I saw this article the other day and I’m not completely unsympathetic to the concerns. However, I’m not completely convinced by the arguments either. So I thought it was worth saying something in defence of the executive pastor.
It’s worth saying two things up front. First of all, the term tends to refer to a member of a church staff team who takes responsibility for the more operational side of things, this will include administration, facilities, team rotas, finance and crucially HR and line management.
Secondly, whilst the type of role is becoming more common in the UK, the title is more of a US thing. You are more likely to see adverts for operations managers in the UK. They may or may not be seen as part of the pastoral leadership of the church.
This second point is important because I’m not too sure if the original article is about the type of job or the title. If the title, then sure use a different one if it doesn’t fit your polity.
However, I also would not get too hung up on the title. There are three reasons for this. First, we may be holding rather tightly to definitions of roles that don’t get much coverage in Scripture. This is true of “pastor” but also note that the concept of Deacon isn’t expanded on much in Scripture. That operational matters are for deacons is not a given.
Secondly, much of what is included within “operational” is really as much a part of the pastoral care of the church ensuring that the church family are looked after. This means that there is spiritual oversight. Indeed, whilst a church may have deacons caring for specific ministry areas in a church there will still be accountability to elders and often because he has the time for this, a paid pastor will carry the bulk of that load.
Thirdly. this means that an executive pastor is often taking pastoral responsibility for the main staff team and perhaps for lead volunteers. It is therefore in those cases more than an operational/administrative role.
Indeed, the crucial question is to do with how that person approaches the role. Are they solely managing areas of responsibility, thinking about laws, policies and risk assessments? If so perhaps it is best to stick with referring to them as an operations manager.
However, if you have someone who carries out this role by constantly seeking to apply God’s, word to those situations and if they would be recognised as an elder and share wider teaching and discipleship responsibilities then why not refer to them as an Executive Pastor?
In terms of the need, well I guess that depends on your polity and your expectations about church size. Sometimes suspicions about church staff roles comes with suspicion of the larger church. Personally I have no problem with some churches growing larger. I also think that as well as size, there is a complexity matter.
When I was in paid pastoral work we did not have an executive pastor/operations manager so in effect those responsibilities fell to me. I think we would have benefited from one given not just growing size but growing complexity, 4-5 congregations with different styles of meeting, ministries happening every day of the week and a community with highly complex pastoral needs meant that there was a workload that needed sharing.
You may not feel that such a told is needed at your church and you may not like the terminology but I can’t help thinking that this is more about context and personal preference. So don’t have it at your church but don’t judge those who do.
Faithroots 