Coming the Full Circle
In the early 2000’s while doing an MTh at the University of Stellenbosch in South Africa, I came under the influence of the Gospel and our Culture Network (GOGN - Franke, Guder, Hunsberger, Barrett, Roxburgh, Gorman, van Gelder et.al.) Missional Church (Guder) and Crossing the Bridge (Roxburgh & Regele) were seminal reads for me. Then a few years later I read Canoeing the Mountains by Todd Bolsinger. More in a similar vein.
These books all speak of preparing the Church for unchartered territory. They all propose a different kind of leader from the traditional and metaphorical shepherd to a lead that can navigate uncertain times. A more pioneering leader who can pivot at a moments’ notice if needs be and roll with whatever punches and changes come their way. The consistent claim is that the shepherd or pastoral leader only leads well in super stable times, and we do not live in stable times. I concurred then and, albeit to a lesser extent, I concur now. Now I concur with increasing reservations. My reservations are centred around what we may have lost rather than what we might stand to gain.
Throughout the body of work of the GOCN, Bolsinger and others making similar claims, there is a generally consistent plea that the traditional shepherd / pastor would not be lost in this shift to a different kind of point lead. That some space would be held open on any leadership team for the one who simply cares for people. The who is one concerned with the cura animarum, the care of human souls.
I suspect we have paid much attention to wanting and needing a new kind of lead and in our efforts to move away from what was, we have by and large lost, or, at the least, sidelined our old-style “caring village vicar” in the process. The one who cares for the whole person from cradle to grave. We’ve even made a caricature of that person in the worst cases.
Not long ago I served on a search team looking for a national lead for a church group. In trying to come to grips with the ‘what’ it was that we were looking for, we adopted this general guiding slogan: ‘A relational and apostolic leader who is also theologically astute.’ The challenge, of course, being that those things are seldom all present in one person.
The gradual shift from Shepherd to CEO model in the modern church represents a move from relational, presence-based care to organizational, strategy-driven management. It is concerning, not because of what it might potentially add, in skills, systems & structures, - not that it necessarily does, but because of what it inevitably loses in the care of people.
The biblical model of pastor is literally translated as "shepherd" (the one who feeds and protects). Modern church growth models and demands tend to push leaders toward the role of a CEO, who manages systems, brands, staff and problems. In the marketplace humans may be regarded as a “resource”, in the Church they are precious souls entrusted to the care of a nurturing shepherd.
With the best intentions possible, the philosophy of shepherd(ing) and CEO(ing) are very different from one another in all but the rarest of cases.
Notable Differences in Leadership Philosophy
Relationship vs. Reach: A shepherd can fully expect to "smell like the sheep he or she cares for." That smell includes some sheep excrement from time to time. The shepherd will prioritize physical presence and a deep personal knowledge of the people in their congregation over transactional relationship. A CEO more often operates from a distance, focusing on vision-casting, strategic planning, and broader more general influence – this can lead to relating mostly transactionally.
The challenge becomes obvious when senior Church leaders fully step away from, or delegate care situations to others. An even bigger challenge is when the people who are meant to be under the care of a leader who leads from that paradigm, no longer believe it is that leader’s task to care for them. When people start saying things like “well, they are way too busy with more important things than for me to expect them to have a coffee with me, or take a phone call from me, or respond to the fifth email of mine that remains ignored”, then we are no longer functioning as the Church. Care of the flock is not an optional extra. It is the core call and responsibility of the shepherd.
Presence vs. Performance: Shepherding entails being with people in joyous and celebratory times, in ordinary times, in their discipleship and in their suffering. The CEO model tends to shift the pulpit from a pasture that serves to feed the sheep to a platform, where success is measured by numerical growth and broader reach, sometimes including media reach.
Itinerant preaching from crowd to crowd, without authentic involvement in the crowd’s life is more about gaining a following than looking after the people whom Jesus - as head shepherd, has entrusted to our spiritual care. Once we buy into “performance” philosophically, then challenges like wholesale plagiarism, bogus prophesy, spin, self-promotion and more will become habitual.
A subtle shift toward a performance philosophy can drive people to these kinds of behaviours. When we measure ourselves based on what we see or hear from the latest and greatest, we have effectively given up on what we are called to. When we know the sheep of our fold and the God who calls us to care for them, then there is no need to try to compete with anyone. Caring for those entrusted to you is not a competition.
Organism vs. Organization: Shepherds view the church as a living body that needs nurturing. Biblical metaphors include, the Bride of Christ, the Body of Christ, the Temple, the Family (oikos) of God, the Flock of God, Citizens of Heaven, God’s Field or Vineyard.
CEOs though, increasingly tend to treat the Church like a machine or non-profit corporation, where people are viewed as metrics and a means to their ends. Relationship becomes increasingly transactional. People who have financial means, are somehow always at the centre of leadership, regardless of character, competence, craft, or behaviour.
The Church is both an organism and an organization. The organizational component of “Church” cannot function properly if the organism is undernourished.
Why does this shift happen?
The transition can sometimes be driven by the complexities of growth. As a local church grows beyond the family size of say 250 members, a single leader cannot properly provide intentional care to everyone. We do have a biblical mandate to make disciples. I.e., to grow. Where there is spiritual life there will be spiritual and numeric growth. That is both valid and desirable.
In a traditional church structure numeric growth has moved some leaders toward what is called the "rancher" model. In medium-to-large churches, the pastor transitions to a rancher or organizer, focusing on training others to do the shepherding work. I have deep reservations around this model, which is why I have inevitably grown churches from 80 to 200 adults and then moved on. I don’t function well when I don’t know everyone’s name and have had at the very least a coffee with everyone in the congregation. More recently I am beginning to favour a ‘planting out’ model, where anytime there are 150+ adults involved the church replicates a similar model by planting out with 30 adults and accompanying kids.
Another possible reason for the shift is down to cultural expectations. Modern churches are unduly influenced by the American model and tend to be fixated on what I call an auditorium or conference mentality. In that model up front gifting supersedes character every single time. In that model too, shepherding is delegated. Church leaders are usually expected to be vision-casting strategists and brand managers to remain relevant in a competitive cultural landscape.
Parts of the Gospel of the Kingdom will always be an offense to the culture of the day. Where the culture of the day meets the Gospel of Jesus is where Kingdom happens (D. Fitch). 1 Co. 1:18 “For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God (NIV).”
Another reason for the shift is likely to do with location and pragmatism. What works in a small town, rural setting, is unlikely to work in an inner city or suburban setting.
Although there are arguments in favour of both models, I favour a hybrid model that retains shepherding as core and central but also includes additions from the CEO model.
| The Shepherd | The CEO |
|---|---|
| Relational: Prioritizes knowing people and walking through life with them. People "do life" together and are in one another's homes. The church I pastor, as an example, has over fifty kids even though it is only 80-100 adults strong. One of the associate pastors, who has been in the church for over twenty of its twenty-five-year existence, has been present at over forty of those children's births. | Strategic: Focuses on long-range goals, mission statements, systems, structures and organizational efficiency. |
| Biblical Mandate: Directly aligned with Jesus as the Chief Shepherd and the scriptural call to tend the flock. | Scalable: Enables the church to become sustainable past small-community limitations by delegating tasks and managing resources. |
| Sacrificial: Characterised by a leader who "lays down their life" for the sheep. | Professional: In theory it utilises corporate best practices in branding, systems, and team management. The branding can be tricky because it's often the leader's brand rather than Jesus', necessarily. |
Risks of the shift to CEO
Articles in Outreach Magazine (Dennis R. Edwards) and Solas Network (Elliot Luongo) warn of several dangers in making a wholesale move from shepherding to CEO:
Burnout: Pastors and leaders may burn out trying to be the executives they were never trained at Seminary to be and in responding to a need they do not necessarily feel called to.
Shallow Spirituality: A focus on auditorium, show and numbers can lead to a congregation that is growing numerically but spiritually malnourished. In Africa we speak of theology and spirituality that is 1000 miles wide and one inch deep.
Isolation: Leading from a corner office rather than doing life together can leave Church leaders completely disconnected from the spiritual and day to day realities of their people.
Is there a balance to be found?
It’s probably not an either/or choice. Effective leaders should adopt God-directed leadership by anchoring organizational structure within scriptural shepherding / servant leadership principles. This involves using organization and delegation (as seen for example in Ex 18 and Acts 6) to ensure the flock is fed without the leader trading in their pastoral identity for wannabee celebrity pastor status, or a more corporate leading style and identity. Watching small church pastors adopting some of the more corporate practices from elsewhere so as to be seen to be relevant can be very cringey.
My own inclination leans increasingly back toward shepherding as our primary identity and our guiding metaphor. But, as someone who comes out of commerce and who has specialized in leadership and leadership principles and practices, I well am informed by modern business and leadership methods. That despite being, at heart, a shepherd of people and a shepherd of those who care for others. I willingly confess my bias.
