I have no problem with the idea of organization - after all, post-Pentecost, when the church exploded numerically, one of the first tasks of the church leaders was to seek some practical help with caring fairly and justly for the needs of widows in their midst.

But this kind of organization is a far cry from creating a machine that encourages a culture of passivity (thus, spiritual immaturity). Yes, I've seen passivity in the DNA of other kinds of churches including emerging churches and hyper-conservative old school congregations. But it doesn't make it right whether the church is 50 people in a pub or 5000 in a slick big box.

Please, leaders - equip us for meaningful ministry, then release us to do it. Let your people go!

Phil,
Awesome characterization! Loved it!

But just to be clear...we're NOT supposed to follow the every whim of a sheep? That's too bad...there's something oddly comfortable about the lifestyle of a male sheep...

For the record, I'm not sure if we did or did not abandon the metaphor of the shepherd. But I do think, in our idyllic musings of rural country sides covered in fuzzy, tasty white creatures, that the shepherd led the sheep to calm pastures...the shepherd did not follow. And in case we get too much a warm fuzzy feeling about shepherds, we should recall (as most of you know this) that shepherds often break the legs of wandering sheep to protect them from wandering off and getting taken out by predators. Shepherds were dudely dudes (I'm sure there were some butch shepherdesses out there too) who could fend off wolf packs.

Do we even know who the wolves are anymore? Are we willing to fight? Are we willing to hurt the sheep so that they may be saved from harm?

Hey Melody,

You're obviously someone who holds scripture in high regard, so I'm surprised you were so quick to bypass Morgenthaler's actual arguments and instead went straight for an ad hominem attack on her. Is the fact she is "emergent" really such a huge stumbling block it obscures all else?

Ms. Morgenthaler's rhetoric is a bit overheated in my estimation, so perhaps you were just responding in kind. If I read her correctly though, she is on to something when she points out that the modern church seems very willing to import models and metaphors for leadership from corporate America while simultaneously being strangely reluctant to plumb the bible for its wisdom about church leadership.

Indeed, it was only a year ago on these very web pages that Andy Stanley opined that the shepherd metaphor was functionally irrelevant to the modern church... and that CEO was a much better metaphor for ministry leadership.

I disagree with Morgenthaler wholeheartedly.

Big churches get big precisely because they equip, empower and encourage creative and motivated people to do the ministry that the Lord has called them to - and then they set them free to do it; AND these big churches then fund and support these people in that endeavor!

In addition to this, SMALL churches - including "emergent" and "house" type churches - can sometimes be among the least likely to embrace innovation and change. The reason for this seems to be a matter of size. It's really hard to adopt a change or innovation in a small, tightly-knit community if you know it's going to cause pain for some individuals.

It has been argued here that leaders of big churches are egocentric (a complete generalization). It can equally be argued that leaders of small "emergent," "house" type churches have a strong need to be known and can't get the attention and status they desire in a large church setting.

Paul, I don't think... I know ... you're on to something when you suggest we don't even know who the wolves are anymore. You're also correct that the mental picture most people have of the nice peaceful white roly-polys on the peaceful green hills, the shepherd sitting among them while Handel's "Pastorale" plays in the background, is a far cry from the life and experiences of the ancient near eastern shepherd.

You brought up that old story about the shepherd breaking the legs of the wandering sheep... where does that come from? I used to raise sheep and goats, and always thought the story sounded like a very strange husbandry practice--especially with no veterinarians around.

I also just finished a M.A. thesis on the shepherd metaphor in scripture, and could never track that story down in any historical literature. It's like it appeared out of nowhere in preaching illustrations back in the 70s, and keeps popping up now and then today.

Does anyone know where the story originates? I'd love to nail it down as authoritative, or as just some pastor's excuse for rough treatment of his flock.

Someone wrote: "Big churches get big precisely because they equip, empower and encourage creative and motivated people to do the ministry that the Lord has called them to - and then they set them free to do it; AND these big churches then fund and support these people in that endeavor!"

Is this wishful thinking on your part? It sounds like a nice idea but it certainly doesn't reflect the experience I am aware of.

From my perspective, the vast majority of mega churches become large because they offer, slick, sophisticated, Sunday service events led by charismatic individuals that are almost treated like celebrities.

And many of the people who attend these churches do so because they can file in and file out while remaining largely anonymous and unaccountable.

I'm not saying this is always the case- not by any means. But it is the case far too often.

I find that big or small, most Pastors are elitist, and protective or their job. And view any opinion, and thought other than theirs to be a threat to their authority. The top-down model is espoused by most church leaders.

Sally has opened a huge can of worms. Many comments already show how quickly many are to quickly declare that all alternative cans also have worms, so stop opening our preferred can of worms. The scriptures have been twisted for so long to justify the “smart shepherd-stupid sheep” model and many of the twisters are “Godly scholars”, no one has permission to ask challenging questions. I think Sally is right. From what I am aware of, the emergent church has not resolved the key functional issues of this kind of leadership nor observed the scriptures descriptions of the vastly different design of God. Their gatherings are still dominated by one-way communication rather than the two-way communication requested in the key verses of why believers should “not forsake gathering” Heb. 10:24,25. They have not resolved the bad assumption of the past that preaching=lecturing. Their leadership is driven by hired men, just like the CEO model. They have not resolved to clearly grasp the significance of Paul’s teaching by word AND example on “REFUSING the right to be paid” Acts 20, 1 Cor 9, 2 Thes 3, plus others. The dominant gatherings of the emergent church are still crowd oriented gathering. I could suggest many more specific examples.

I know it’s hard for “protestants” to do the hard work their forefathers did in freeing us from genuflecting towards statues, praying to Mary, etc. There are many more deeply imbedded bogus traditions believers are clinging to that actually “nullify the commands of God”. Sally is showing herself to be a true protestant. If you don’t like her opening your can of worms, you may want to investigate whether you have subtly rejected God’s call for you to “test everything, hold on to that which is good”. Keep testing Sally!

I have read this about a dozen times so far and each time I feel assaulted by the words. They might be meant as a manifesto but shouldn’t a manifesto at least declare what it is for? Shouldn’t a manifesto say, these are our principles, this is what we intend. By this it would seem that the only intention is to impugn and blame pastors trying to do their best. Screaming you suck will not produce the dialog you desire, Sally.

Sally, stop your accusing and do something. Go create the environment you desire and show us how stupid and out dated we are by your action not your accusations.

Andy Crouch,

Thanks for your thoughtful response. I had many of the same questions as you. I've appreciated Sally's writing in the past but felt like the portrait she painted of the CEO/megachurch pastor was the same kind of generalizations and caricatures that emerging leaders have so disdained from others.

Admittedly, I work at a megachurch under a senior leader who is very comfortable with corporate language/imagery/methods when done well. But I sense no hint of "command and control," a "self-absorbed" leader, being a "machine part," or being part of a "mechanical paradigm." In fact, I've never felt more valued, more liberated, more equipped, more resourced, more creatively challenged, and more unleashed to do ministry with a team of people and under the direction of the Holy Spirit. Because this is the kind of environment that a good CEO creates. I know this is only one anecdotal piece of evidence and I'm sure there are bad CEO pastors out there (just like there are bad shepherding pastors out there.) But like Andy Crouch, I see little correlation between the size of the church and how well the senior leaders steward their roles.

How many pastors have answered the call to ministry in a smaller church setting? How many in a larger or mega-church setting?

Well said Sally, as always!

Much of what passes as evangelical Christianity is really just a free-market version of catholicism. Evangelicals have their Popes (Dobson, Warren, Graham, etc.) with a vatican(s) located in Colorado Springs, Bishops (Colson, Stott, etc.), and priests (CEO pastors).

The problem is that the ministry of the church and its leadership was never supposed to be placed on one person, let alone one man. It was for a community, a community of students who continually desire to learn the way of Jesus and follow that way in the world.

For the first few hundred years these communities got the hell beat out of them until the state said, "Hey, want an office, with a name plate?"

I'm one of those twentysomethings who is so tired of Churches in America trying to preach Jesus CEO (yes the pun is intended on that lady who wrote that crazy book).

Jesus, Jesus' way, Jesus' call does not just nicely fit into the patterns of this world.

My read on the biblical account is have a plurality of leadership, be in ongoing conversation, be willing to repent communally of misdeeds and emphasize bivocationality.

You said:

>> What many of them ended up with instead was a “my-way-or-the-highway” autocrat—a top-down aficionado whose ecclesiastical machine whirs only to the sound of his own voice and functions tightly within the parameters of his own limited vision. One doesn’t have to be on the pastors’ conference circuit long to figure out that prime-time clergy (ages forty to fifty-five), are marinated in this kind of thinking. They have been told repeatedly that this is the only leadership model that will ensure success.

You have accurately described all of the senior Pastors of mega churches in the northwest suburbs of the Windy City.

I'm not happy about having to agree with you. I really wish it wasn't true, but it is.

And in case you are confused about where the Windy City is, please note that I'm a Cubs fan!

I'm about to plant a new church and I pray it will grow, and I also pray that I won't ever get that way myself.

And since I just had a birthday, I'm now officially out of that age range, so I think I'll be OK!

God Bless,

Pastor Art

How striking is the "either/or" mentality in the positions taken. It is all or nothing when it comes to church size, methodology, personaility, or leadership style.

I have had the priviledge to minister in churches of 125 a Sunday and of churches of 1800 a Sunday. Each had its strengths and each had its weaknesses. I have ministered with "CEOs" who brought strength, understanding, and adaptability to the plate. I have also served with "monomaniacals" who followed the simple principle of "their way or the highway".

What seems to be lacking from much of the discussion is a striving for balance. The accusation of "trend following" can be rightly directed to mega church or emergent church--the question is just which trend is most current and in what geographic or cultural region.

Take a look at Ecclesiates 7:18b (NIV) "The man who fears the Lord will avoid all extremes." Shouldn't we be placing a greater emphasis on striving for balance within our lives--individually and corporately? The congregation/gathering/church/house church/small group that is out of balance will be unhealthy--destructive to itself and to those whom it has contact with. The leader/shepherd/pastor/minister/facilitator who serves self first in attitude, action, and purpose will not lead to quiet waters and green pasture--whether the flock is 35 or 3500. The only difference is whether to term the results a cult or a movement.

Please forgive the rapid shift in metaphors but it is necessary--the church is called a body for excellent reason. It is made up of many parts--not all hands, not all feet, not all ears. A congregation may be more homogeneous, but should not be to exclusion. It is the nature to be drawn together by similar interests, background, heretage, desires, goals, etc. Some are most comfortable in small house church environments seeking a contempalative style. Others are more comfortable in a large high energy environment. As long as both are seeking first and foremost a living and vibrant relationship with Christ the more power to them. That living relationship will not allow them to be content to keep that relationship to themselves. They will seek share it with others of like interests, background, and experiences.

Meet, know, grow, share. Isn't that what it is all about anyhow, regardless of the size or leadership model?

Speaking of leaderships models: Paul--CEO or shepherd? Peter--CEO or shepherd? Barnabas--CEO or shepherd?

My personal experience is that every "successful" CEO model has a good "second chair" (shepherd/nurturer) somewhere in the wings to compensate for their weaknesses. Again, balance.

Listen to Mark Clark, he knows what he is talking about. There ARE some who take a directive leadership (the CEO) and there are some who take a more pastoral or encouraging role in leadership. Does this not seem logical? Is this not how the gifts function? If all were gifted in mercy or all in prophesy, none would be well off. Read your bibles on this. But it seems that much of the Emergent movement is toward a pure mercy/encourager/pastoral gifting with a fine disregard for those who lead, teach, have wisdom, or call for repentance.

As for "Pastor" Art's comment on my hometown of Chicago. Please have a little grace on the men who lead here. They aren't perfect, yet nor are they all as he has characterized them as. His comments strike me more as jealousy than wisdom. Being in a church plant in Chicago myself and my brother planting here as well, I find a great deal of support from the mega churches in their pastors for new ministries. It is a crazy town, but there are some solid mega-church senior pastors.

Art, repent of your slander of your brothers please. It is unbecoming of a "pastor" to throw such generalized, unloving, unhelpful criticisms to the masses. If indeed you are a pastor, consider your own heart and if you consider, as Paul did in Philippians, the preaching of the gospel the prime good.

Great thought provoking article. I believe we let too much of what happens in the workplace chain of authority manifest itself in the life of the church. We are not to run the church like a business, but like the body of Christ.

There are principles which are vital to each (business and church) but many of the principles started in the church first. Example - the golden Rule)

Alex:

I really really appreciate your concerns, and those of many others here.

So I want to engage. I clicked onto your blog, and the top post was titled:

"I Made it to the Platform"

(about your first Sunday helping lead worship "up front")

Can you at least see what many might think as a potential problem with the perception re: that headline?

Please, this is no judgment.

I have pastored a larger church as CEO,now i am pastoring a more organic community.

We need each other. We in the more emerging movement can still leadlike CEOs..we just dress down...see this wonderful paragraph by Dounglas Wilson on that

Megachurches aren't necessarily more spiritual or biblical in nature than small churches, although they can be. Sometimes, megachurches are churches that for one reason or another were able to attract a lot (or even a few) of wealthy donors. Small churches sometimes can't compete in the money department, and some changes take money. But then, church shouldn't be a competition, should it? Pastors, be they male or female, are leaders but shouldn't be autocrats. If you pastor a large church and have a my-way-or-the-highway attitude, then perhaps you need to delegate more authority. That probably wouldn't happen.