The Senior Pastor - arguments from pragmatism

After a little pause in this series, do to some changes in our lives, I will continue our pursuit to find arguments for the necessity of a senior pastor. Having exhausted the possible Biblical justifications for the necessity of a senior pastor, and having not seen much convincing evidence in some examples of Jewish tradition or in some of the church fathers, we will now analyze some common justifications for such an office in the local church. Often the following line of reasoning is used to justify such an office: with a plurality of pastors, there is a need for a head, someone who will set a vision, [1] and someone who can decide in case of division. Akin notes that Adrian Rogers

states with his characteristic wit, "Anything without a head is dead. Anything with several heads is a freak." That is simply a colorful way of recognizing the fact that someone has to lead. Though many may give counsel, provide input, and share wisdom, there nevertheless must be a leader out front leading the way. [2]

Also some argue, as Patterson stated, that a single leader is what one would expect from human social order. [3] F. F. Bruce argues it in the following way:

Committee rule in general is weak unless there is a strong chairman. Quite often the strongest personality will become chairman in any case, and spiritual strength need not be excluded from his qualities. In practice such a man will become primus inter pares, and once his position is accepted and perpetuated, before long he will be regarded, in theory as well as in practice, as primus pure and simple. [4]

While these arguments make good logical sense, are they necessary? Historically, this has not always been the case, even in Baptist life. It is very telling that Dargan, in the late nineteenth century, considered churches having 'one pastor' to be a modern (late 19^th century) custom.[5] As a matter of fact, elders (plural) could "be found in Baptist churches in America throughout the 18^th century and into the 19^th century,"[6] and even in the 17^th century.[7] While there is some disagreement about the historical normality of this plurality in Baptist life,[8] it did exist, and as Akin adds, some "also believed that all elders were equal in office but different in duties; they were equal in rank but different in service."[9] Waldron states that "the majority of the Particular Baptists were committed to a plurality and parity of elders in their churches."[10] One could conjecture that these movements, which were known for their desire to follow sola scriptura, put away the traditions inherited from the writings of people like Ignatius, and while seeking Scripture and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, developed these nontraditional patterns. So what happened to make things change in the subsequent years? Hammett points to a transition possibly due to the outstripping of qualified men due to the rapid growth of Baptist churches in the early nineteenth century.[11] It is possible to envision that this temporary situation probably would not have lasted. Had it not been for modernity, with time, local congregations might have reverted to the plurality of elders that was common in the early nineteenth century. Unfortunately, as Hammett purports, in the twentieth century "the business model entered Baptist life and perhaps conditioned people toward adoption of the single pastor, patterned after the chief executive officer of the business world."[12] Anyhow, whether new or old, this pragmatic 'need for a head' seems to miss the point that Scripture states that Christ, not a human senior pastor, is the head of the church.[13] Even someone like Jalland, who would argue for a monepiscopacy, is quick to admit that "… [Jesus] alone is the true 'plenipotentiary' of God."[14] If, in addition, one also realizes that God is one and has one will, it only makes sense to envision that if all the pastors are filled with the Holy Spirit, they will be of one accord, for the Holy Spirit within them is not divided, and there will be no pragmatic need for a human senior pastor to make the final decision. To use the same metaphor used by Adrian Rogers, can we say that since Jesus Christ is the head of the church, anything with another head (viz. a senior pastor) is a freak? Ultimately we have to ask ourselves if human pragmatism is the best option in the Church of Jesus Christ; after all we are told to "lean not on our own understanding."[15]

Before summing up this series, we will look at a few final considerations about the first among equal view and the forth view presented in the introduction to this series. In the meantime, are there any other pragmatic reasons you can think of to justify a human senior pastor? Do you think that they are valid?

---

[1] This line of thinking has been strengthened recently by the publishing of church growth literature which points to the need for a strong single pastor. Grudem does a good job of refuting the literature on three separate issues and notes that Wagner himself admits that a model more like the first among equals view presented in this paper would have the same results (Grudem, 929-31).

[2] Akin, 72. One could argue, that since Scripture states that Christ is the head of the church, any other head, as a senior pastor is sometimes called, would make the church a freak, to use Rogers' terminology.

[3] Patterson, “Single-Elder,” 152.

[4] F. F. Bruce, The Spreading Flame (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1961), 206; quoted in Samuel E. Waldron, “Plural-Elder Congregationalism,” in Who Runs the Church?, gen. ed. Steve B. Cowan (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004), 197.

[5] Dargan, 186.

[6] Dever, 20.

[7] Waldron, 200-1.

[8] Paige Patterson, "A Single-Elder," 240-1.

[9] Akin, 57.

[10] Waldron, 201.

[11] Hammett, 179.

[12] Ibid., 180. Hammett’s comment does not necessarily mean that the proponents of the first two views are also proponents of a CEO model. Akin clearly states that this is not the case (Akin, 69). What could be gleaned by the facts is that the drive for a senior pastor at that time in history might have been culturally motivated and therefore might not be a tradition that Baptists should hold on to.

[13] Eph 1:22; 4:15; 5:23; Col 1:18; 2:19.

[14] Jalland, 93.

[15] Prov. 3:5.