Tags
I recently came across this article which begins with this year’s failure of the Indianapolis Colts due to their star quarterback being out for the season. The author writes against the tendency in the business world to build an entire strategy or organization around a “lone star” performer. Instead, he writes, those who hold powerful positions in a company should be responsible for nurturing the talent in the people around them so there is a strong group who can lead.
Every time I read a book about starting churches in non-Western settings, I’m always struck by the emphasis the author(s) place on a plurality of leaders. Pulling from the elder model consistent through the New Testament, as well as the observations of a lifetime spent in starting churches, these authors unfailingly recommend the need for a team approach when appointing new leaders in a new church.
The New Testament model they pull from is all over the book of Acts and Paul’s epistles. We often like to cast Paul as the quintessential “lone star” maverick sort, but the list of people Paul travels with in Acts or mentions in his letters as coworkers is staggering. As one author I recently read pointed out, when the team of Paul and Barnabas split up, the two men’s first impulse wasn’t to go it alone but instead to form a new team.
So if the business world, the overseas church planting world and the New Testament world all agree that a team approach to leadership is the best way to do things – why does a huge swath of the Western church insist on the “lone star” pastor approach? Why do we continue to rate pastors on how much they alone can pull off? Why do we condone pastors who see themselves as one-man shows by saying they’re simply exercising the gift and responsibility of leadership?
What if instead we required pastors to invest heavily in other leaders in their church? What if we looked for churches with a strong group of elders instead of a single, do-it-all leader? What if church planters in the West were required to start and end with a team?
Why do you think we in the West love our lone-star model? What would it look like in the Western world if we moved away from the “lone star pastor” model? Is it even possible to do so at this point?
Hmmm. A lot to think about, even in my context in South Sudan. We are struggling with some of these issues within other ministries (not necessarily church planting) that we are trying to maintain. It’s extremely difficult to do something well in the absence of the “lone star” when everything has been built around that person’s leadership and vision. How do we remedy the situation when it’s already in existence? As a newer team member, how does one pitch in with the team while still remaining true to the focus and vision that God has given one? Or how does one even seek the Lord’s direction about what focus He wants one to have when one has already been sucked into the endless “needs” of existing ministries?
Thanks for whetting my appetite, Sarah!
Keep tackling tough issues! And I’d love to hear more thoughts on this one.
We are doing a team approach in our church plants in many places in Europe. one problem you come up with is communication, it has to be often and we don’t initiate ministry without talking about it first with the other (elders) missionaries on the team. In Madrid we have 1 national elder and 2 missionary elders. There have been misunderstandings when communication hasn’t happened well, or someone launches out to write a letter to the church or do something without all 3 being in agreement. So the elders have to be willing to be accountable to one another, know their place, communicate well and spend time in MEETINGS! we love meetings, don’t we? (no) but have to be willing to have them.
We have begin our church with a “main leader/ planter.” He was the visionary and founder of the group. He has also raised up other men so that presently there are 3 pastors. the advantage of this is that they are gifted in different areas. While the visionary is also the strongest preacher, he is also often invited to share at other places, and is available to since there is always someone else to fill the slot. We also have a church related meeting nearly every day of the week. It is impossible for one person to do the job well! He needs several others to help. We find these main each hold a lot os respect amoung the belivers, there is no confusion about who does what, who is in charge, etc, but there is also no feeling of “this is MINE, I built it.” My hubsand is the founder of this church, so I am greatful that we can actually enjoy it and not feel the burden of the growing work!
oops, forgot to name a positive! The congregation feels more included and buys into what is going on. They know the elders have full time jobs elsewhere, so when we have an event, everyone has a job to do. The elders look after the spiritual well being of the congregation, and keep the DNA of the congregation intact, while the rest of the members are taking on Sunday School, visitation, social work, worship, meals, events, discipleship etc. The elders meet weekly, then we have a meeting of whoever wants to come and be involved every month. During our church camp we had group meetings you could go to if you were interested in, say, event organization, and whenever an event comes up, that small group works on it.
My church has been around for a while, but we’re definitely into “lay empowerment”. It enables us to work with a small paid staff (most of whom are part-time, I’m one of those part-timers) and not only do we have a vestry (like a board of directors), but we now have separate chairs for each ministry. The challenge for us, as this is a new system is to be aware of the overlap between ministries and to get them communicating between each other and to the community in general and to the world.
So we’re still working out the kinks…
I find it interesting that the main problem we can identify with this model is the communication issue! From my perspective, this style of leadership is not very common in the Western church. What are the upsides we see to the lone-star model that keep it in popularity?