With the news of yet another well-known evangelical pastor falling into moral failure, I’ve seen a lot of chatter about what is wrong churches and leadership. In particular, the conversation seems to be about so-called “celebrity pastors” and the megachurches they serve with, churches that function more like a business enterprise. You can read two such critiques here and here but if there are plenty of other social-media posts too. Though there are obviously some leadership issues that need to be addressed, we need to make sure were addressing the right issues and not making more out of them than they actually are.
To begin with, let me be clear and say it is without any doubt that the failings of pastor’s like Carl Lentz (or Billy Hybels, Perry Noble, etc…) is terrible and reveals some troubling leadership issues in some churches. I say “some churches” because it is just some, not all and likely not even the majority of churches. Most pastors are honorably serving as men and women of good character and integrity as they follow Jesus.
We should also be careful about the way we critique church leadership. I’m not a fan of churches organizing like business enterprise with their pastors functioning more like CEO’s rather than ministers of the gospel but I doubt this is the norm. Far from being big business enterprises with celebrity pastors building their brand, most churches are just local people serving in local communities with a pastor or two who serve as humble leaders with their church.
The problem of moral failures and abusive leadership can happen in any organization regardless of what kind of leadership model exists. So although some models undoubtedly are more conducive for problems to appear, it seems short-sighted to think that simply by changing leadership models will resolve the problems. Also, while it is true that some churches have a toxic hierarchal leadership derived from a business model, this is not the case with many churches in whom their leadership model differs based on denominational polity and traditions. So such broad sweeping criticisms not only seems unwarranted but also of shifts the blame, removing the responsibility of the moral failings from where they belong which is the particular pastors and churches in question.
One of the articles I linked above goes so far as to critique what the author describes as a “pastor-centric” model derived from the Pastoral Epistles. This model is contrasted with what the author believers as a better model, the APEPT model (apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers) derived from Ephesians 4:11-12. In my opinion, the author misrepresents the function of Timothy and Titus played as leaders sent to the churches in Ephesus and Crete. While it is true that Timothy and Titus were referred to as “pastors”, if we look at the functional tasks they were given then their work is what we typically understand as the work of a pastor. Of course, one of those tasks was to appointing of overseers and deacons (1 Tim 3:1, 8) and elders and overseers (Tit 1:6-7), so they were never to remain the only leader. Also, I don’t believe there is any hierarchy implied in the Pastoral Epistles that would place any particular leader (pastors, elders, etc…) over one another. Rather, they should serve in mutual submission to each other as they submit to Christ (more on that below).
I’m not opposed to the so-called APEPT model but I also find that many who are pushing this model make a lot of assumptions about the text of Ephesians. We don’t know if the “apostolic” referred any number of Christians with an apostolic gifting as people sent or was this in reference to the Apostles appointed by Christ. Also the grammar of the text leaves open the question of whether “pastors and teachers” is one role or two separate? So maybe we ought to be a little more cautious about constructing a leadership model off of one passage of scripture. As best as I can tell, there isn’t any one specific model of leadership found in the New Testament, so perhaps we should resist imposing one model over others. Besides, I not sure the point of the New Testament is to offer a particular form when it comes to leadership models. So if we are to address the issue of leadership failure, particularly the abusive leadership and the lack of accountability, then we have to address that issue which takes us back to the leaders themselves.
Regardless of what leadership model exists, every leader if first and foremost a servant. My point of departure for Christian leadership is Jesus and the conversation he has with his disciples about greatness in the kingdom of God. Jesus says to his disciples in Luke 22:25-26, “The kings of the Gentiles rule over their subjects, and those in authority over them are called ‘friends of the people.’ But that’s not the way it will be with you. Instead, the greatest among you must become like a person of lower status and the leader like a servant.” This humble servant mindset of Jesus would result in his crucifixion, so Christian leadership is to serve and do so from the logic and wisdom of the cross that Jesus embraced rather than a top-down position of coercive power. That’s true whether the leader is functioning as a pastor, elder, or even an apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor and teacher.
Because every leader is a servant following Jesus, mutual submission and accountability is required of every leader. Rather than elevating one leader above others, all leaders within a church should be able to question and challenge each other. Further more, all leaders should listen to each other and submit to the discernment of the entire leadership. That’s how mutual submission and accountability work. When any leader seems to be acting or involved in activity that could bring harm to the gospel and call into question the integrity of the leadership, other leaders must have the moral courage to address these matters (how to do this is a whole other matter). The failure to do so is what allows toxic cultures to grow until they implode in a big scandal.
Perhaps the best thing we could do as church leaders right now is reflect on how we are serving. One thing is for sure. People are not fooled. They know the difference between a servant and an authoritarian, between someone who submits to others and someone who submits to nobody, between someone who is accountable to others and someone who thinks they are exempt from the rules others must live by.