Jon Tyson – The Death of the Alpha Male Pastor
Summary of the best talk I have heard yet…
Bad Summary. But Summary none the less.
The church with an Alpha male leading it is setting itself up for failure because the only person that can replace that leader when it is time is someone with equal qualities. A 10 replacing a 10. Therefore we need not build churches around great communicators but around 5 different pastoral leaders with different gifting. He named them.
Willow Creek is a prime example.
Bill Hybels steps down as Alpha male leader.
Hires 3 AMAZING communicators.
All resign after a while because they are only great. Not Hybels.
Bill Hybels now resumes Alpha male role.
So the main point is that there MUST be a rethinking of the current church model that is sweeping evangelical America.
I don’t agree with everything Jon said. He spoke and discussed with us for 90 minutes. A room full of Alpha Male church staffers.
I do agree with lots. But this is something that needs chewing and talking about. Out loud.
Talk…
Los
Technorati Tags: re:create
RAIN IT DOWN
take a look at Starfish and the Spider http://www.starfishandspider.com/preview/index.html
sounds like the same idea only shown in leadership as a whole and directed toward churches of the future
The Shaping Of Things To Come by Michael Frost and Alan Hirsch
this book is amazing. definitely worth the read. it will mess with your head, in a good way.
Sounds interesting and loaded with some slap you in the face truth.
I think there is a lot about it that I agree with. It is a lot of fundamental things I’m thinking about as we begin launching our own church and developing it’s ethos.
Would love to hear more.
The problem with alpha male leadership is that there is only One Alpha Male. If you’re the hero of the church…where does that leave Jesus?
two things:
1. some of this you cannot avoid; it’s just going to happen, be the communicator good or bad. there’s a connection people have with their pastor, whether they known him “in person” or just from the seat. and when he / she leaves, it’s like a divorce or sorts and the step-dad enters under great tension. churches are organic and communal – they are very personal in nature. so i don’t think there is anything you can actually do to ultimately solve the potential issue. you could have 6 amazing preachers rotating, but people are still going to gravitate to one of those. and when one or two of those leaves, there’s a certain segment that will disconnect as well.
2. solution: let the people go. the gospel is more important, not whether or not people stay and support the new guy. that’s actually “their” issue to deal with, not the new pastor. if they leave, they leave. the leadership of the church shouldn’t worry about that.
HMmm this dscussion leads me to beleive that church only happens in a building. On a Sunday. And that is where the problem lies. To leave the church up to whoever is teaching or leading on a given Sunday is silly and limiting. Yes that person has a giftedness that is helpful in teaching and leading the church. But church is so much more than Sunday
i would agree with him 100% having actually lived/living through a transitional period AFTER the resignation of our “alpha male” leader. the transition SUCKS because no one is him. no one speaks as well as him. and because of how the fall-out happened, no one trust anyone. we now have a totally different leadership dynamic. one that is really hard to get used to but one that i feel looks and feels a whole heck of a lot healthier than the dictatorship model we were coming from. it is the 5 pastoral leaders dynamic that he’s referring to. i never heard of this leadership style until we starting implementing it so to hear Jon having referred to it, is blowing my frickin’ mind right now.
my 2 cents.
interesting stuff. We have the “5 pastors with different gifts” model and it certainly has its challenges too. A leadership vacuum sometimes exists because there is no on to make the overruling decisions. Our senior leader can and will do that but not with the force and frequency of an Alpha-male leader.
Entirely too many American mega churches are built around a variation of either Alpha-male leadership or prosperity theology, and eventually that stuff crumbles.
Ahhh… Trying to be the church… Jesus couldn’t you have left us a simple set of rules and guidelines???
If you guys want to see what multiple head leadership looks like you can check out this church:
http://www.fellowshipmemphis.org
Fellowship Memphis started with a management team and has three pastors leading the church, all sharing the pulpit and dividing the traditional responsibilities.
The problem still comes to have to replace one of these 10′s one day though.
I think it’s going to be up to that particular body of believers. Instead of getting together and asking “What do we want to be?” We should asking, “What does God want us to be?” It’s His church, not ours. Let’s not try to make our church something it’s not, ask God to lead, guide, and direct you. Let Him make it what He wants to make it. If it’s a 5 person managment team….great. If it’s an alpha-male 10 leader….great. Faith and trust in God falls somewhere into place here. If alpha-male 10 leader leaves or God moves him; or if someone from given managment team with X gift leaves, don’t you think God is big enough to replace them with His chosen, X gifted man? I do. Complete trust in the Savior who started the church can certainly help us out today.
Where is Vernon Reid when you need him?
“It’s the cult of personality”
Unfortunately we can get caught in going to church and only being butts in seats. We have checked our brains at the door and forgotten the fact that we are all charged with going and reaching our world. We rely only on the preacher to do the preaching and feeling satisfied that God’s work is done for the week. If we are all leaders and are the hands and feet of Jesus, then a leadership change at the top is not that traumatic. It is hard to get your panties in a wad when you are hands are on the plow.
grace and peace, y’all.
This has been an issue sicne time began of course. Think about the Rome and Egyptian empires and Israel, and the problems they have after their great leaders go by-by. The only way around is to take the hits, the find someone with perserverence who is equally as talented in their own way. Think about it this way, Willow Creek would take a hit if Andy Stanley took over for Hybels, because they are different. but after a while, because of his talents, it would grow again, because they are different.
The problem is not in replacing this personality. The problem is church leaders not spending more time focusing on the presence of God. If your church recognizes the presence of God more clearly, they will not put so much stock in a person. Also, God is the master of replacing leaders. You’re going to run into problems whether you have one great leader or 10 great leaders if God is not the focal point.
The main flaw I see wrong in the alpha leader approach, is there’s a big danger in ego and power. There’s got to be some major accountability for it to work.
This is a really interesting discussion. Where is the right place to draw the line of being a strong leader and allowing others to shine to a point to where your not perceived as the Alpha male. Is perception of your congregation really the bottom line? Perception is reality right? What about when the perception stretches much further than your congregation? Andy seems to be very good at this at Northpoint from the outside looking in, is that true Los? On the other hand, Andy is such a influential leader to other leaders and a role model of a communicator, how could he not be seen as an Alpha male personality?
Wow, there are lot of elements at play here. So many things I agree with from the commenters. Especially from Derek. “If you’re the hero of the church…where does that leave Jesus?” Good stuff.
Leadership does matter. No doubt. It’s all over the Bible. Look at Moses. What happened when Moses died? Did Israel fall apart? Was another leader ready to step up?
we at qcc don’t have this one nailed, but i am continually grateful that our teaching is shared…and, not just shared, but one of our primary teaching pastors is female.
i know some would disagree, but i forever will hold that is how it should be: men AND women teaching the Word (and not women teaching only women or children).
i think it is hard to have more than the one stated “alpha male” leader. an orginization needs one person with one vision…so if a pastor/leader has the vision for the church and you have 5 others who have another vision it creates di-vision and the bible says that when there are 2 visions things die.
that is just my thought.
Consider video church. Video church is a papacy. A pope/alpha male leader often broadcasts himself to other “campuses” for one or more of these reasons:
1. He’s a control freak who doesn’t trust someone else to do the job as well as he does.
2. The church is built around him, his personality, his “greatness” and putting someone else out there on another campuses, someone thinks, will not draw people or move people the way him “being there” will…and that’s a bad thing.
3. He hasn’t made disciples. He’s got no one who thinks like him, works like him, believes like him to be him in the places he can’t be.
( Jesus left the planet with eleven replicas of himself – his theology, his methodology, his lifestyle. He gave them marching orders and they went out as little Christs – aka Christians. If Jesus were in ministry today would he instead put himself on DVD and hire community pastor Peter to press play?)
These are the three big reasons folks have given me for launching video church locations. It’s alpha male thinking at it’s worst.
Is there good use for video? Heck yes. Excellent use. Very true. But it’s also true that most video churches are run by guys who are not replicating themselves, like control and think they are the essential ingredient to “success.” That’s screwed up. It’s the worst of evangelical American churchdome exaggerated to the point of absurdity….often, but not always.
Good discussion, Los. Thanks for hosting it.
Wow…some very interesting discussion going on here! It appears you hit a button Los!
I can argue both sides of the argument. I agree completely that churches should not be “personality-driven” (reliant on the dynamic personality of it’s pastor). Like the speaker said, when this pastor leaves the church is left with shoes that need to be filled. And they can only be filled with someone of equal personality traits and charisma.
On the other hand I’ve heard someone say “anything with more than one head is a monster.” If you have multiple people who are all co-equals but no clear head where does the leadership and vision come from?
No answers here…just more questions and discussion.
Brad Ruggles
http://www.bradruggles.com
I don’t agree on the video campus comment. A great communicator is not the same as an Alpha Leader. Just because you’re sharing the leadership load/teaching load doesn’t mean that the teaching should suck or be average. I do agree in a more team based leadership. IMO Mountain Lake Church in Cumming, GA does a remarkable job at this and could be a case study in having a strong Lead Pastor who owns the vision but gives away a ton. Stevens Creek Church in Augusta, GA is another example of this. Great Lead Pastor…but shared leadership & teaching.
Also, you just can’t escape the fact that Alpha Males are Alpha Males for a reason: they aren’t afraid to lead & take a challenge. Both of those things are required to lead in the church world and/or plant churches.
I don’t know if there is a right or wrong on this…it just needs to be kept intentional and be talked about constantly.
Brad I don’t think the issue is having a “point” person (so to speak) be the head or in control…but rather giving others the opportunities to speak. I agree with most of what has been said here. It has to be a team effort, I think, even from the pulpit. The thing is that churches will reflect the personality of whoever is in charge or lead pastor. I think this is natural.
So I think the real question is how do we find balance in this? Obviously if there is a lead pastor he should be the head of the body (local church). But how do we balance speaking responsibilities between multiple staff?
Maybe the problem with the Alpha Male model is just that – It’s almost always MALE!
There are 1000′s of expamples (beyond Willow) of churches that have been blessed and limited by their dependence on a Single dynamic Leader.
While the conversation about a Balanced /Team leadership model is great, where is the conversation about Gender Balanced / Team Leadership approach.
Let’s not only break our dependence on Alpha Males, but while we’re at it, let’s base our dependence on exclusive Male Leadership in general.
Great dialogue Carlito – Not as interesting as the one about your vasectomy, but good none the less.
Great discussion!!! and I’m not sure I have any thoughts about it at all.
I do have a couple of other questions about Los’ statement.
Why would the Alpha male need to be replaced “when it is time”? What defines “when it is time”?
The reasons that Willow’s three amazing communicators leaving seems a bit shallow (because they aren’t Hybels) and doesn’t really reflect the character that I’ve experienced from Willow, albeit from the outside looking in.
I’ve been a part of a church where the only reasons that the alpha male left was disfunction, and was replaced from within. The replacement stepped down due to disfuntion in his own personal life. Both men were involved in “starting” this church.
This led to my original question. What are other reasons for alpha males leaving other than disfunction?
(sorry for the typo in first pass. i got all fired up)
Maybe the problem with the Alpha Male model is just that – It’s almost always MALE!
There are 1000’s of expamples (beyond Willow) of churches that have been blessed and limited by their dependence on a Single dynamic Leader.
While the conversation about a Balanced /Team leadership model is great, where is the conversation about Gender Balanced / Team Leadership approach.
Let’s not only break our dependence on Alpha Males, but while we’re at it, let’s BREAK our dependence on exclusive Male Leadership in general.
Great dialogue Carlito – Not as interesting as the one about your vasectomy, but good none the less.
I agree with Doug.
To try and conclude that those leaders left Willow because they couldn’t be Bill is speculative at best, shallow and divisive at worst.
It’s safe to say that there’s a whole lot more going on in the lives and character of Breux, Appel, and Frazee than them feeling inadequite to Hybels.
To assume that as primary motivation is to minimize the work of God in their lives.
Umm can we say People’s Church, Fresno CA…. Pastor GL Johnson! I agree I have seen several churches in Fresno build around a single pastor. It’s about God, not man!
We always called them the ‘Cult of Personality’ leader. We have a different set up, where as our visionary is not the lead pastor…it’s working.
amen, jarrett, to all you said!
even the vasectomy part…:)
agreed. it seems to me that there is a five-fold ministry in place and somehow we look to one man to fill all five roles in our lives. Jesus didn’t even build a mega-ministry. He dodged that kind of thing. It seems like it is just too much ‘power’ for one man. Just too much, no matter how spiritual. I don’t think that it is fair to that man. P. Ted is an example. Great man of God, but you know what, I think it was just too much for him . . .
I don’t think NP, BC, BR, are like that though. Yes, Andy is visual head. But if you’ve ever been to a service, or see how they minister, you can see the vision that is NP. They don’t focus on Andy, but they focus on their mission, which IS to lead people into a growing relationship with Jesus Christ, and that’s it.
I was not there to hear the talk, and so I’m making a massive assumption, but from what I could tell it is a very male-centric idea, and therefore missing half of the image of God. There is no need to go into a debate in this space, but it’s simply what I observed.
I don’t agree on the video campus comment. A great communicator is not the same as an Alpha Leader.
Kevin, I never said it was. I said it is true, in my experience visiting 100+ churches a year (most of them large), that video churches OFTEN are led by guys who are Alpha Male pastors. That’s not quite what you took away, so I apologize for the hasty posting and unclear communication.
Great discussion, guys. I’m seriously loving being provoked to think this through some more. Thanks for that.
I think our church experienced this when Ted Haggard fell. He was SO put on a pedestal in the church and had gradually placed himself in a position where nobody could challenge him or his decisions. Obviously when he fell the church didn’t have any legs to stand on. It was by the grace of God and some very faithful people that the church is healthy and growing today. We are so blessed now to have a leader who welcomes accountability and is in the process of setting up a leadership board according to biblical standards who will challenge him and uphold him.
great discussion.
So.
Where then, do you think the alpha male fits in the picture?
beatnik Says:
Where is Vernon Reid when you need him?
“It’s the cult of personality”
Vince Says:
We always called them the ‘Cult of Personality’ leader..
I could care less about this psyco-babble topic to take up Cenference time and money but I sure do dig the Living Colour is getting props in the comments.
Bottom line, everyone just needs to get over themselves and start living like Jesus said, serve each other, not be caught up in Alpha male crap, just love God and then love your neighbor as yourself and stop over analizing everything.
i would be curious to know if shaungroves has ever been a part of a video church, or if he has simply visited them. i happen to be a worship leader at a video campus of our church, and here’s the thing… yes, all of our campuses do see the same message via video each weekend, HOWEVER, this message is not always coming from our senior pastor (who is a fantastic leader, by the way). We have a team of pastors who are all gifted communicators who share the teaching responsibilities. The point of video campusing, at least in our case, is so our church is learning and growing TOGETHER, no matter what city we happen to be in, not so that one pastor gets to boost his ego by only allowing himself to teach. by video campusing, we’ve been able to reach over 10,000 people with the gospel each weekend, as opposed to the 3,000 or so we would be able to reach in one location. and isn’t reaching as many people for Jesus as possible really the reason we do what we do? be careful that you have adequate knowledge and experience in it before you knock it, man.
I personally drive over 104 miles per trip to go to church to watch my so called “alpha male pastor person”. if they did a “video church” next to me I’d support it too because while our Pastor tell us constantly that he doesnt want the church to be about him and he shares the teching responsibility with several other pastors I CHOOSE to be taught by him because there is “something” about his teaching that resonates with me (oh and about 90,000 people in our roster)… All that to say that sometimes is not the pastor but “us” the people who make the choice of wanting more of that style of teaching.
I love the video church mentality to give people a chance to get involved in their own communities in the church family theyre so passionate about. Right now my church is over 100 miles away and many of my friends dont understand my fire but if we had a video campus it would grant me the opportunity to do that. Thanks Carlos and everyone for the awesome discussion opportunity.
Los,
Concerning the Alpha male, he fits in the picture because God has not only called him personally, but given him a vision. If a body of believers is on board with that vision and want to be discipled by him, then you have a church with an Alpha male/Senior pastor/whatever you want to call him.
1. I agree with kacie (comment 2).
2. The very fact that Alphas exist (and sometimes they are female, not male) means that God has a purpose for them. I think part of the church’s current problem is that we have hinged so much of our forward movement and our structure on the Alpha that we are unbalanced and don’t know what to do without one. To me it’s a matter of balance rather than yes Alpha/no Alpha. I can’t tell you exactly where I think Alphas fit, because I think so much is in transition right now that we may have to wait and see. However, I fully understand why so many of us are re-thinking this issue.
@ ryan – I think shaun’s reference to “video venue churches” was that there are a LOT of them that use one MAIN preacher like 98% of the time are rarely share the pulpit. I don’t think he was saying that ALL are like this but lets be honest…some are. I think it’s great that your pastor shares the teaching load and if the other guys are great communicators then you guys are truly blessed. I would recommend to re-read shaun’s comment again and see if you read the same thing the second time around.
@ yeidy – I think you might be missing the point of the “alpha male” argument though. I see it this way. You can tell when someone is an alpha male when they start to micro-manage everything. Start showing up at everything and trying to run everything. They have an aura about them that screams, “I think I am better than you.” Now granted there are some really great communicators who are the most humble men and don’t necessarily fit the alpha male role but my question for them is, “What are you doing to train up other teachers who can effectively proclaim the word of God?”
Again I don’t think this thread is a knock on the video venue church. I think it is more about a type of personality and not about a certain method for getting God’s word out. It’s strictly personality NOT methodology.
i actually read shaun’s comment several times, and i took this away from it:
“These are the three big reasons folks have given me for launching video church locations. It’s alpha male thinking at it’s worst.”
“THE three big reasons.” i read this comment to mean that shaun beleives these are the only, or at least the main reasons for video churches. i simply wanted to dispel that thinking. i also found it hard to swallow that someone who mostly visits many churches a year feels they have enough information to geveralize based on those visits. i agree that ths thread is not a knock on venue churches. shaun’s post, i believe, however, was, and is continued as one at shaun’s blog.
i truly believe that this method has helped our church to grow together and to feel like one church, even as we are in different cities, and i think it has proven valuable to us to be able to feel like we all belong to the same body of believers.
i still leave with the thought, be careful what you knock until you have truly seen it at work, and not from a critic’s perspective, but with an open mind. honestly, is it really worth it to slam the methods of churches if people are being saved? don’t we have bigger things to worry about?
i think sometimes we get so caught up in wanting to bash anything that becomes “popular” or big, that we forget why we do what we do in the first place… let’s not forget the big picture (and i don’t mean the video screen).
(also, this post was not intended as an attack on shaun…i like your songs, man… but simply the attitude and thoughts behind the post.)
Maybe the fact that we’re asking how many staff members should lead a/the church shows that we’ve already gotten off-track.
Having actively served in ministry for almost 10 years now, and been some sort of staff for the last five, I must say that I think that both systems have flaws. I have certainly seen the downside to having alpha males in leadership who have gotten so used to doing things their way that they have lost the ability to decipher the difference between their way and the best way.
Multi-staff leadership teams, however, are a huge draw on resources. If you start a church with five pastoral staff members, assuming they earn the average of all the congregants’ salaries, you have to have 50 people before you break even in the budget. That’s assuming that all 50 are tithing a full 10% too, which may be a lofty assumption considering churches should be planted to reach those who are currently outside of the church culture and therefore haven’t adopted all of the traditional disciplines yet.
This is all assuming that you ONLY have to pay for five staff members too. There’s no accounting for administrative staff, facility purchase/rental, technical equipment, etc. It doesn’t take very long at all before you need over 100 people tithing just to break even.
Obviously, money isn’t what it is all about, but let’s assume that our hearts our where our treasure is. At what point do our collective church resources stop going to serve US and start defending the fatherless, feeding the hungry, comforting the harassed and helpless, etc.?
It’s easy to say that we need to change the model and pay more staff to lead us when we’ve been handed an affluent church by our predecessors, but Jesus started the church among people who had very little money to give.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m extremely thankful for my multi-staff position in ministry. But I think it’s time to admit that maybe we’ve got the model upside down.
Jesus (one guy) invested everything that he had in the disciples (12 guys + the others who aren’t named, the 70, etc.) so that they could go out and do his work, living his gospel. They (except Judas) invested in more people, who in turn invested in even more people.
Today, we ask a lot of people (dozens, hundreds, thousands) to invest only part of their resources in a few guys at “the top” (and whatever support staff/facilities/tools they need) to essentially do the majority of the work of spreading the gospel.
This is all not to mention that we’ve trended toward investing those few precious resources in the guys that can give us the “most bang for our buck” – polished communicators, near-rockstars, and wannabe CEOs. God used stutterers, adulterers, tax collecters, and rejects that no other rabbi wanted.
If we’re ever going to see and real change, maybe it’s time we flipped this thing on its head.
Thanks Los. Look forward to reading your thoughts after you’ve had some time to digest the talk.
by the way, to punch a hole in the argument about multi-campus pastors “not making disciples,” aren’t we supposed to be making disciples of jesus, not pastors?
This is such a thought provoking post. Thanks Los. I really like a church that calls pastors with different gifts. I think that is such a cool set-up.
Personally, churches where the pastor is promoted above the church itself scares me. I think its sets things up for failure if the pastor were to ever leave. I think this could be right in line with your discussion on the alpha male.
VERY good discussion.
WOW!
I thought I’d be the first to jump in with the whole starfish/spider thing, but Ryan be me to it.
This is an issue I’m struggling to understand/grasp.
I agree – I didn’t think Shaun was saying ALL video churches are bad/wrong.
I can’t wait to see the rest of this discussion.
@ ryan – true Jesus makes disciples…pastors are just a tool to help that happen. Still I would agree that the mark of a healthy church is whether or not they are producing disciples. I guess another way to look at it is if they aren’t producing disciples is Jesus really present in what they do?
chris, i believe you misread my comment. i was replying to the issue of pastors preaching via video because they’re not making disciples, ie: not reproducing mini versions of themselves.
my reply was that we are called to make disciples of jesus, not disciples of our pastor. to say that we are missing a calling to make disciples because we’re not creating clone pastors is a misuse of Jesus’ meaning of disciples. a pastor on a video screen can very well be fulfilling his calling to reproduce jesus in his congregation.
when jesus told his 11 guys to go and make disciples, he meant disciples of Him, not of those 11 guys. that’s what i meant. it was a response to the misuse of “disciples”, as jesus meant it.
What Raj said. I think it’s time we really take a step back and evaluate the effectiveness of using the top down model (single leader or team of leaders) to make disciples.
Ryan- man you’re right. My apologies. I guess that’s the result of trying to multi-task. That’s a great point you make.
I’ve got a close friend who attends The Great Communicator’s(yeah, I’m talking about AS) church only on Sunday. Only on Sunday because he likes the way HE presents the message. He lives to far away from the church to become more involved in this church so his church only happens on Sunday morning only while He is speaking. All other churches are off limits since no other preacher can compare to this communicator.
Is this Communicator not telling his people that being involved in a body is so much more than Sunday morn? Challenging them to become involved each week? Or is my friend just not listening, liking the fact that he lives to far from the church to become involved and liking the fact that the communicator is so great that no-one else could ever compares. What is liked more by my friend – the Great Communicator or the ability to never have to commit to a church?
man…. why did i start reading this before bed?
i’ve read about half the comments and i’m tired. so please forgive me if my thoughts overlap with someone else’s. i have to get this out of my head so i can sleep.
1. i think the rough concept of the alpha male is biblical. god typically chose an individual rather than a team of individuals to set the vision. honestly, i can’t think of any team or co-leaders in the bible. there were leaders with great leaders underneath them… but in the end there was one with the final word. someone please correct me if you can think of something.
2. i think a really good leader’s first instinct is to raise up and empower other leaders around him. it has been written in more than one leadership book that a true indicator of the strength of a leader is the strength of the leaders he draws along side of him. the goal of leadership is to reproduce. otherwise what’s the point except to take a huge ego trip? which is obviously not the goal for the church.
3. i don’t think any leader should be concerned with replacing apples with apples. the goal of leadership is not to produce clones of one’s self but to empower, guide and inspire other leaders to find their own voice.
4. good leaders are good vision casters. to be a good vision caster you can only have leaders on board who are in step with the vision. gifts, abilities, perspective, voice, personality can all enjoy a great deal of latitude as long as the leader is the leader and has set the vision.
5. even in the best case scenario with a leader raising up other leaders with clear vision…. change is never easy. 1 leader, 5 or 20. change is uncomfortable. and there is nothing quite as uncomfortable as changing leadership – no matter if it was for a good reason or not. but then again, sometimes god likes us to be uncomfortable.
there. it’s out of my head. i hope i can go to sleep now. this is a great discussion.
Mark Driscoll drives this point home all the time. After years of doing the Acts29 thing, he says that they have found that when it comes to a church’s health, the budget, staff, location, resources, etc don’t matter 1/10 as much as the man leading the whole thing. If he’s anointed, surrendered and on a mission, it’s probably going to work. If he isn’t, then it probably won’t.
nice thoughts, caroline.
Lots of thoughts and lots of opinions…good…bad…true…false. No matter how you see it…no matter how you DO it:
Let’s make it about the “GOD of MAN” and not the “MAN of GOD.”
From what I read in the New covenant. . . preach Christ, those who become believers meet every day and love on each other, teach each The Way, go out and preach Christ, bring in more. Acts 2:42 . . . GOD makes it simple, we make it complicated
I have to say that i was in that room… and it was one of the most refreshing conversations i have had about the future of the church.
He followed is point with the idea that “we are not called to change the world… but to create culture.” If we are creating a culture where the body of christ as a whole is taking ownership in the its movement… then i think we will nee a nautual culture shift away from the CEO driven Alpha male leadership modle.
Because then… people wont just go to church… they will be the church!
http://bobbytriplett.com
I think this is evidence of the fact that God is not limited to a single blueprint when accomplishing His purposes in the world. One model does not have to be wrong or obselete in order for another to be valid.
Good stuff.
Gene Strother
http://firstnetchurch.com
PS – I am linking to your blog in hopes that our members and site visitors will find you as engaging and interesting as I.
Wow, cool man, big thanks! http://pejhiqpoqkkywo.com
A lot of the comments revolve around larger churches where multiple staff and shared leadership is possible. But in many small churches the alpha leader almost becomes a necessity until and if additional leadership from inside our out can be added. In the small church a pastor really needs to focus on raising up and discipling leadership of qualified people so that he isn’t the only go-to guy. Having said that I also have to say that part of the problem is human nature. irrespective of how hard we may try certain people will gravitate to a particular pastor. The real test for the pastor is how he lets that affect his image of himself and his ministry. And lastly, there may be some situations in which the alpha leader/prophet may be necessary. I was just reading about Nehemiah’s difficulty in getting leaders to be leaders. Sometimes being a responsible leader is about as easy as nailing jello to the wall.
And I am not a rarity, it was common. ,