6 Reasons Josh Howerton is Wrong About Church Government
In the world of modern church leadership, few names carry as much weight as Josh Howerton. As a popular preacher with a massive online following and a thriving church in Texas, his insights into ministry often go viral. However, a recent podcast episode featuring Howerton and fellow pastor Josh McPherson has sparked a significant debate regarding how churches should be governed, especially during times of cultural tension.
On a recent episode of Dyer Conversations, William Dyer took a deep dive into the "wartime ministry" framework proposed by these two leaders. While Dyer expresses a general appreciation for Howerton’s preaching, he offers a compelling pushback against their specific approach to church governance. Here is a breakdown of why a "wartime" mentality might be leading some churches away from a biblical model of leadership.
The Problem with the "Wartime Ministry" Framework
One of the central themes in the discussion between Howerton and McPherson is the idea of wartime ministry. They suggest that during "peacetime," a church might function one way, but during "wartime", meaning periods of high cultural or political conflict, the church must restructure itself for speed and offense.
Dyer’s first point of contention is simple: when is the church ever not at war? According to Ephesians 6, the church is in a constant state of spiritual battle against forces in the heavenly places. The idea that we are suddenly entering a "wartime" phase suggests that there were times when the church could afford to be complacent. By framing current cultural shifts as a unique "war," leaders may inadvertently justify a move toward more authoritarian or "high and lofty" leadership styles that deviate from the humble role of a shepherd.
The Danger of Military Language in the Church
Language matters. When pastors begin using heavy military metaphors to describe their leadership, it can raise red flags. While the Bible does use soldier imagery, it is almost always in the context of spiritual endurance and armor, rather than a top-down command structure designed to silence dissent.
Dyer notes that viewing leadership through a military lens can lead to a "high and lofty" view of the pastor. When a leader sees themselves as a general rather than a shepherd, the relationship with the congregation changes. The focus shifts from pastoral care to strategic execution, which can lead to a lack of accountability and a disconnect from the actual needs of the flock.
Politics in the Pulpit: Finding the Balance
Interestingly, Dyer agrees with Howerton and McPherson on one major point: the idea that preachers should never be political is a mistake. Throughout history, from the Old Testament prophets to Jesus and the Apostles, God’s messengers have spoken truth to power. Figures like Charles Spurgeon and Martin Luther didn't shy away from the issues of their day.
However, Dyer cautions that this doesn't mean the pulpit should become a mouthpiece for a specific political party. Instead, it should be about:
Applying Christian principles to modern issues.
Showing how the Bible informs our voting and civic engagement.
Calling out politicians on both sides when they deviate from biblical morality.
Moving Beyond the "Corporate Board" Model
A significant part of the "Two Joshes" argument is a reaction against the "corporate board" style of church government. In many modern churches, decisions are made by committees or executive boards that function like a secular business. Dyer agrees that this model is often unbiblical and ineffective.
The problem arises when leaders "throw the baby out with the bathwater." In an effort to escape the slow, bureaucratic nature of corporate boards, some leaders move toward a CEO model where the lead pastor has unchecked authority. Dyer argues that the biblical solution isn't more power for one man, but a plurality of elders. This model provides multiple shepherds who pastor the flock together, providing both support and accountability for the preacher.
The Risk of "Emotionally Compromised" Leadership
Howerton and McPherson shared a scenario where a board member becomes "emotionally compromised" because their child joins the LGBTQ+ community, leading that member to push back against biblical preaching on the topic. While Dyer acknowledges that this is a real challenge, he argues that the solution isn't to eliminate board oversight or demand total ideological lockstep. Instead, it’s about having a group of men who are all deeply committed to the Scriptures above all else.
Ideology vs. Biblical Fidelity
One of the more controversial points in the wartime ministry discussion is the emphasis on building a team with the same ideology to ensure fast-paced, offensive action. Dyer pushes back on this, suggesting that a leader’s personal "ideology" is a dangerous foundation for a church.
If a team is built solely on the leader's current ideology, what happens when that leader grows or changes their mind in five years? If the team was hired for their agreement with the man rather than their commitment to the Word, the church becomes an echo chamber. Dyer suggests a different approach:
"I don’t need to build a team around people who agree with my ideology. I need people who are sold out on the idea that the Bible is the Word of God and are willing to be like Bereans, testing everything against the Scriptures."
Key Takeaways for Church Leaders and Members
Prioritize Biblical Models: Avoid swinging between the extremes of corporate bureaucracy and CEO-style authoritarianism. Look to the New Testament model of a plurality of elders.
Focus on Scripture, Not Strategy: While "offensive" ministry sounds exciting, the primary goal of the church is to be faithful to the Word of God, regardless of the cultural "climate."
Accountability is a Safety Net: Oversight isn't a hindrance to the mission; it's a protection for the pastor and the congregation.
Stay Rooted in Spiritual Reality: Recognize that the church is always in a spiritual battle, which requires the "fruit of the Spirit" more than military-style tactics.
Conclusion
The debate over "wartime ministry" highlights a tension many churches feel today. We want to be effective, bold, and relevant in a culture that often feels hostile to Christian values. However, as William Dyer points out, we must be careful not to sacrifice biblical governance at the altar of efficiency.
By returning to a model of leadership rooted in a plurality of elders and a primary commitment to the authority of Scripture, churches can navigate cultural "wars" without losing their souls. Whether in peacetime or wartime, the mission remains the same: to shepherd the flock and proclaim the truth of the Gospel with humility and courage.