I love the church.

Or, at least I love the idea of church. A gathering of like-minded individuals joining together in worship is a good thing whenever it takes place.

But I really struggle with how we do church in America. I am struggling to the point of being nearly overwhelmed with the banality of much of what passes for a “vision” or strategy for the church. We have bought into the idea that church needs to compete for people’s attention by being louder and flashier. We have resigned ourselves to competing with cultural norms on their terms. Personally, I don’t think this is a good long term strategy.

I also struggle with the model that many churches have embraced, that of the “pastor as CEO.” Every personal experience I have had with the “pastor as CEO” model has been a train wreck. Every one, no exceptions.

Why is this so? It is so because the “CEO” can willfully ignore anyone who does not agree with any part of his vision. Since the “CEO” functions as if he is at the top of the organizational structure, he feels right in valuing his own opinion above that of others.

No-where in the New Testament does Paul or any of the other writers propose such a scheme. When I look at the instructions that Paul gave Timothy, I see nothing about an individual pastor developing a vision and hiring minions to implement that plan.

Within this model, the pastor is sometimes referred to as the “chief vision caster.” The pastor feels he has been given authority to implement his vision for how that local church body should function.

The “pastor as CEO” or “pastor as vision caster” models are copies of the structures of American corporations. In a publicly traded company, the CEO is hired to implement his strategy to accomplish the goals set for him by the board. He is authorized to do whatever is necessary to reach those goals.

But this is not the way the New Testament presents the pastor’s role. The pastor is one of the elders who are to lead the church. The elders are called as a group to seek God as to the vision for the local congregation.

Jesus himself claimed the authority and responsibility to build the church. Since it is Jesus’ responsibility, can we trust that He will arrange for the right men to be in place to serve as elders to rule the church?

The beauty of having a plurality of elders is that it minimizes the negative impact resulting from the blind spots of any one elder. Scripture teaches us that as a result of the fall, not only do we have blind spots, but we are willfully ignorant of our own sin. This is why the Apostle Paul tells us in Romans 12:1-2 that we need to be transformed in our thinking. The verb is a command, so becoming transformed is our duty.

When I served as an elder, I learned that I need other elders to provide guidance in the areas that I am weak or blind. If the whole vision depends solely on what I bring to the table, we are all in trouble. My pride and foolishness often get in the way of making sound decisions. This is why I need others.

How many moral, ethical or pastoral failures do we need to witness before we are willing to admit that copying the organizational architecture of an American corporation is not a good plan for the church?

I think that we would do well to remember that Jesus had to tell Peter, “Get behind me, Satan” at one point. In that encounter, Peter learned that his “vision” for how Jesus should go about building the church was at cross-purposes with Jesus’ vision. Peter needed correction.

If the Disciples needed frequent correction, how can we think that we do not share this need? How dare one of us step up and put himself above his brothers as if he is not also in need of frequent correction?

Yet, I have seen pastors demand that their vision be implemented without comment or amendment. I have seen pastors set themselves above their peers (fellow elders) and petulantly threaten to leave if they don’t get their way.

I really believe that these pastors think they are doing good, and my desire to think well of them caused me to be slow to learn this lesson.

But, after learning this lesson, if I ever again hear the term “vision caster” used in reference to a pastor, I will run out of that church as fast as if the entire building was on fire.

The prophet Jeremiah was called by God to provide object lessons to the Nation of Israel to confront them on their rebellion. In Chapter 27 of the book that bears his name, we find that Jeremiah was to make a wooden yoke and put it around his neck as a symbol of the upcoming servitude of Israel to Nebuchadnezzar and Babylon.

In Chapter 28 we read that one of the false prophets, Hananiah, took the yoke off Jeremiah, broke it, and proclaimed that Israel would not be conquered by Babylon and would not go into exile.

Here is the exchange between Jeremiah and Hananiah:

“Sometime after the prophet Hananiah had broken the yoke-bars from off the neck of Jeremiah the prophet, the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah: “Go, tell Hananiah, ‘Thus says the LORD: You have broken wooden bars, but you have made in their place bars of iron.”

(Jeremiah 28:12–13, ESV)

What a fitting metaphor for western society at present.

We have thrown off traditional norms that resulted from a Judeo/Christian world view. The established boundaries of marriage and family have been declared to be too restrictive. We have elevated personal freedom as a priority over responsibility to others, the most extreme example of this being the acceptance of abortion as a normal means of improving the quality of life.

But are we any happier as a society? Have the new-found freedoms brought personal peace? Based on the angry rhetoric from those who most loudly proclaim freedom from limits, I struggle to see that we are indeed happier.

Perhaps we have exchanged what has been perceived as a yoke and exchanged it for a collar of iron.

What do you think? I’d love to have you express your thoughts in the comment form below.

In the last few weeks, I heard news stories indicating that two well known and highly visible Christian figures have announced that they have in some measure walked away from their faith in Christ.

That anyone would walk away saddens me and has caused me to think about a proper response. For what it’s worth, my train of thought is outlined below.

These defections highlight the need for the church to be honest and open about the difficulties in applying Scripture to the world around us. There are things that we struggle to understand. But, in some segments of the church, raising honest and valid questions is discouraged.

Two categories of such questions come to mind.

The first category contains questions that are inherently difficult because we are finite creatures trying to comprehend the infinite. The question, “how can a loving and all powerful God allow evil in the world?” is a question that falls into this category. The question can be answered, but not simply. And we need to acknowledge the difficulties surrounding it. The questions in this category are difficult because the answers are nuanced and hard to understand.

The second category of questions are those that are difficult because they are counter cultural and offend our sensibilities. An example of a question in this category could be, “How can we accept Biblical teaching on marriage and the family in light of the way western culture is moving?” This question is not difficult because what the Bible says is hard to understand, it is difficult because it is hard to accept.

It should not surprise us that prominent people struggle in their faith. And in our everything-in-the-open social media culture, word gets out very quickly when popular people announce their struggles.

So how should the church respond to those who walk, or are walking, away?

First, keep in mind that the story is not over. Looking at many of the heroes of the Bible, we might question their hero status based on a snapshot taken during one of their periods of failure. God has not stopped working and prodigals are welcome to return.

Second, in light of the potential return of the prodigal, it would be wise to continue praying for those who seem to have walked, or are walking, away.

Third, Jesus warned us that there would be tares among the wheat so we should not be surprised if some (even in leadership) declare themselves to no longer orthodox in their belief.

I mention the third thought reluctantly because too often someone who expresses doubt is written off as not ever having been in the faith. Caution is required because only God and the person know if he is in the faith.

Honesty demands that we admit our struggles to work out our own faith. Real faith is at times a gritty mess and we all face difficulties in our beliefs. My experience is that God remains faithful even when we are faithless, as Paul tells us in 2 Timothy 2:13.

Feeling doubt and even expressing doubt does not automatically disqualify someone from being relationship with God. If it did, the number of believers would be really, really small.

What do you think? I’d love to have you express your thoughts in the comment form below.