The observation has been made that pastors who need the most supervision get the least amount and pastors who need the least supervision receive the most. The observation had nothing to do with the abilities of the pastors. It dealt almost entirely with the size of the churches served by the pastors.
Pastors of megachurches generally receive the least supervision, according to this observation. Megachurches have multimillion-dollar budgets. They have several staff members. These churches function much like corporations with several divisions, with the pastors taking on the role of chief executive officer.
Pastors of such churches function with wide latitude for independent decision making. They set their own schedules. No one knows when the pastor arrives at the church or when he leaves. No one checks on how he spends his time. These pastors live among thousands of people, and no one monitors how they spend their time.
Pastors of megachurches usually control the staff. As vice presidents of a business serve at the pleasure of the president, so staff ministers serve at the pleasure of their senior pastors. Such churches often give the pastor the authority to bring his staff with him when called to a church. The word of the pastor is the final authority.
Megachurches are usually pastor-led, with the pastor often setting the direction of the church. As head of the staff, the pastor can announce a new emphasis for the congregation. Staff members immediately act to shape their work to support the pastor’s plans.
When the pastor and staff share the new emphasis with the congregation, members are ready to embrace it. Church members understand that the pastor is the leader of the church just as the president of the company for which they work is the leader at work.
Like corporations, mega churches have channels through which authority flows. But like businesses where the president usually gets what he wants, pastors of megachurches usually get what they think best for the church.
In megachurches, there is no one to supervise the pastor. Corporate boards are mostly drawn from persons whose vocation gives them the background to contribute as board members. Most are long serving. Many are paid. Church committees, even deacon groups are volunteers who rotate on and off of a committee. Their backgrounds may or may not equip them for the responsibilities of a particular assignment.
The bottom line is that pastors of megachurches receive the least amount of supervision even though they may oversee millions of dollars, supervise a sizable professional staff and touch the lives of untold numbers of people through their regular ministry. They have the widest amount of latitude when they may need the closest kind of supervision. Not all megachurch pastors resist supervision. It is just that Baptist churches are not structured to provide the kind of assistance and oversight needed.
Life is not the same in smaller membership churches. There every move of the pastor is scrutinized, not just by the personnel committee or the deacons but by everybody in the church and, frequently, the community.
In many small membership churches everybody knows when the pastor gets to the office. They know when he leaves. If he does not spend enough time in the office to meet the expectation of someone, he will hear about it. People in the church also know how the pastor spends his time. Did he visit enough? Did he study enough? Did he spend too much time at home? The pastor’s schedule often becomes everybody’s concern.
Smaller membership churches call all their ministers. By call, the churches mean the staff members work for the congregation, not the pastor. If disagreement arises between the pastor and a staff member, some committee attempts to mediate the difference. There is no idea at all that the staff member works for the pastor. The pastor might be allowed input on a staff member’s annual evaluation, but the personnel committee (or some other group) will make the final decision.
If the pastor wants to initiate a new program at a smaller membership church, it must be approved by many groups before being implemented by the deacons, the personnel committee, the finance committee, etc. Each discussion provides evaluation of the idea. Questions are asked about the projected outcomes, the cost, the staff time, the pastor’s involvement, the impact on other programs and how church members will react. Each question is legitimate. It is just that the approval process can become so tedious that enthusiasm for the new idea is lost.
Sometimes such churches are called committee-led churches or deacon-led churches. They certainly are not pastor-led churches. The pastor can easily become a hired servant where everybody is his supervisor, officially or unofficially. These pastors sometimes feel like the most supervised people on earth. They usually feel that they do not need all the supervision they receive.
Both models are fraught with danger. The CEO model lends itself to the worst forms of selfishness centered on the personality of the pastor. The leadership style can become “my way or the highway.” People can be mistreated. The CEO model can also be a lonely place for the pastor, and the expectations placed on the pastor can become unrealistic, either the congregation’s expectations or the pastor’s expectations of himself.
Often megachurch pastors form what politicians call a “kitchen cabinet,” an informal group of advisors, a group with which he shares his heart and his dreams. But a “kitchen cabinet” does not provide someone with which to share responsibility or provide established channels through which someone can hold the pastor accountable for his leadership.
The smaller membership church model can become so cumbersome that the pastor is unable to lead. That defeats the biblically based teaching of the pastor being the leader of the church. A leader is not a dictator. The biblical model of leadership is servanthood. It is called servant leadership.
Smaller membership churches may want to consider providing enough freedom for the pastor to be the leader of the church. He should be the leader of the staff. He should provide direction for the church. He should be the catalyst that enables the church to reach out to the world with the saving gospel of Jesus Christ through word and deed.
The pastor is still accountable, but not to everyone in the community for every word spoken or every action or how every minute is spent. Providing less supervision could result in a more effective ministry for the pastor and the church.
Share with others: