guest post #3–a baseball leadership model

A few weeks ago I opened up the blog to guest posts because I knew there were people out there with insights I wasn’t smart enough to think of myself.

Then people began emailing me with ideas and I thought, “Publishing this will confirm that I was not smart enough to think of this myself.”


But in the spirit of humbly taking one for the team I bring you this latest guest post, which also talks about teamwork. Matt Johnson, the author, knows whereof he speaks; he’s the senior minister at Levittown (PA) Christian Church near Philadelphia.

What do you think—are there weaknesses in our church leadership structures? What’s mandatory and what’s optional? Why have we defaulted to the current system?

Share your thoughts. Because I’ll say one thing for guest posts—someone else has to respond to the comments.

———————————————————————————————————

“I don’t like organized religion.” Every few months I run into someone honest and bold enough to say this to my face. “Great,” I respond with a wry smile, “we’re not that organized.”

How about your church? How organized is it? Perhaps a better question: how is it organized? Chances are you either have a CEO or Commander-In-Chief at the top of the flow chart. The Christian churches/churches of Christ are largely the product of frontier America, rugged individualism, and enlightenment thinking, so it’s no surprise that the organizational structures of our long-established churches suspiciously resemble the American government.

“No, no,” you say, “we have elders and deacons, just like the Bible says. Right?” Right. Reality check—we vote a senior minister (president) into office. We elect elders (senators), deacons (representatives), and have board meetings that resemble a joint session of Congress (and are often just as productive).

In many churches we have even initiated term limits for our representatives. Elections and term limits—not sure where to find those in Acts. Matthias was chosen by lot, not ballot.


A more recent development is the emergence of a CEO. Many churches have pragmatically chosen an organizational structure based on a business model. These churches head hunt for the right senior pastor (chief executive officer), hire support staff (vice presidents), and often have outside supervision (board of directors). This business model mentality in the church is why Thom Rainer could make bank by repackaging Jim Collins’ modern business classic Good to Great by researching congregations and calling it Breakout Churches.

Now before anyone gets defensive and holds a committee meeting to condemn this post, let me say I think the New Testament focuses more on principles of leadership than prescribed organizational structure. I am by no means a purist in this area (which will become evident momentarily), and I believe the scriptures are designed to allow flexibility in these matters.

To use a 200-year-old phrase, our organizational structures are man-made innovations. I’m okay with that, as long as we admit it. But I think we have to ask some questions.


First, are our models working? We must admit our current models place a lot of responsibility and authority on one person. In some ways it is an ancient throwback to the days of the mono-episcopate, which was instituted to expedite decisions in times of persecution and instances of heresy. Today some people still see the advantage of one man charting the direction of a church. Others see the dangers. (Insert praise or horror story of a megachurch pastor here.)

Second question: is there a a better way? Maybe. Let me suggest one I’d like to try—the sports model. (I think of it in baseball terms, but you could go with another sport.)


The baseball model would require something distinct from other models—a manager. This person would be responsible not for preaching or teaching, but for calling the shots on the field so that people who are strong in different skills could each perform at their best.

Since I already oversimplified other organizational models, allow me to oversimplify this one. Each church would have one manager (I don’t have a Christianized name for this), pitchers (preaching staff), position players (specialized ministers/deacons) and owners (elders). Additionally, various coaches (mentors) could be brought in from the outside to sharpen the team.


And there is the word—team. This model is truly rooted in a team approach. It does not rely on one person to pitch, hit, manage and take ownership of the team while others take advisory and supplementary roles. It recognizes the diversity of gifts in the church and allows people to serve where they are talented.

This approach could find a nice balance between the value of a manager’s experience and maturity and the benefits of younger staff with fresh talent and energy. It could place the elders in the role of broad-minded vision casters instead of micromanagers. It could allow more members to take their turn on the field and spend less time on the bench (or in the stands).

I’m sure this model has drawbacks. Admittedly, it is radically different from any other model I’ve heard of. It is an innovation (as is any other organizational model), but perhaps one worth exploring.

 

So what about it? Any “pastor emeritus” types want to move to the suburbs of Philly and get back in the game? Until then, please excuse me—I have to attend a meeting with my board…….