Traveling overseas is always an adventure, one that I love to hate. I must be a bit schizophrenic since part of my personality loves the adventure, and part of me hates it. For instance I love the preparation anticipating the trip, getting on the plane, and traveling internationally. After all, you get free movies and drinks, and there is always the promise of a toiletry kit even in coach (Schmuck Class). I love to experience the different cultures, food, sights and smells that ubiquitously accompany the experience. I even love (I would say revel in) the chaos, confusion and unpredictability that seem to loom over international travel. On the other hand, there is a part of me that hates leaving the comforts of my own culture, and I certainly detest leaving my family for any extended amount of time. I can't say that I have any amorous feelings towards the intestinal surprises that often find their way into my bowels, and I loathe being packed like sardines in the same schmuck class for 14 hours at a time.

All that stated, it is the adventurer in me that most often wins out, especially when it includes a chance to minister and climb at the same time. In November of 2002, I led 19 people into the Himalayas of Nepal for a three-week missions/trek into the Solu-Khumbu region of Northeast Nepal. It was the third such trip I had taken into Nepal, a country I had grown to love, with a beauty that is surpassed by very few. It is a virtual climber's orgy, with many of the world's 8000 meter peaks residing in its back yard. Much of the Khumbu region is dominated by Everest (Sagarmatha to the locals, and Chomoulogma "Mother Goddess" to the Tibetans), but it is Ama Dablam that piques my interest. Its name means "Mothers charm box" because the large serac located just below the summit resembles the Dablam or Charm Box, which unmarried Sherpa women used to wear around their necks. It is only 22,486 feet (Small by Himalayan standards), yet as majestic and prominent as any peak in the valley. At some angles it looks like a giant tooth sticking out of the valley. Part of the reason it is so unique is the fact that it stands apart from some of the monoliths that dwarf it, namely Everest, Makalu, Lohtse and Nuptse. Every time I lead a group in this area, the climber in me fantasizes ditching the group and making an attempt at the beast. As the leader of the group there were definitely times when I felt like bailing. There is something about being a leader that feels like a big bulls eye has been painted on you, and leadership hunting season has just begun. Clearly leadership involves a thick skinned person who can withstand criticism and disappointment. I have been in the lead most of my life. My adventurous, lone ranger approach to life has placed me in the front, even when no one was following. After all, I had been a pastor in a few churches, had led numerous mission trips both inside and outside of the US, and I had led many climbs in California, Oregon and Washington, so why was this one so different? I don't know really, but I have my suspicions. First being 12,000 miles away from my comfort zone intensified the experience, especially being at altitudes of 14,000 feet and higher for a better part of the three weeks. Secondly, I really didn't have anyone that I felt could relate to my current place in life. Maybe I'm finally feeling my age? Ouch! Lastly, and I think the most pertinent here, is I had just planted a church one month before I left to Nepal, which had challenged the way I led people, and I believe this was my epiphany in regards to the direction I must plow through. I have never thought about leadership, and its styles, as much as I currently have been. And, I must say that most, if not all, of my gleanings are probably rudimentary to many, but they were made newly fresh to me. Much of what I have to say was already known in a cognitive sense, but made clearer to me in an experiential new way. It became my "Zen" (to borrow a page of Buddhism). I guess our knowledge is directly affected by the angle in which we see it. Truths do not really change, just our perceptions of them do. I suppose those long, lonely walks through primitive landscape in a country bathed in meditation helped me see more clearly the path before me. Being alone has its own method of gripping you, and leadership can sometimes be accompanied by a severe loneliness in the midst of a crowd. I once read that "The penalty of leadership is loneliness," which gains much empathy from leaders who have had to make an unpopular decision. This is why it is imperative to share leadership as a plurality in our churches.
<!--pagebreak-->
One of my goals in planting Harambee was to maintain the plurality of elders we had grown accustom to at Mars Hill Church, a tradition I feel is clearly biblically mandated. The senior pastor model was being deconstructed by many of the emerging leaders in church planting, and I had no intention of becoming an autocrat. After all our clear example of this model was found in the godhead itself, co-equals ministering together for the greater glory of their being (God). This was all obvious and logical until I found myself driving the vision of our trip to Nepal, and planting a church in south Seattle. I began to question how this worked in real time. Our elder board was co-equal, and had balanced authority, but who was ultimately responsible for key decisions, and the direction the church or the group would take? After much deliberation, meditation and study, I discovered the obvious: There needs to be a leader amongst the leaders (Lead Elder). I know that isn't quite the phenomenal discovery you may have hoped for, but in spite of the obvious it is a concept that takes an intricate balance to master. How does a plurality work? Does this leader assume more authority, or more responsibility? Does the leader surround himself with "yes men" or does he pursue biblically solid men to balance his authority and drive? How does the leader integrate men and women into the vision who have distinct gifts and callings from the Lord? I began by going in to our elders meeting with the simple question of who they perceived as the lead elder. All hands pointed at me, and the weight of responsibility was made official. This church (Any group for that matter) needs someone to guide the direction and vision of that group. We could not be bogged down in a plural nightmare of opinions and factions. It became crucial that we choose elders who understood the vision, and saw themselves as part of the team, and not as individuals with their own agenda. At the same time there was a need to be sensitive to the gifting of others, and move them into areas that God had called them, which helps shape and round off the vision God has for the church. The biggest mistake we as leaders make is to create the vision so personally and narrow, that we squelch what God wants to do through the people He is bringing to the church. We have to find an avenue to train, and empower our people to follow God's direction in their life without stuffing them into our own private vision. Once again a plurality of leaders works well here, but flat line or democratic leadership is as perilous as autocratic leadership when there is no one to make the tough decisions, set direction, and champion the cause. We live in a postmodern age where truth is relative, and everyone's opinion is valid. The fact remains, neither is true, and none of these models work in the real world. Ultimately any venture that succeeds does so based on the strength and vision of its leader.

At Harambee, as well as my experience at Mars Hill Church, the elders are co-equal in authority, but they are not co-equal in rank and responsibility. This form of leadership I like to call Trinitarian, because like the godhead, the members are co-equal, and co-eternal, but there is an obvious rank in the midst of it (1 Corinthians 11). Jesus is clearly subordinate to the Father, yet He maintains equal authority and essence. This lead Elder is the visionary that constantly beholds the big picture, and suffers the losses more excruciatingly than the rest, and he is the one that can see through the Matrix, when no one else is looking. This is a headship exercised in proxy over Christ's bride, and like our own families, it is one of responsibility and sacrifice, not lordship and power. If you don't feel the weight of this burden, you have yet to take over the position of leader. I know, because I assumed I was one of the leaders, until I realized what leadership meant. This Trinitarian concept is modeled throughout scripture from Moses to Peter to Paul. This is not an abdication of plurality, but one that acknowledges individual roles within the plurality, and one that checks the individual within the authority of the plurality. This is why it is imperative to write job descriptions for every elder and deacon, describing their place in the whole, and clearly communicating responsibilities and roles.
<!--pagebreak-->
Without relationship and communication within the plurality of elders this model will only turn into a senior pastor mentality with elders hand picked to rubber stamp the "Senior" pastor's decisions. Strong men with solid biblical knowledge equipped with the characteristics found in 1 Timothy and Titus, are needed to round off the board, and lovingly support, and correct the decisions made by the lead Elder in the group. All too often we pick "Gifted" men, and fail to acknowledge the importance of the characteristics outlined in the previous mentioned books of the bible. As leaders of new church plants we need to surround ourselves with men that aren't afraid to speak their mind, without being argumentative or divisive, and have a solid knowledge of both biblical truth, and cultural movements. I believe it is also important to have a balance of elders that are in full time ministry, as well as, lay elders. I say this because lay elders give a much needed perspective on the real world, and their opinions and thoughts are not shackled to their paycheck. In a perfect world this ought not to matter, but the last time I checked, this ain't Kansas Toto. On the flip side it is equally important to have men who work full time for the church, because they may have a better handle on the pulse of what's going on in the body. It is the lead Elder's job to integrate the lay and full time Elders into one, through training and vision casting, as well as encouragement to do what God has called them to do. Because of this, the Lead Elder needs to spend time with his Elders, reminding them of the mission at hand, and their part in that mission. This will help the group maintain clear priorities and function in a more harmonious manor.

While the thesis in this article may be obvious to you, it has become a way of life to me. We are not CEO's creating our own empires, we are stewards of God's gospel, and managing it with all of the wisdom and strength we can muster in Christ. This will take a plural Elder board, as well as, an individual that can steer the ship in the right direction. God bless and Sola Dei Gloria!