Pastors Aren't Accountable to God Alone

In some Christian circles it is taught that while you are accountable to your pastor, your pastor is ultimately accountable to God, and to God alone.

The ministry of Moses is generally upheld up as the Biblical basis for this model of ministry.  It's a pyramid shaped, top-down approach to doing church.  Under this structure, the pastor hears from God, and then directs the entire life of the church.  After all, like Moses he climbed to the top of a mountain, obtained a vision from God, and has come down to speak to the people.  His word is law, and questionable practices are to remain unquestioned.  Dissenters are looked down upon, chastised as rebellious, or counseled to find another church.

In a nutshell, the pastor is viewed as the boss of the church.

For many, this seems like a perfectly Biblical way to do church.  After all, it is based on the ministry of Moses.  And Moses is in the Bible.

The major problem I find with this idea though, is that as "Biblical" as this model of ministry might be, I can't help but feel that such a model of ministry today is actually "demonic" in its nature.  And it is demonic, not because it's not Biblical, but because it's not Biblical enough.

As I've previously pointed out, Moses is dead.

Therefore, being dead, we should look to move on from our dear brother Moses.  Moses had a specific calling for a specific time and place, and that calling died with him.  God called Moses to establish the Old Covenant, and therefore his ministry took on a structure that was in keeping with Old Covenant religion.

But, the problem with this idea is that we are now under the New Covenant, and instead of having a dead Moses to model ourselves after, we have a living Christ that we are to follow and serve.

Jesus's model of ministry is very different from that of Moses, and trying to emulate the model of Moses under the New Covenant should be as sternly rebuked as the Galatians were by the apostle Paul, for attempting to impose Old Covenant legislation on gentile converts to Christianity.

There are some things that just don't mix.  We need new wine-skins.

We need a wine-skin that is compatible with the fact that Jesus Christ is alive and is the head of the church.  And while there is not disagreement among any that Jesus Christ is the head of the church, they teach such only in some abstract theoretical and esoteric way.  But when it comes to practical application of this doctrine in church life, we inevitably appoint a  "senior" pastor or pope-type/Moses-like figure to be the head of our churches, locally and universally.  And in doing such, we subvert the ministry of Christ by appointing somebody else to be in charge besides Him.

Biblically speaking though, Jesus Christ alone is the head of the church, both locally and universally, and is such without appointing some folks to fill in on His behalf here on earth.  That is, Jesus Christ hasn't given the church another Moses.  Jesus Christ has given us Himself, and Himself alone.  No church needs a senior pastor or pope.  It just needs Jesus.

And under the rule and reign of Christ over the church both locally and universally, we as Christians are called to submit ourselves to one another.  Under this model of ministry, pastors aren't calling all the shots.  In the church, we are to have no pope but Christ.  Jesus Christ alone is boss.

Instead of being called to call all the shots, God has called pastors to merely be those who come along side other believers, and teach them how to follow Jesus in their daily lives.  And seeing the authentic Christ-like life of their pastors, those in the church should gladly submit themselves to the teaching and way of life that these pastors both practice and teach.

But those pastors who are getting too big for their britches, such men need to be reminded who is really in charge of the church.  And it's not them.  God did not call them to be the boss. God called them to simply serve alongside others, and to teach them the ways of Jesus.  And such isn't really complicated.  It doesn't require a degree from seminary to do.  It doesn't require the leadership skills of a famous CEO.  It simply requires two brothers who are committed to serving God together, with the stronger being able to help along the weaker.

Church Stages that Look like a TV Game Show

A couple months ago, I was a contestant on the stage version of "The Price is Right."  It was something of a childhood dream come true. I won the opening bid on contestants row after successfully outbidding three other women on a pair of designer high heels (don't question my manliness), but was unable to sink a putt on the famous game, "Hole in One."  Even so, it was a pretty cool experience.

Recently, I was watching an online video of certain preacher that I've followed a little bit over the years.  I noticed that he was speaking at a church I wasn't directly familiar with.  But as he was speaking, I became somewhat bothered about the platform he was standing on.  In my mind, I couldn't help but feel that the super trendy church that he was speaking at had a stage that looked like something you might see on a TV game show.

As I sat there and wondered about the stage of this particular church, something in my heart just felt a bit unsettled.  I couldn't help but wonder, "To what degree does the architecture and aesthetic design of a church building and sanctuary have on a local congregation?"   Of course, questions like this are things that get fleshed out primarily in places like seminary. It is something you've probably never considered, and have little concern about.

Most people just shrug at such questions as these.  "Architecture and building designs are completely neutral!" you probably say.  "All that matters is that God is there when we show up!"

And part of me would be inclined to agree with you.

Except for the fact that no architect or designer worth their salt would ever say that the design of a structure is a completely benign and neutral thing.  Such would be like an author saying books in themselves have no meaning and are completely neutral things.  Both notions are equally absurd on face value.

Whether we like it or not, the design of a church building and the stage of a church is one that is full of great meaning and purpose.  They are not theologically neutral buildings or rooms, and I believe that the design that goes into a sanctuary says a lot about what that church thinks about its relationship to God, and to each other.

And if you think that the design of a church is still a completely neutral thing, then ask yourself a simple question: Why is it that churches often go out of their way to design a sanctuary in a certain manner?  Why is so much money spent on jumbo screen monitors, giant crosses, stained-glass windows, pulpits, multi-colored stage lights, fog machines, scented air (and yes... you read that right, some churches pump in their own scented air), back-drops, and a host of other bells and whistles?  If it's all the same, why not just make churches giant concrete cement blocks with four walls and no windows?  It would save churches a ton of money.

No matter what mental gymnastics you might use to shrug off stage designs, at the end of the day remains the fact that how you build a church building conveys a subtle message about what is happening on and off stage.

And if the stage looks like a TV game show or American Idol, what's that say about the people on the platform?  And equally important, what's that say about the people who are not on the platform?

I fear that our increasingly flashy platforms at church are changing the dynamic of what the church has been.

Increasingly, "the congregation" is becoming nothing more than a mere "audience," compossed of nothing but mere "attendees."  And if you have ever had the opportunity to stand up on such stages (I have), then you'll understand that those on stage are practically overwhelmed by the brightness of the stage lights, and in most cases, can seldom see anybody in the congregation beyond the first couple of rows.

Imagine the impact that such a thing has on a preacher and his relationship to his congregation.

Increasingly, the preacher on such a stage becomes further and further removed from his congregation.  As a result, he may be tempted to look at his congregation as mere pawns to be used to further his own agenda, and exploited for his own personal gain.  And to the congregation, the preacher will become something of a celebrity.  After all, he is on an awfully big stage surrounded by a lot of lights. And due to the multi-site church phenomenon today, many don't even get to see their pastor in person.  He's just a guy on a jumbo sized monitor.  He becomes something of a TV game show host.

We should find that troubling.

Especially in light of the fact that when we open up the Scriptures, we see that ministry was a very intimate and personal thing.  Even when Jesus was surrounded by the crowds, he was still able to single out one person to minister to.  And when the apostles established the churches that they planted, the primary meeting place that the church would gather would be in the living room of other members of the church.

We've come a long way from those days. And instead of continuing down the road of new trends, I believe we need to seek out the ancient paths of those who came before us, and walk the roads they walked. And we need to increasingly think about the way we do church, and what impact that has on the life and ministry of our churches, as we seek to be faithful to calling placed on us.

Prophets Can No Longer Afford to Profit

If you ever plan on speaking for God one day, and feel called to do so, don't ever plan on making a dime for your troubles.

Rather, plan on being like the apostle Paul and many of his companions, who seldom took so much as a dime to cover even their personal expenses.  Prefer to pursue your holy calling while you work as a janitor, mechanic, nurse, office worker, manager, accountant, banker, or some other profession.

There is no shortage of men and women who feel "called" to "full-time vocational ministry."  And while I have no problem whatsoever with men and women doing such, I feel it in my bones that such a calling should be exceptionally rare.  We should seek to persuade as many people as possible, as often as possible, away from such a pursuit.  Especially young ministers, who so easily glamorize the idea, and make it a personal goal.

Prophets can no longer afford to profit from their ministries.

There is too much at stake.  Hard times are coming, and difficult decisions will have to be made.  The decision to do the easy thing, and accept money as compensation for your labors, that will cost you more than you think.

A paycheck will cost you your reputation, and your loss of reputation will cost you influence, and your loss of influence will choke whatever words that issue out of your mouth, and cause them to fall on deaf ears.  And in the process, you'll make a liar out of God who said His Word would not return unto Him void.

Don't do that.  I've myself have made stupid choices myself over the years that have cost me such.  I've seen God's Word die because of my destructive actions.  And I don't want to see the same thing happen with you.

Instead of seeking vocational ministry, prefer to seek "bi-vocational ministry."  Consider it the new normal.

Learn about as much of the Word as you can from godly men and women.  Be a scholar.  Be active in the life of your church.  Pound the street as well as the pulpit.  And don't look at your career outside the church as "secular" employment, but rather, see your career as part of your "holy" calling.

And whenever possible, prophesy.

Submit to Your Pastor... Or go to Hell?

Has a pastor ever confronted you about submitting to their authority?

Or has one ever told you that you were in rebellion to them?

Have you been told that you (or somebody else) has a Jezebel spirit?

Have you ever been asked to leave a church because you did not fully support a particular vision or mission of that particular church?

Is the teaching and behavior of your pastor considered unquestionable?

Is questioning met with defensive behavior?

Is access to the pastor only possible by going through one of many delegates?

Over the past few decades, there has been a growing and disturbing trend within the church in regard to issues surrounding submission.  This is especially true in Pentecostal and Charismatic circles, where this issue tends to be magnified 100 fold.

In some churches the issue, when it is present, is rather subtle.  It'll result in a few people being banned from leadership positions because they don't act as the pastor's cheerleaders.  In other churches, it is more extreme, resulting in pastors limiting marriage opportunities to those only within your particular church, and deciding who your next spouse can or cannot be.  And in a lot of cases, those who are viewed as being "in rebellion" are subject to being socially marginalized inside and outside of the church.  Some might even get threatened with damnation.

A lot of this teaching and behavior heavily relies on distorted teachings surrounding Bible passage such as Romans 13:1-7, Hebrews 13:7-17, and other such verses.  However, ALL of it is based on blatantly ignoring the actual clear teaching and example of Christ on the issue, such as in Matthew 20:24-28, Matthew 23:8-12, Luke 22:24-27, and many other passages.  Please look at these passages and study them in detail as time permits, as I don't have the time or space to dissect them at the present moment.

In the New Testament, Jesus and the apostles never looked at leadership in the church as existing in a vertical, top-down, military styled chain of command.  The early church had one Chief, one Pope, one King, one Senior Pastor, and one CEO, and that is Jesus Christ, both locally and universally.  It knew nothing of men holding a hierarchy of differing levels of delegated authority over other believers.  According to Jesus, such a concept was entirely pagan, and foreign to the kingdom of God.  It may be that way out in the world, "but it's not to be this way among you."  (Matthew 20:26)

All "authority" that existed between believers was horizontal, mutual, relational, and predicated on Jesus Christ being viewed as the head over all by all.  Nobody but Jesus Christ is ultimately in charge of the church.

A good pastor who is rightly related to God and properly understands his calling and purpose within the body of Christ will openly encourage you to question their teaching.  And why not?  Jesus Christ welcomed such questioning of Him in His earthly ministry.  The Pharisees questioned Him.  His disciples questioned Him.  Heck, even John the Baptist questioned Him.  And even after miraculously raising from the dead and standing before the apostles, they continued to question Jesus.  And Jesus was always patiently willing to take the time to explain whatever was asked of Him.

Even after the cross, though Jesus had already been crucified and resurrected from the dead, Jesus still took time to sit down with the Bible and prove to His disciples that this event was no accident, and that such had to happen to Him according to the teachings of the Law of Moses and the Prophets... never mind the fact that He was standing before them alive in front of their very eyes!.

And the last I checked, Jesus Christ still welcomes you asking questions regarding His teachings today, as He carries out His heavenly ministry.

So is there a place in the Bible for submission?  Yes!

Don't get me wrong, there is a godly form of submission taught in the Bible.  But even as there is a godly form of submission, there is also an ungodly form.  The godly form involves seeing ministers who live such godly lives that mimic Jesus, that you allow them to come alongside you and to speak into your life and to minister to you in order to help you become like them, which is ultimately to help you become like Jesus.

In the church, you should only submit to another believer to the degree that they submit themselves to the following and expounding the teachings of Jesus Christ.  Anything outside of that... like deciding who you are to specifically marry, such things have nothing to do with godly and Biblical submission.

Those, however, who demand you "submit" to their "authority" as "the man of God," who is "over" you as your "leader"... don't conform to the desires of such men.  Such would require ungodly levels of submission from you to men that have no business being in charge over you.  Indeed, Jesus said don't even greet such men as "Rabbi."  Far from being able to school others, such men need to be schooled themselves.  I would dare say that the next time such a person tells you to submit to them, gently question them, and ask them if it shouldn't be the other way around.

There is an alarming number of pastors who would strongly disagree with what I just said. And that's because they are full of an abusive and religious spirit, that has inflated their ego, and makes them think they are a king or CEO like figure, who must remain unquestioned at all times. They have yet to see Jesus as the head over anything.

Make no mistake, such a teaching is not from Jesus.

It's a teaching from insecure men and women who have little to no actual authority from God in their lives or ministries.  It's the teaching of bullies, who having no idea of how to actually encourage you to come along with them and to follow their example.  Instead, they prefer to thump you like a drill Sargent that is telling you to drop and give them fifty. Don't question their teaching. Don't question their vision. Just do what they say, and go along with the program, otherwise, you'll go to hell... or at least, be encouraged to go to another church.

Barf.

Such is the theology of lite-weights.  It's of men who don't know the Lord nor the Bible very well.

Sadly, many such people who practice this form of leadership and submission learned it from those who taught it to them.  They may have good intentions and mean well. But ultimately they are victims of spiritual abuse themselves. And sadly, as so often happens in this world, victims often make more victims.  The abused end up abusing, and a vicious cycle is created.

Jesus will Return: A friendly reminder, in case nobody mentioned it recently

Do me a favor, and think really hard about the sermons you have heard preached in the last year or two.

Now, let me ask you a question:  How many of those sermons had the Second Coming of Jesus Christ as one of their primary topics?

Mmmm... not too many.  Oh wait... none at all?

But you've heard quite a few sermons about living your best life now, financial stewardship, finding joy, overcoming adversity, handling stress and depression, becoming a better you, discovering God's purpose for your life, and daring to dream big.  Right?

Oh dear.

There is this tendency in Christianity today to downplay the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.  It's the position of "mature" Christians and serious thinkers after all.  Because if you've lived long enough as a Christian, you've heard just about every goofy thing there is to hear about the return of Jesus Christ.  And realizing that there are a lot of bizarre teachings on the matter, and realizing how bent out of shape people can get about their end-time theological systems, many have taken the position that the return of Jesus is just one of those things we shouldn't really talk a lot about.

Indeed, there has been some serious harm done in the name of Jesus over theologies centering around the end-times.   Every year there is some goofball that sensationalizes some sort of omen in the news that they claim points to the imminent return of Jesus Christ.  And of course, every year for the past 2,000 years, such persons have been proven wrong time and time again.  And of course, the media is always more than willing to run such headlines, which end up bringing a bit of shame on the church when such predictions prove to be false.

So, we have a tendency to respond to such things in one of two ways:  We passively downplay the topic of the return of Jesus Christ altogether, and try never to bring it up;  Or, we join the world in their scoffing.

But the more I've thought about it in recent years, the more I've become convinced that I would rather identify with those saints who are actively looking for the possible return of Jesus Christ in their lifetimes, than I would identify with more "enlightened" believers who shy away or scoff at the idea of Christ returning altogether.  I don't care how funky and misguided the theology of these saints might be.  I would rather be found looking for the second coming of Christ and Him not return, than to not be looking for Him and find out the hard way that He decided to return anyway.

Will Jesus return in our lifetime?  Well, He's not come back in the last 2,000 years, so there stands a pretty good chance that He won't return this year or in our lifetime.

BUT...

Be that as it may, the faith we have received, that has been once and for all handed down to the saints, teaches us that as Christians that we are to be actively looking for the return of Jesus Christ, and His return to this world.  And not to look for Him to return in some far off distant future, but to think it a real possibility that He may return before we have the chance to die.

To not actively anticipate the return of Jesus Christ in our own lives is nothing short of apostasy-- a falling away from the faith.

And this is an apostasy that has overtaken "progressive" and "evangelical" Christians alike.

As a result, this has caused Christians of both stripes to become ever consumed with the ever present "now" of the kingdom.  Progressives get obsessed in social justice issues.  And, evangelicals get wrapped up in having their best life now schemes.

And why not?  Jesus isn't returning anytime soon after all.

So we might as well avoid preaching about those topics that talk about the return of Jesus Christ and the ages of come.  It's better to focus on the "already" than "not yet" aspect of the kingdom of God.   It's better to focus on the breaking of the kingdom into present than to take much time to think about things that are yet future.  We want to talk about practical matters.

At least, so we say.

Yet, as much emphasis as the Bible places on the "already" aspect of the kingdom of God, I can't help but notice the focus on Biblical teaching is still hung on the hope that Jesus Christ will indeed come again, and that once He comes again, all the things that the kingdom ushered into the world are nothing in comparison to the things His kingdom will yet bring.

The present aspect and reality of the kingdom is but an appetizer for the Supper that is still to come.

And knowing such things about the future, what manner of men ought we to be in the present?  Knowing this world is passing away, and that we've received a kingdom that shall not perish, how ought we to live our lives in this generation?  How much different ought our lives look, knowing that one day, everything we see will be tried by Divine judgment, and will be consumed by fire?

My guess is we would live our lives a bit differently than we live now, for when we realize that everything we hold near and dear to us will one day vanish, the things we truly learn to value in this world will change.  And if our values change, our present actions must change too.

Jesus Christ is coming again, and He's coming again soon.

This is a friendly reminder, in case nobody mentioned it recently.

Artificially Intelligent Preachers

Recently, the famous theoretical physicist and cultural icon, Stephen Hawking told the BBC that Artificial Intelligence (AI) could pose a real potential threat to the existence of mankind.

Such a thought has been explored in numerous science fiction works and movies over the years, and generally speaking, the idea of creating AI is looked at in apocalyptic type imagery. But lest you think the idea of AI is merely sci-fi fantasy, you might be startled to learn that it is something that computer scientists and engineers have been seriously exploring for decades in real life. And truth be told, they are on to something.

For example, in 1997 IBM developed a super computer named "Deep Blue" that was taught how to play chess. Deep Blue developed enough skill that it was able to defeat Grand Master and reigning world champion Garry Gasparov in a series of tournament chess matches. Kasparov was champion for 15 years, and is generally considered the greatest chess player to ever live. Deep Blue's victory over Kasparov was no small accomplishment.

More recently, companies like Google have been heavily involved in AI research and development. A lot of the controversial "data mining" they are engaged in is used towards creating brains for super computers, and, is in part, one of the many reasons Google is able to accurately "guess" on-the-fly what you are likely searching for when you start typing your search query into Google.com.

While sci-fi fantasy largely looks at the emergence of AI as something potentially negative, to date, the contributions behind the research and development of AI has been extremely positive. Largely, AI research and development has been a force for good. Keeping this in mind then, perhaps our sci-fi fantasy future casting needs to look at AI as less of a threat, and more as a positive contribution. So, instead of Skynet/Terminator/Matrix type images, we need to start thinking about AI in terms of Star Wars droids like C3PO and R2D2.

If AI yields us friendly benevolent computers capable of good, I would like to propose a simple question: In the future, how might the church leverage AI for the purpose of the gospel?

Could we create artificially intelligent theologians, preachers, and even praise and worship leaders?

Can you imagine a robot engaged in complicated Biblical exegesis, who is able to engage in original thought, and in one nano-second is able to yield fresh theological insight from research it conducts in original languages, studying all available Biblical manuscripts, and making use of all scholarly material available on every subject matter? Such a machine could possibly produce new "authoritative" translations of the Bible, available in all languages across the globe, and give us answers to theological problems that have long plagued scholars.

Can you imagine a robot evangelist, who could simul-cast his messages over the internet into churches around the world, teaching us the gospel of Jesus Christ, and doing so in constantly fresh and culturally relevant ways? Not only that, the robot evangelist would be able to develop the most efficient and strategic forms of outreach, and to think of new and clever ways to reach the lost.

Can you imagine a robot praise and worship leader (or band!), who has a knowledge of every hymn and song every written, and is able to compose new songs unto the Lord, and to lead a congregation into the deepest worship experience possible?

Artificial intelligence might not only change the world, but it might also change the way we do church.

...Or, it may just produce an army of Terminators who want to kill everybody in the world, just like scientists like Stephen Hawking warned us about.

Leaderless Churches

"Do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. Do not call anyone on earth your father, for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ. But the greatest among you shall be your servant. Whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted." ~ (Matthew 23:8-11; NASB)

If you were to do a survey of the New Testament, you would find that the word "leader" is a pretty hard word to find.

The word "leader" is only found twice in all of the gospels as a topic that Jesus specifically addressed. Likewise, the subsequent letters that the apostles wrote contain very few and scant references to this word as well.

Yet for such sparse usage, a recent search I conducted on Amazon.com shows that there are currently an astonishing 2,510 books that falls under the heading of "Christian leadership" that are currently for sale.

It makes me wonder, how is it that something that received so little attention in the pages of the New Testament has somehow managed to become something of an industry in our generation?

Yet, if you were to do a similar word search for words like "servant" or "slave," you would find that these words appear hundreds of times throughout the New Testament in reference to Christian ministry.

Good luck finding very many books on Amazon.com that emphasize the theme of Christian slavery. If any such books exist, most of them are probably dedicated to the studying the theological views of Christians who debated about the abolition of the slave trade in America and Europe. Which of course, is not what we are talking about here.

Instead, we are talking about a slave mindset and identity that the Lord has called us all to embrace, from the least of us to the greatest of us. The proliferation of Christian leadership material abundantly available to us today goes to show one thing: Christianity has not embraced the mindset of Jesus would have in the church.

It's not that Jesus is against there being leaders in the church.

The early church was clearly full of many leaders. That is, it was full of men and women who showed others what it was to live the Christian life, and they demonstrated and modeled to others what that life looked like, and taught others how to live it. They were leaders primarily in the sense that they were role-models, and the embodiment of what it means to live a mature Christian life.

This is stands in stark contrast to what a Christian leader is generally perceived as today. To be a leader in the church today is to be a charismatic CEO type, who strategically leads the body of Christ in implementing the unique "vision" that he has dreamed up for the church. The sheep exists primarily to help the pastor build (and fund) his dream. Sometimes the congregation may indeed be part of that dream, but at the end of the day, they ultimately exist to help the pastor fulfill his vision. Anybody who voices dissent or questions the pastors' vision is generally asked to leave the church, or otherwise encouraged to find another church that they are more agreeable with.

Jesus' teaching on leadership was specifically targeted against this sort of mindset. The Lord didn't want us to think of ourselves or allow ourselves to be identified as "leaders," because in the process of doing such, we undermine the call to serve, create divisions in the church, and become takers instead of givers.

In the church, we are to only think of one person as our leader, and that is Jesus Christ alone. No man may take His spot. And as a result of being rightly oriented with the leadership provided to us from heaven, we are to relate to one another as "brothers."

There are to be no "leaders" or "followers" in the church in the traditional sense of those words, only brothers helping other brothers out in their mutual quest to become more and more like Jesus, and to share the gospel with a lost and dying world.

There is to be no division of the church into pastor, staff, and laity. Our relationship with one another is to be horizontal, not vertical. If there is to be any hierarchy in the local church, it's a very small one, with Jesus Christ sitting clearly on top of it all. He alone is our leader and visionary.

The danger when we get this wrong is that you begin to see the church acting in a dysfunctional manner. When somebody's head gets too big, and they become "the leader" of the church, they eventually start looking at the people in their midst as "followers" instead of "brothers." Everybody in the church eventually becomes somebody from whom the leader "draws from" instead of "giving to." In the end, the leader will treat everybody as mere pawns, of whom the pastor frequently allows himself to enjoy the "benefits" and "perks" related to being their "leader."

This is a very real and dangerous problem in much of the church. You see it all over the place.

You see this attitude prevailing in churches where the pastor and his wife are treated as King and Queen of the church. You see it when pastors recruit people to be their "armor bearers," who do things like carry the pastors' Bible to the pulpit for him, or take his car to get cleaned once a week.  You see it in churches that have "pastor appreciation week," where the pastor allows a special offering to be taken up for him on an annual basis, as a sort of "bonus" for all his hard work and personal sacrifice.

You see this attitude prevailing in churches where pastors rule in an authoritarian fashion.  You see it when pastors  live isolated lives from the rest of their congregation.  You see it when pastors are treated as the chief "visionary" to whom the rest of the church must unquestionably "submit" to. You see it when there is a heavy emphasis in the church on tithing and giving. You see in in churches that always seem to be in some sort of building program.  You see it when pastors make handsome salaries, live it up large, and buy mansions.  You see it when people start quoting Bible verses about "touching not the Lord's anointed, and doing His prophets no harm" whenever somebody calls into question the pastors' morality, and the example he is setting for others in his lifestyle.

These attitudes exist because we have failed to realize that God isn't looking for men with a leaders' heart, but rather, a servants' heart.

He's looking for people who aren't interested in building large ministries centered around themselves.  He's not looking for people who dream big, but for people who dream small, and whose only care is how they might help you as a person grow to be more like Jesus.

Slaves don't dream big, or to try and make something of themselves.

Their only concern is the task at hand, and figuring out how they might please those to whom they are enlisted in service too. That was the attitude of the leaders of the early church. So much so that they didn't think of themselves as leaders but as slaves who were called to work for the Lord in serving other people.

Indeed, when they sat down to write letters to the churches they founded or were partnering with, whose letters eventually became our New Testament, they always introduced themselves. And when they introduced themselves, they did not speak of themselves as the leaders of these churches, with a right to demand an audience with the congregation, but they simply desired to speak as slaves who merely wanted to help others out, and felt they had something they could share that would benefit others.

In light of Jesus' teaching on leadership, I hope that we we realize that the church is not the place for leaders, but for servants.

The Hijacked Calling of Pastoral Ministry

If you were to look at the library of most pastors, you would likely find a LARGE selection of leadership books by authors like John Maxwell, Stephen Covey, Andy Stanley, Bill Hybles, Tony Dungy, George Barna, and many others.

All of these authors have some wonderful things to say about being an effective leader.

They talk about everything you have ever wanted to know about vision casting, crafting mission statements, developing effective communication skills, handling conflict resolution, growing your organization, and motivating people to follow you... all very interesting stuff.

The problem is, most of it has nothing to do with the Biblical portrait of what a pastor is and what he does.

But that hasn't stopped a large cottage industry consisting of publishers and consultants from popping up all over the place, and creating their own niche market, and telling pastors that these things are part of their calling.

As a result of creating this specialized market, pastoral ministry has been morphed into something it was never meant to be. Without realizing it, many who feel called to be a pastor have had their callings hijacked in the process.

Instead of answering the call to pastoral ministry, many have been steered into the job of becoming the CEO/President/Director of an organization instead.

And notice, I said "organization," not "church." Sadly, many cannot distinguish between the two.

Organizations need CEO's, HR departments, lawyers, bylaws, staff, vision, mission statements, strategic branding, goods and services, advertising, customers, fund-raising, profit and loss statements, and balance sheets.

In contrast to this, the New Testament sees the church as less like an "organization" and more like a "family" unit.

Family units consist of parents, brothers, and sisters. They are the people you regularly do life with, and do things like eat dinner with. And while they may need to conduct some formal "business" with one another every now and then, by in large, the family unit thrives and centers around the personal relationships that each member of the family has with one another.

It is in the context of family that the "leaders" of the New Testament church are designed to function. As a result, the leaders of the New Testament church function more as parents than as CEO's. And the idea of using the organization leadership principles of guys like John Maxwell should seem a bit misplaced to us as a church.

Individuals like the apostle Paul thought of himself as a spiritual "father" and his converts as his "children." Paul referred to the leaders he appointed in the churches he established as "elders," or literally "older one's."

These "older one's" were qualified for pastoral ministry because they showed spiritual maturity in their everyday lives, and knew what it was to be men of good reputation in the community, and knew how to take care of their own wives and children. They were able to teach others what it meant to be a Christian, and to demonstrate that in the way they lived their lives.

They were picked as leaders, not because they held impressive academic and professional credentials, but because they were "seasoned" Christians who knew how to live the Christian life well, and were gifted in their ability to show others how to live life like they themselves lived, in the imitation of Jesus Christ.

They preached, not as gifted orators, but as fathers teaching something to their sons. They provided leadership, not as CEO's, but as men who were showing their virtues and behaviors as something worthy of honor and imitation by all who had the opportunity to interact with them in their lives.

And in doing all these things, as fathers instead of CEO's, they fulfilled their calling to pastor the church of God.

Their calling in essence was very simple. They didn't need abstract crash courses on being effective leaders of a large and dynamic institution. Indeed, most probably were not equipped for such a thing. They just needed to know how to live a Christian life, and how to effectively be a dad to those who were entrusted to their care.

If they were good husbands and fathers, then they were viewed as men who could potentially help lead the family of God. For in leading their families, they had all the knowledge and skill necessary to effectively oversee the life of God's family.

Mark Driscoll: "Victim" of CEO Church Theology

For those of you who are unaware, Mark Driscoll is the outspoken and controversial founding pastor of "Mars Hill Church" in Seattle, Washington, which in 2013 boasted an average weekly attendance of over 12,000 people, with 15 locations in over 5 states.

As many are aware, Driscoll has voluntarily taken a leave-of-absence while the elders of his church investigate allegations of pastoral misconduct and abuse. Driscoll was recently removed from another ministry, "Acts 29," a church planting organization that he founded, over similar accusations that he now faces in his church.

Driscoll has recently admitted to some deep character flaws that he's had over the years as pastor. Some of which seem to form the basis of the current scandal associated with him and his church. In recent comments he's made publicly, he states that these actions merely represent a younger less mature Mark Driscoll of years gone-by. Many pastors, both past and present at Mars Hill, seem to think otherwise. In the coming weeks, we'll learn what happens as a result of these investigations.

The real problem with Driscoll, in my mind, isn't so much his specific character flaws or sinful actions.

Rather, it is the mindset and theology of which Driscoll and many pastors have long operated under. In the last few decades, this mindset has reached something of a climax. And like a bubble that has been stretched to its breaking point, I believe we are at the point in history where something bigger is about to burst in the church.  I believe we'll see things like this play out more and more.

It may be strange to hear, but I truly believe that Mark Driscoll in many ways is a victim of the CEO mentality that long ago crept into pastoral ministry.

That's not to say his character problems aren't genuine character problems that need to be fixed. Indeed, they are. A bad ministry model isn't merely to blame here.

However, I believe at it's heart that Mark Driscoll's recent "fall" isn't just a simple character issue that can be addressed with a little confession, repentance, and time-off from ministry. Rather, the challenges he faces in regard to his character has grown directly out of a broken leadership model that permeates the American church, and can be found in churches both big and small.

Unless we address this broken ministry model, the church will only be able to superficially address the problems related to pastors such as Mark Driscoll and others. As a result, no real healing and restoration will ultimately be able to take place, and the church will continue to limp on.

The CEO mentality ultimately makes it almost impossible to speak into a pastors' life.

Why?  Because he's on the top of a giant pyramid, and nobody can truly call him into account, or freely speak into his life, for he has nobody in the church that is his equal.  The structure of which he is a part of insulates himself from the body of Christ at large, and even from other pastors within the church.  As the CEO of a church, Mark Driscoll and others have no people in the church that they can consider their brothers.

And like many other men who sit on top of somebody else, people in his position tend to dominate everybody underneath them.  It's just something that happens, and even the godliest of men have the inability to resist doing so.  God never wanted men to be kings for a reason.  The only man God wanted to be a king He hung on a cross.

As a result of this broken ministry model, if another genuinely concerned pastor speaks up about something they object to their pastor doing, that person opens themselves to grave risk in regard to their job security.  For such is the equivalent of calling out your boss at work, and that usually doesn't tend to work out very well in most professions.  Pastoral ministry is no exception.

Thus, there is little surprise that over the years there has been a very high turnover rate of pastors at places like Mars Hill Church. And this is because some people have dared to speak out, only to find out in doing so, they placed a bad bet, and discovered such behavior wasn't allowed.

As a result of all this culture that dominates the American church, the character flaws and sinful attitudes Mark Driscoll possessed have grown like a snowball rolling down hill. Instead of somebody being able to lovingly speak into Driscoll's life and address the sinful attitudes that were developing, his sins have grown entirely unchecked for years.

And because of the CEO mentality that Driscoll has presumed in his ministry, he has created a platform in which his sins have been magnified beyond the sphere of the local church, and knowledge of them spreads across much of the world.

Instead of being a CEO, had Mark Driscoll merely been one of hundreds of pastors who oversaw the life of Mars Hill Church, you and I would've never heard of the scandal that has rocked his church of late.  It wouldn't have become a story that the local newspaper in Seattle would be able to cover, let alone all the other outlets in which this has become a topic of discussion.

But, because Driscoll operated under a model of ministry that made him a superstar CEO in the church world, his sins have been broadcast across the globe, and brought untold reproach on his life and ministry as a direct result.  He is no longer above reproach, and is not well thought of by very many people.  By all accounts of Biblical reasoning, he appears no longer Biblically qualified to be engaged in pastoral ministry.

Such I find to be a very sad thing.  And it is a sad thing that could've been altogether avoided had Mark Driscoll operated under a very different model of ministry.

It is my contention that God did not call Mark Driscoll to be the CEO of a church. Nor has he called any other pastor to be one.  And the sooner we get that, the better off we will all be.

Rather, God has called pastors to be humble men of local reputation, who have the glorious opportunity to simply share their lives with others, and teach mankind what it means to believe in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and what it looks like to follow Him in their everyday lives.

But many have seen the calling to pastor as something other than this. They see it as an opportunity to do "something big," and to enlist as many people as possible to help them implement their personal long-term goals and visions, and to create giant larger-than-life organizations.

Many pastors today say that God is the inspiration behind their drive, platform, vision, and aspirations. But I have this sneaky suspicion that God has birthed none of it. I feel like these big things are something a little more American born and bred, and did not enter this world with Jesus Christ in a manger.

The apostles didn't build media empires or churches with a unique branding to them.  They didn't set themselves up as CEO's.  Rather, quietly labored among others, simply aiming to share the life they had in Christ with whoever would allow it.  In the process they planted churches that were usually very small, and once established, they quickly handed the leadership of those churches over the the people who composed their new venture.

They left very few things for us to remember them by.  We mostly have a collection of stories and the occasional letter from a couple of them.  Largely, their works and names have long been swallowed up by history, as they were relatively unknown by most people in their day, and have remained such even to the present.

The apostles were cautious men that fought against anybody who might make a celebrity out of them.  They refused to be elevated above anybody else, and preferred to serve instead of lead.  They had but one goal, and that was to make the name of Jesus Christ known to those who never knew it before. They had no interest in drawing men unto themselves. They only had an interest in drawing men to Christ.

(Note:  The purpose of this article is not to shine a light on the specific misconduct of pastor Mark Driscoll or bring undo attention to him. Rather, I am writing this article in hopes that I can shine a light on a greater problem I believe I see in the church, and that problem is much greater than one man. It is a problem the church has struggled with for quite some time.)

Saying Goodbye to Our Pastors

According to 9marks.org, every month over 1,300 pastors are terminated from their jobs;  Over 1,700 leave the ministry altogether;  Only 1 in 10 professional ministers will actually make a life-long vocation out of pastoral ministry, and one day retire from this profession.

Personally speaking, as somebody who went to Bible college and has been engaged in various forms of ministry for over a decade, I have a lot of connections with pastors, who, for one reason or another, are no longer engaged in vocational ministry.  Sometimes the reasons are good, and sometimes the reasons are bad.

But, one thing that I have noticed that is common to most situations, whether the reason for separation was on good terms or bad, is that when a pastor or "staff" member at a church is no longer employed at their church, they almost always end up leaving their present church, and going somewhere else to fellowship.  

Even for those pastors who continue to live in the same town or city, and don't gain employment in another church, without fail many of these individuals will never darken the door of their former church, and whatever fellowship they had with anybody in that church will be largely (if not entirely) severed.  At best, any contact that remains exists largely through social media.  There are exceptions to this of course, but this tends to be the general practice.

There are a lot of "professional" reasons for doing this.  Some of it is to avoid the personal awkwardness of the entire situation, and some of it is to avoid possible leadership conflicts, especially one's that would "undermine the authority" of the new pastor.

Whatever the reason, it is altogether heartbreaking stuff, and I don't think things should be this way.  I think things are this way, however, because our approach towards pastoral ministry is way off theologically, and does not reflect the heart of our heavenly Father.

In our churches, pastors are seldom seen as "one of us."

Many pastors aren't truly "part of" the local church.  They may preside "over" our communities and lead them, but they often do such as "outsiders."  They are "the man of God" who goes up the proverbial mountain to hear from God, and return to speak the message he has.  Many often minister out of a sense of being a "professional" or "trained specialists," who function more like the CEO of a Fortune 500 company than they do as spiritual fathers taking care of the family of God.

CEO's can resign from their jobs or be voted out.  If a father attempts to leave his family, he is still the father of his family, whether he shows up or not.

The Biblical model of pastoral ministry is one of fatherhood, not corporate America.  Sadly, as a church we have largely embraced the model of ministry and church government that makes the church function more like a corporation instead of a household and family.

Think about it:  How many pastors at your present church grew up to pastor at the same church they went to as children?  Pastors are seldom home grown and nurtured.  They go away to Bible college and seminary, and then get sent somewhere remote and foreign to them and their families.  They seldom return to pastor in the city they grew up in, let alone the church they were raised in.

Pastors move around and are treated like professional sports athletes.  Some don't live up to their potential and eventually get cut from the team.  Others are traded away for a replacement to be named at a later time.

The vast majority of our pastors are imported from another region of the country, and often get hired by people they hardly know, to labor among people they will seldom develop meaningful long-term personal friendships with.

Statistics report that over 70% of pastors report not having a close personal friend at their church.

And why should they make friends?  They are hired professionals there to do a job, and within a couple years they will likely be traded away to simply work somewhere else.  According to a research poll conducted by Lifeway Research, the average pastor stays at any given local church a mere 3.6 years.  Other research shows the average tenure to be 5 to 7 years.  Either way... not a very long time.

No wonder so many pastors are so lonely.  They are alone and don't have many friends because we have created a church system in which pastors are largely treated as temporary hired hands, imported from distant lands, brought in to do a job for a short season, only before moving on somewhere else.  Apart from their spouses, they have few people they can lean on for spiritual counsel and support.  If they are struggling in an area of their life, very few people they pastor would ever know it.

When I read the New Testament and the writings of the early church, I see a very different way of "doing ministry."  Pastors were home grown members of the local church family.  They cut their teeth on the teachings of Jesus Christ among their brothers and sisters, only to one day grow into the very men who could provide spiritual oversight to that same family.  People knew them very closely.  They were loved as fathers of the faith, and had real and deep relationships with the people they pastored.  So much so, when persecution struck, many often sacrificed their very lives out of love for their Christian family.  And when they died, their churches took it to heart.

Sure, there were itinerant ministers like Paul, Timothy, and others that frequently traveled.  But, such men were the exception, not the rule.  And, even when they did travel to work in other churches, when we read the letters they left behind, we see that they treated the churches they ventured to merely as distant family members with whom they were visiting.  And, they were received as such.  They made close friendships and connections with the people they ministered to, and they longed to return to the church they grew up in.

Sadly, this experience in the modern church is very rare.

There is often a great gulf that exists between the pulpit and the pew, and this is not how God designed the church to function.  Pastors have become increasingly distant professionals, and less like a part of the family.  God's desire and will for the church is not only that we would have a close and personal relationship for Him, but that our churches would be known for the great love that exists between us, and that we would function not as a corporation, but as a family.

How we handle the hiring, firing, and resignation of pastors/church staff says a lot about our theology of the church as the family of God.  And it not only says a lot about our theology, but it says a lot about where we actually are spiritually in our walk with God.  If we are truly close with God, we must be close with one another.

What do you think?  Did I miss the mark, or am I spot on in my analysis?  Besides talking about these things on the internet, how can we as individuals in the church help bring meaningful change to the church, and return to a family oriented model of church life and ministry?  

Leave your comments below....