A Shepherd, Not a CEO...

"Christianity started out in Palestine as a fellowship; it moved to Greece and became a philosophy; it moved to Italy and became an institution; it moved to Europe and became a culture; it came to America and became an enterprise." (Sam Pascoe)

The Good Shepherd

In John Chapter, 10 Jesus tells his disciples that “11 The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. 12 He who is a hired hand and not a shepherd, who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. 13 He flees because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep.” By making this statement, along with the use of the word Pastor (or shepherd) in the New Testament, Jesus established a lasting metaphorical example that church leaders have sought to imitate throughout church history.

As a result, for many Christians, the ideal church leader is a mature, kindly person who preaches the Bible, visits sick members, performs marriages and funerals and oversees the administrative functions of the church. Above all though, the shepherd is a person who lays down his life for the sheep. Where Jesus literally allowed himself to be crucified to pay for our sins, the good shepherd puts providing spiritual care for his members above his own needs and desires. The good shepherd (pastor) does not a minister out of self-seeking motives; he ministers out of love and obedience to Christ and devotion to His Church. While no one fulfills this ideal perfectly, it still serves as a lasting emblem of Christlike service.

In the 21st century North American Church, however, the role that church leaders more commonly aspire to is that of a corporate CEO. In a Leadership Journal Article, Kevin Miller (executive vice president for Leadership magazine) asked: “Are we Christians in North America overemphasizing the need for leadership in the church? …By overemphasizing skills, we may underemphasize character. We shouldn’t be surprised, then, when we find giant leaders with midget souls…Our near obsession with leadership, I suspect, stems as much from our culture as from Scripture.”

Out of the Overflow of the Heart, the Mouth Speaks

The CEO Model leader places little emphasis on caring for the needs of the sheep and living a sacrificial life; he is more focused on organizing and mobilizing his followers (and their finances) to pursue the vision of an institutional mega-church, complete with book deals, a media empire, an executive salary and all the perks that a corporate CEO would expect. Many of these CEO’s are masters of positioning themselves to appear as though they are down-to-earth pastors whose churches just happen to be attended by thousands of members.  Occasionally though, the true attitudes of some of the most influential pastors in America are revealed. Consider the following:

1. When Harvest Bible Chapel’s Pastor James McDonald was asked by his board members to reveal his salary, he responded to them that he “would lose 1,000 people before I would disclose that.” 
2. New Life pastor Perry Noble made the following comment about church members who want to have personal attention from a pastor: “We have people come to this church going, ‘I want a church where I can know the pastor. I could never go to a church where I can’t know the pastor.’ You need to leave. I don’t have the time…I won’t sacrifice my family on the ministry altar so I can come eat food that I don’t like and I can hang out with people that make me uncomfortable.” He made some additional comments along the same lines and then stated to those who offered criticism of his approach: “Here’s the problem: you think I care… You don’t understand how little I care.” 
3. During a leadership training session, disgraced Mars Hill Pastor Mark Driscoll (in)famously described how he deals with members of his church that don’t agree with his decisions by explaining that: “‘There is a pile of dead bodies behind the Mars Hill bus, and by God’s grace, it’ll be a mountain by the time we’re done. You either get on the bus or you get run over by the bus. Those are the options. But the bus ain’t going to stop!’” 

These kind of statements stand in stark contrast to the words of Jesus as he described the qualities of the Good Shepherd. Jesus said that the Good Shepherd cares for the sheep because he owns the sheep, but the hired hand cares nothing for the sheep. Perry Noble made it clear to the members of his church that they “don’t understand how little I care”. Jesus said that a shepherd who owns 100 sheep would leave 99 to go and seek for a single lost sheep. James McDonald said he would rather lose 1,000 members than reveal his salary. David describes the care that a shepherd provides for a sheep in the 23rd Psalm when he stated that the shepherds rod and staff protected him. Mark Driscoll bragged about the pile of bodies run over by the Mars Hill bus. It is not possible to reconcile the attitude behind those kinds of comments with the self-sacrificing care and love of Jesus for his church.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Some have explicitly made the case that the comparison between a pastor and a shepherd is not valid for the 21st century church. Mega-church pastor Andy Stanley was asked if “we should stop talking about pastors as “shepherds”. His answer? “Absolutely. That word needs to go away. Jesus talked about shepherds because there was one over there in a pasture he could point to. But to bring in that imagery today and say, “Pastor, you’re the shepherd of the flock,” no. I’ve never seen a flock. I’ve never spent five minutes with a shepherd. It was culturally relevant in the time of Jesus, but it’s not culturally relevant anymore.”

While the word shepherd may not be as culturally significant in 21st century North America as when Jesus used it, Stanley’s seems to be missing Christ's point. He and many contemporary church leaders don’t just want to stop using the metaphor: they want to reject altogether their obligation to fulfill the Biblical qualities of a shepherd. If Jesus were to offer us a parable today in place of the good shepherd, he might use a different word, but it is difficult to believe it would be CEO.

For instance, in 2 Timothy 2:24-25 and in Titus 1:7-8, Paul describe the qualities of spiritual leaders, including that leaders be humble, patient and gentle with opponents, hospitable and not greedy for gain(money). How does the image of a CEO fit with those qualities? Do the comments made by Driscoll, Noble and McDonald reflect the attitude that Paul described? Does McDonald sound greedy when he refuses to disclose his salary? Does Noble sound hospitable when he complains he doesn’t want to eat his members’ food and spend time with them because it would make him feel uncomfortable? Does Driscoll sound gentle and patient with those who oppose him when he brags about running a bus over a pile of people?

Would you want to be one of those people that McDonald would rather lose?  That Driscoll wants to run over with the church bus?  That Noble doesn't want to spend time with?

We need to start asking ourselves: do we want a shepherd, or a CEO?

Is Mars Hill Dissolving or Positioning Itself for the Return of Mark Driscoll?

Who Owns This Place:

In the last few days, the leadership of Mars Hill Church has announced that Mars Hill will be dissolved as a central institution with satellite campuses receiving a video feed of teaching from a lead pastor. They have determined that the individual satellite campuses will decide whether or not they wish to continue to exist as independent churches, and if so, they will have to assume the facility mortgage in order to retain ownership of their building, and will not be allowed to use the Mars Hill name.
This brings up some very serious questions about the future of the Mars Hill “brand” and how future ministry activities by Mark Driscoll and the current executive elders/BOAA may affect the future satellite churches. Keep in mind that according to public announcements, there appears to be a conflict between the conclusions of the Board of Elders and the Board of Advice and Accountability regarding Mark Driscoll’s fitness for ongoing ministry. It is not hard to imagine a scenario where pro-Driscoll leaders make the decision to dissolve Mars Hill as it currently exists to accomplish the following:

1. Shed millions of dollars of debt and payroll obligations that current giving levels cannot sustain.
   
2. Remove individuals who want to hold Driscoll accountable for his behavior from positions of authority and influence in the organization
   
3. Retain ownership of the Mars Hill media library and name for future use.

Mars Hill 2.0?

Then, come January 2015 (or whatever future date Driscoll decides is an appropriate time for appearances sake), Driscoll and those leaders who are loyal to him can launch Mars Hill 2.0 somewhere in the Pacific Northwest or Southern California. It is not unrealistic to expect that if Mark Driscoll were to launch a new church (or take on of the satellites over) in the near future that he would have in excess of 1,000 members at the first meeting.

Dave Bruskas has been named the "interim lead pastor" of Mars Hill Bellevue and Matt Rogers is part of the leadership team at that satellite.  Both have been fiercely loyal to Mark driscoll. Is it too far-fetched to assume that the permanent pastor of the Bellevue church will be Mark Driscoll?

Can the executive leadership of Mars Hill be trusted?

If I were a member of Mars Hill Church, I would be asking the following the following questions:

1. What authority do the current leaders have to make this decision? The Executive Elder Board was made up of Mark Driscoll, Dave Bruskas and Sutton Turner. With Driscoll and Turner gone, how is Bruskas authorized to make this decision? If he is not making it alone, who is, and are they authorized by the church constitution and bylaws to do so? Shouldn’t an executive board be created out of a group of people who have demonstrated the ability to make decisions based on what is best for the entire membership of Mars Hill? Can the current leadership that has made this decision (even if it wasn’t made by Bruskas alone) be trusted to take the best interest of Mars Hill church as a whole into account?
   
2. Who owns the name Mars Hill? If the satellite churches are not going to be allowed to use the name (and who has made that decision, btw), who will be allowed to use it? Is the name going to be used by any other person, group, or entity that may be able to capitalize off the “brand” in a way that may be detrimental to the satellite churches by drawing supporters that would otherwise be a part of the satellites? What effort will be made to prevent Mark Driscoll from starting a new church named Mars Hill?
   
3. What restrictions have been placed on Mark Driscoll from competing with or taking over one of the satellite churches? In the past, Mars Hill forced outgoing elders to sign non-compete clauses that prevented them from taking ministry positions in the region around Mars Hill campuses in order to receive severance pay. According to reports, Driscoll will receive a very generous severance package that provides him with a year’s full pay and benefits. Will he be similarly prevented from taking a ministry position or starting a church that can conceivably draw people who would otherwise support the satellite churches? If not, why not?
   

4. While the idea of non-compete clauses may seem distasteful to many Christians, the reality is that they prevent individuals who harbor a grudge or possess a hidden agenda from creating the division and strife in the church that naturally occurs when a trusted and beloved former leader becomes involved in another church in close proximity to the original location. The satellite churches stand to suffer tangible harm in loss of recognition, membership and financial support if Driscoll is allowed to start up a new ministry (especially with the name Mars Hill) anywhere in the general region of the satellite churches.
5. Who is making the decision that the current campus pastors and elder leaders will continue to lead the satellite churches? A few weeks ago, nine elders of the church stood up and demanded accountability in the church for the dishonest and abusive actions of Mark Driscoll and the executive elders. Are those who were carrying out the dishonesty and spin being allowed to continue to serve in elder leadership at Mars Hill? Shouldn’t the members start to have SOME say in how the satellite churches will be led, and by whom?
   
6. What is Mars Hill’s current relationship to Mark Driscoll and specifically, how is the current leadership of Mars Hill handling the issue of his refusal to submit to a plan of restoration outlined by the elders? If he were a member or staff member of the church who was “under church discipline”, he would not be allowed to simply resign his membership and move on to his next church/ministry position. Rather, Mars Hill would not allow him to simply leave in peace. Similar to the issue of non-compete clauses, this may seem distasteful to some Christians, but Driscoll’s issues are ongoing and public. What steps are going to be taken to compel him to repent and seek reconciliation?
   

The scandals at Mars Hill have been a slow motion train-wreck for the last two years. In that time, the leadership of Mars Hill and Mark Driscoll have proven that they simply cannot be trusted to be honest, forthright and transparent in their dealings with the members of Mars Hill and the public. Trusting that any decision being that is made is actually in the interests of the church members without consideration of the leaders self-interest is not naïve, it’s delusional.

Sam Smith