Is Andy saying that a team leadership approach would be bad or less effective? Church leadership is a funny thing, because it has so much baggage attached to it. Not to mention the many ridiculous unwritten expectations put on "the leader". I just find the team approach much more refreshing and effective.

Shannon:
I don’t want to put words in Andy’s mouth, but I would say that any organization functions best with a point leader in place. Even teams have leaders—someone to hold the group accountable. “Leaderless” organizations have leaders. Church-wise, the idea of a point leader is biblically sound. An expectation that that leader can do it all though, is silly. Any leader would be wise to surround themselves with a team or teams of leaders to aid them. The first century church had many fine leaders with different gifts doing different jobs, but they all served under a structure with James at the helm in Jerusalem. No one person can do it all, but one person should be accountable and be someone to be accountable to.

Leadership is not an issue that we will ever solve. It is a process; something we are continually growing in. The next generation will have to learn and go through the process themselves as we are. They can, of course, learn from our good examples as we can also benefit from the good examples of those who have gone before us.

I think that even with team leadership you still have to have someone that is the point person. I don't remember which book it was in but Andy spoke about listening to the elders in his church when he wanted to go in a different direction with a Baptismal and how in the end he was wrong.

I don't have any first hand experience but from reading it appears that Andy is a good model of being a point person with a great team.

Several years ago I read Andy’s book Visioneering, which I immensely enjoyed. Regarding the issue of a pastor being a point-man, I think it would be wise to examine the context, and the pastor themselves. Firstly, in Andy’s current situation, it seems advantageous for him—and the church—to be the point-man due to the size of the church itself that he leads.

Secondly, he mentions the gift of leadership, which is obvious that he possesses due to the fruit that we have seen in his life and ministry. Yet, this can’t be said of all pastors. Some—although they bear the title of pastor—do not necessarily have the gift of leadership. It doesn’t mean that they aren’t effective as a pastor; it means that they might not be suited to being a point-man of a church, especially a large one. I would also venture to postulate that many of the responsibilities and expectations that we bestow upon our pastors aren’t necessarily congruent with the biblical calling and gifting of a true pastor. The pastor exemplifies the heart of a true shepherd—and the last time I checked, Psalm 23 highlights the function of a shepherd, and not a CEO!

Yes, in many ways the American pastoral function has morphed—or some may prefer to say warped—into a CEO functionality. Possibly we need to reexamine biblical models of leadership in the American church and abroad by exploring more the functions of an apostolic leader.

As a Polar expedition leader I have always been an advocate of Team Leadership. Having organised and led over 20 major polar expeditions I have found that by adopting this approach allows the formal leader the space to keep the 'bigger picture' in mind. By decentralising control of day-to-day tasks it gives the 'team' freedom of action to use initiative to achieving the goal. There are certainly many very succesful global organisations that work of this approach to great effect, and certainly for me it has underpinned many of my polar records.

Team Leadership sound like a plan, Christ led a tight team and he rocked at it!!
I guess what's always frightening in that environment is when the leader has only 1 or 2 people to be accountable for instead of the "committee" speaking on behalf of the people approach, I'm still trying to learn that process..

Our small group is studying "The Principle of the Path." I would like to know if you have a reference for you statement in Chapter 7, page 107 "...it's against the law to kill the king."
I don't disagree, I just would like a point of reference! Thanks.

"Follow me. Follow we never works." That really makes a lot of sense. I believe that God has gifted our leaders. We need the body, but there always has to be a head. And that head is our pastor!

I'm very skeptical of using "CEO" as an illustration for pastoring. "CEO" is an odd position that is distinctly tied to the modern idea of a "corporation". The Church existed long before them and will exist long after.

You will find that the most beloved CEO's out there actually follow the shepherding model. So why not follow what they follow, and just skip this "CEO" model? I have worked many years in the retail industry and want NOTHING to do with a "CEO" model of ministry.

Our churches do not need anymore CEOs in charge. We need shepherds. A CEO fires employees who don't show up for work. A shepherd goes looking for the lost sheep. A CEO finds employees who are frequently sick to be a financial burden. A shepherd sees a sick sheep as a chance to heal. A CEO will lay off people they think are unnecessary. A shepherd sees the beauty and value in every sheep. A CEO is sees financial gain as a sign of health. A shepherd sees healthy sheep as a sign of health.

"CEO" is an illustration that's just tied too tightly to a 20/21st century phenomena that will not stand the test of time. "Shepherd" has stood the test of time, is distinctly biblical, has an enormous attestation from Church history, and simply shows a more loving example to follow. The bottom line for a CEO is the quarterly earnings. The bottom line for a shepherd is picking up his cross and following Christ. "CEO" is a bad illustration and an insufficient model.
The thought of having a "CEO" pastor me---given my experience of having to work under their oversight-- nauseates me. No thank you.