Govern, not Pastor?

SPEAKERS: Julie Roys, Lance Ford

Note: This is a rough transcript and may contain some errors or mistranscriptions.

Josh McPherson: It’s my job to get the vision and the direction. That gets confirmed in our executive team. We bring that to you, and it gets confirmed in the plurality of our team. But we are not here taking polls.

So at least my third: monarchy, not democracy.

Josh Howerton: What would you say to a board member who heard that and he was like, “Wait, man, I thought my job was to hold you accountable”?

Josh McPherson: Yeah, then you probably wouldn’t be on my board very long.

That sounds arrogant, but I get nervous with the word “accountability.”

Elisa Childers: Friends, if you go to a church that is led this way, you are in a spiritually dangerous situation. This is something to be deeply, deeply concerned about.

Landon Schott: If you’re attacking Josh Howerton, you’re evil. Straight up.

So literally, it is jealousy, insecurity, competitiveness. It’s like the disgusting characteristics of Christians that are just gross. It’s like the religious scum are the only people that wouldn’t like a Josh Howerton.

Julie Roys: Wow.

It has been quite the past week and a half between the TheoBros, Josh Howerton and Josh McPherson and their defenders, and Elisa Childers, who dared to challenge them.

Childers warned that Howerton and McPherson’s view aligns with the authoritarian leadership in the New Apostolic Reformation, or NAR.

“There is only one king in the church, and that is King Jesus,” she said.

But as you heard, Howerton and McPherson’s defenders, like Landon Schott, said those who don’t like Josh Howerton are, quote, “religious scum” and just jealous and insecure.

But then again, Childers is a woman who apparently does not know her place.

Josh Howerton: Sometimes I will ask Jana for something or if she can do something at home, and what do you say?

Jana Howerton: Yes, sir.

Josh Howerton: She will. Jana will call me sir.

Julie Roys: Yeah.

Well, I tell you what, Julie, I hope you understand that and have been addressing Neil as “sir,” because as soon as I saw that clip, I made sure to show it to my wife, Sherry, and tell her she owes me about 40 years’ worth of “sirs.” She needs to catch up.

Julie Roys: Yeah, well, we’ve been married 40 years, actually, this past June, so I think I owe Neil at least 40 years of “sirs.”

And from now on, Lance, in this podcast, I’ll just refer to you as “sir.” Is that okay?

Lance Ford: Well, that’ll be good practice for you when you’re with Neil, so yes.

Julie Roys: But in all seriousness, this controversy is not just about how women should view Josh Howerton, but how his entire congregation should view him.

Is a local church really a monarchy, and is the pastor essentially the king?

Now, you may think that we took the clips in the open out of context, because that is exactly what Josh Howerton and others are now arguing.

So Lance and I have decided, fine, let’s take a look at the full podcast. Not just 90 seconds. Not just one social media reel. The whole argument.

What do Josh Howerton and Josh McPherson actually teach in this episode about pastors, elders, church boards, accountability, criticism, and who hears from God?

And then we’re going to compare that with what’s now being said in their defense.

And this isn’t for entertainment or to tear anyone down. It’s because church governance is super important. And if we get it wrong, the church suffers.

But before we get into this, we want to be clear about something.

This is not primarily an episode about whether Josh Howerton is a member of the New Apostolic Reformation.

That issue has become part of the online debate, and we’ll deal with it. But there’s a larger and, in our view, more important question:

Is the church governance model being taught here biblical, and is it safe?

Because those are not the same question as, “Is Josh Howerton NAR?”

The podcast that sparked the debate was an episode of the ReChurch Podcast featuring Josh Howerton of Lakepointe Church in the Dallas area and Josh McPherson, pastor of Grace City Church in Wenatchee, Washington.

The conversation originally focused on what they call building a “wartime church” for a culture they describe as increasingly hostile to Christianity.

A large portion of that conversation dealt specifically with how pastors should structure their staffs and governing boards.

Recently, portions of that conversation began circulating again.

Nathan Apffel, the filmmaker behind The Religion Business, posted a reel highlighting the Howerton-McPherson conversation, and he has more coming on Josh Howerton that we’ll share about later.

Then Elisa Childers weighed in.

Childers posted a clip containing several statements from McPherson. Then she posted the following comments:

Elisa Childers: Earlier, I posted a video with commentary about the conversation below that I agreed with. However, I later learned about his—referring to Josh Howerton’s—broader views, which I do not want to promote or endorse, reposting with a screen recording of the relevant commentary.

Julie Roys: Then she quotes it:

Josh McPherson: We’re here to govern, not pastor.

Josh Howerton: Ah, that’s important.

Josh McPherson: I get nervous with the word accountability because I think sometimes it can be a way where men with less courage control men who have more courage, and they’re afraid they’re going to get them in trouble.

The private shouldn’t be able to tell the lieutenant where we go.

Elisa Childers: The defining feature of the New Apostolic Reformation, NAR, is apostle-governed churches, where you have one man, whether they use the word apostle or not, at the top, who directly hears from God in order to lead and direct the church.

This is exactly it.

They are telling you. They are literally saying it out loud.

Friends, if you are in a church that is led this way, you are in a very spiritually dangerous situation.

I’m saying this because I care about your soul.

I pray you find wisdom to see clearly and find a church that has biblical leadership in place.

Julie Roys: Now, this is important.

Childers later clarified that she was not declaring that Josh Howerton was part of NAR.

In fact, she explicitly said, “Do I think Howerton is NAR? I truly hope not.”

Her argument was that the leadership structure being described resembles a defining governance feature found within NAR churches.

And she called on Howerton to distance himself from that teaching if he does not hold those views.

That distinction matters.

Because much of the response that followed focused on the label: “Josh Howerton isn’t NAR.”

Okay, that may be true, but it doesn’t settle the governance question.

Josh Howerton then responded publicly in a post on X.

He wrote:

Josh Howerton: It is very difficult when people share false accusations of pastors or paint untrue pictures of you on their public platforms.

Sadly, now this happens so frequently and at such a scale, it is literally impossible to respond to them, or you would never get anything accomplished for the kingdom.

For instance, I just finished a podcast last month specifically warning against people who call themselves apostles in the big-A New Testament office sense.

I believe—and have publicly said—I believe the opposite of a NAR view that there are new apostles and warned people against it.

I just finished two days of prayer and evaluation with the elders of Lakepointe, seeking their wisdom and direction for the church together as a group of elders on prayer retreat.

On those retreats, I asked them to evaluate every aspect of the church in a SWOT and invite wisdom.

There have definitely been times when they encouraged me in a different direction than I was going, or I lost a vote and gladly, because they are wise and good men, went with the Spirit-guided wisdom of the elders.

There is an elder specifically assigned to me for an even deeper level of prayer and discipleship at an even more personal level. And it’s one of the great blessings of my life.

Every summer, I request elders to tell me things I should keep doing, start doing, and stop doing, and tell them very directly, I value their candor and need their honesty, etc.

And I talk about this publicly in sermons, podcasts, etc.

All of this is the exact opposite of the picture insinuated in the OP.

But someone could take a 90-second clip from a podcast whose only focus was how pastors can prepare their churches for online mobs that do inevitably come, make it sound like that counsel is the totality of your thoughts about eldership, interpret your words in the worst possible light, and make it sound like you’re a deranged NAR guy.

Appreciate Ryan graciously walking through the reality there.

Julie Roys: And you can see Ryan Visconti, a pastor from Phoenix, had written actually a very, very long post in Josh Howerton’s defense.

Then at the end, he says:

Josh Howerton: I won’t be responding to replies, as I have a church to pastor that is getting ready to baptize and disciple 600 to 700 new believers this coming weekend, which is made harder by things like this.

Julie Roys: So I’m glad that Josh says that Lakepointe Church has meaningful accountability.

I honestly don’t know how much I believe that, given the interviews I’ve done with former members.

But according to Josh, the elders are not just yes-men.

But there are a few things in that statement I’d like to examine.

First, saying that he won’t be responding to replies because he has a church to pastor that’s baptizing 600 to 700 people.

Friends, that’s an image-repair tactic called bolstering.

Bolstering is when an individual attempts to mitigate negative perceptions by emphasizing their positive traits or achievements rather than directly addressing the accusation.

So in contrast to the allegation of being spiritually dangerous, Howerton reminds us of his high productivity, his spiritual success, and his massive kingdom impact as a megachurch pastor.

That’s honestly just gross.

Also, him saying that his job is made harder by things like this is employing a secondary tactic called counterattack and victimhood.

And in context, it seems like he’s likening Elisa Childers to the online mob.

So here he has a chance to show us that he’s willing to consider valid criticism. But instead, he just bolsters himself and attacks Childers.

And that’s pretty immature behavior.

But about the topic at hand, Josh claims that the only focus of his podcast with Josh McPherson was how pastors can prepare their churches for online mobs.

Now, Lance, you listened to the podcast.

Is that true?

Lance Ford: No, it’s not.

Josh Howerton’s podcast with Josh McPherson contained literally a detailed philosophy of church governance.

McPherson called it “15 Keys to a Wartime Board.”

So I think it would be really important that we examine what those 15 keys are.

And let’s just hear it from them.

Josh McPherson: This is really important: the pastor and his team.

So if you’re going to build a church for effective mission advancement in a negative-world reality, you have to build your team a different way than it was built in the past.

Josh Howerton: And when we say team, we mean board and staff.

Josh McPherson: That’s right.

So we have two different realities. I built mine from scratch thinking of these things.

In fact, I have 15 keys for a wartime board that I wrote 15 years ago.

Lance Ford: So let’s establish this immediately.

This isn’t just a podcast about surviving Twitter.

They’re asking how to construct church leadership for what they perceive as a new cultural environment.

Boards, staff, governance, authority.

That’s the subject.

And Julie, I just want to say this too.

I believe this is so important because we need to understand that there are thousands, probably tens of thousands, of young pastors that are watching these guys and are learning from these guys and are replicating the models that they’re learning right here.

Julie Roys: Yeah.

And that’s why we’re talking about it, right?

I mean, because church governance matters.

And honestly, the fact that Howerton says that the podcast was just about preparing a church for the online mob—I mean, honestly, that’s when I wonder if we’re really dealing with someone who’s arguing in good faith because it’s clear.

Again, this was about church governance.

That’s what this was about, and it was in the context of sort of this wartime environment, he’s saying.

But again, this is about how you lead a church.

So in this next clip, Howerton and McPherson compare church boards to the Death Star in Star Wars, and they express concern that the board, or Death Star, may impede a pastor to lead effectively in wartime.

Josh Howerton: A church board can be a Death Star vulnerability.

Josh McPherson: That’s right.

Josh Howerton: It doesn’t matter how big the church is, how solid the infrastructure is. You know, Death Star vulnerability—a little missile placed right in that little three-by-three vulnerability—

Josh McPherson: Such a small hole.

Josh Howerton: —can blow up the whole dang thing.

And we’ve seen that with other pastors.

Bro, I shouldn’t be laughing. It’s tragic.

Josh McPherson: It is tragic.

Josh Howerton: If you have good men in the wrong seats, they’re the Death Star vulnerability.

Josh McPherson: That’s right.

Josh Howerton: So we’re not speaking against the character of some of these men.

But what I see over and over again is a pastor who does not have a board that will enable him to be a wartime missiologist.

Josh McPherson: And that’s what we’re talking about.

Because if you don’t have that locked down, you’re not going anywhere.

Julie Roys: So obviously it’s important that you have good boards.

And I’ve got a board, and I love my board, and it’s a great board. So I am very pro-board.

But it’s really telling in this clip that they’re imagining that a church board is a means of sabotaging a pastor’s mission.

I mean, this sounds an awful lot like the board can be the enemy.

A healthy board doesn’t exist to sabotage pastors.

It exists to love, support, guide, and, if necessary, rebuke the pastor.

But if a pastor views his board as an obstacle he needs to overcome, he’s not going to receive what he needs from that board.

Lance Ford: Absolutely.

A board doesn’t exist simply to remove obstacles from the pastor’s path.

A genuinely accountable board has to be capable of saying, “No. Slow down. This is not wise. We need more information.”

Or, “People are being harmed.”

And sometimes to just say, “You cannot continue in this role.”

And if the board is primarily viewed as a potential vulnerability to the leader’s effectiveness, then accountability already begins on the defensive.

Julie Roys: Well, next, Howerton explains that beginning early in his tenure, he would bring examples of pastors who would experience what he calls an “internet mobbing” to the board.

He would use these situations as case studies.

Then the Joshes discuss what it means to have a unified board, and they make a pretty stunning claim about boards that confront or disagree with the pastor.

Josh Howerton: That’s right.

So from year one when we got here, what I would do is probably twice a year, I would find somebody who had been the recent subject of an internet mobbing.

Josh McPherson: Yes.

Josh Howerton: I would print off the article or whatever it was, and I would run a case study with our board.

Josh McPherson: Yes.

Josh Howerton: And then, you know, what obviously we’re not talking about is building a yes-men board, or, “Oh, dude, we’re loyal to you instead of the truth.”

No, no, no.

Josh McPherson: No, no. We’re loyal to what is true and right.

Josh Howerton: That’s right. That’s right.

Even in the face of opposition.

Here’s the irony.

People say that all the time about a board that’s unified: “Oh, they’re just yes-men.”

But here’s the irony: Boards that aren’t unified are actually ones that are filled with yes-men.

Josh McPherson: Say that again. Tease that out. I’ve never heard that.

Josh Howerton: Well, it’s hitting me as you’re talking because we have a very unified board.

And sometimes the accusation is, “Oh, they’re a bunch of yes-men.”

No, no, no.

These are the strongest men I know who, by nature, are not yes-men.

But we’re unified because we value unity over diversity.

I’ll get to that in a moment.

But here’s the irony: People think that diversity is strength.

But when you have a board of men who—these guys aren’t yes-men.

I’m trying to—if a board is confronting you continually and disagreeing with you, it’s because they’re yes-men to a louder voice.

Josh McPherson: Oh, wow.

Josh Howerton: Does that make sense?

Frequently.

Julie Roys: Okay, we have to stop here because this deserves some careful thought.

They’re trying to make a legitimate point that outside pressure doesn’t automatically mean outside pressure is correct.

And we would agree with that.

But watch what this framework can produce.

Agreement with the pastor can become evidence of courage.

Disagreement with the pastor can become evidence that you’ve capitulated to outside voices.

And that can become a closed feedback loop.

A board member says, “Pastor, I think the critics have a point.”

And the system already contains an explanation:

“You’re being pressured. You’re emotionally compromised. You’re listening to a louder voice.”

Now, that’s a dangerous dynamic that’s being inputted here.

So he makes this point that they value unity over diversity, which I thought was really odd because my understanding of unity is that you have to have diversity to have unity, because unity is not conformity.

Conformity would be, “Hey, we all have the exact same view.”

Unity is that you don’t, that there is diversity of opinion, but that you’re able, because you have an allegiance to something higher—which would be, I would hope, the Lord, not the pastor—and because of that allegiance, you’re able to find sort of a common ground.

But again, this idea that “I value unity over diversity” just says to me, from the very beginning, this Josh McPherson doesn’t even understand what unity is.

He thinks it’s conformity, but that’s not what it is.

Lance Ford: I think definitely—I think he gave more of a definition of conformity right there.

But, you know, what’s interesting is now, in the order of the way that our podcasts come out, right before this podcast—maybe one or two, by the time this airs, one or two podcasts before it—I had done an interview with Rob Thane Smith about the elders at Mars Hill.

And what’s amazing, what’s going on in my mind watching this video, and now watching it many more times or watching these clips over and over, is that this is the very playbook that Mark Driscoll played upon the elders at Mars Hill.

Because this conformity was what he was demanding.

And as we get more into this episode and see more of these clips from this conversation with the two Joshes, you just see it’s galvanized more and more that way.

Julie Roys: That’s interesting.

And Driscoll, we know, has spoken numerous times at McPherson’s church, and he speaks at his conferences.

So he has been influenced by Driscoll, and I think you see his influence in this.

But I’m just curious, this idea that compliance now may be more courageous than actually speaking up to the person in power.

Lance, you’ve served on a lot of boards.

How many times would you say that agreeing with the person in power is actually courageous and that disagreeing with the person in power has been, as they put it, capitulation to this outside mob?

Lance Ford: That’s absolutely one of the most bizarre—

But I would like to say it’s bizarre, but it’s actually manipulative.

How stupid do you think we are to make a statement like that?

Because he’s just not being—he’s being disingenuous.

That’s what I’m hearing, Julie.

When I hear him say something like this, I’m just saying, “You’re just being disingenuous because you’re trying to sell something here.”

And unfortunately, there might be a few people that buy it, but we’re not buying it here.

Julie Roys: And this next clip is just breathtaking, and it shows how these pastors actually think about outside critics.

They are not voices that need to be considered.

They are demonic, lying mobs that healthy boards should chuckle at and dismiss.

Josh Howerton: I’m familiarizing the board with, “Hey, guys, this is a normal occupational hazard of public ministry in negative world.”

Josh McPherson: That’s right.

Josh Howerton: So it helps them start to internalize, “Oh, yeah, our day’s going to come.”

Josh McPherson: That’s totally normal. That’s totally normal. Yep.

Josh Howerton: So then you have less of the—you get it.

But then number two is, frequently—now, there are some case studies we ran where it was like, “Yeah, man, that pastor was in egregious sin, needed to be rebuked or removed,” or whatever it was.

Josh McPherson: Yep.

Josh Howerton: But then other case studies, they’re going like, “Are you kidding?”

Like, these are—I have smart, wise, godly, courageous men on my board.

Josh McPherson: Yep.

Josh Howerton: So they would look at these things, and these are dudes with heads on their shoulders.

Josh McPherson: Yeah.

Josh Howerton: They’d look at these things, and they’d look at the accusation versus the reality, and they’d go, “Oh my gosh, these people are demonic liars.”

Josh McPherson: That’s right.

Josh Howerton: And now that internalizes for them, “Oh, so not only will this probably happen to us someday, but there are these demonic, lying mobs who do this, like, to monetize, to drive clicks to their monetized websites.”

Josh McPherson: That’s right.

Josh Howerton: Oh, so then when it happens, the board’s like, “Oh yeah, we’re fine.”

Josh McPherson: Yep.

Josh Howerton: “This is what happens. We’re good.”

You know that your board’s in a healthy place when they can chuckle at mob attacks on the church.

That’s what you have to—I just want to verbally highlight that.

In negative world, you have to have a staff and a board that can see through, chuckle at, and dismiss fake outrage.

Josh McPherson: That’s right.

Lance Ford: I want to say something here.

You know, what’s always interesting is these guys always will talk about the podcasters monetizing.

Well, Nathan Apffel and many others have done a lot of great work showing how these guys monetize their position.

I just find it so hypocritical to try to flip back and say, “Oh, well, you’re doing it for the money.”

And the hypocrisy is just dripping there.

But I think what we just looked at is where this becomes extremely relevant to what’s happening right now.

Imagine that you are a church board, and for years you’ve been taught online criticism is coming.

A lot of it, maybe most of it, is fake.

Some of the people doing it are demonic liars.

Watchdog outlets probably are manipulating stories.

And this outside pressure very well could be an attack on our pastor.

And a strong board learns to chuckle and dismiss those attacks.

Now, someone publicly questions your pastor’s governance philosophy.

And what’s your first instinct?

To investigate it or to really give it a listen?

To ask whether there could be something worth hearing?

Or have you already been discipled to categorize outside criticism as an attack?

And that’s why healthy accountability systems have to be built to evaluate the content of criticism, not simply the identity or perceived motives of the critics themselves.

Julie Roys: Well, and here’s the thing.

I’m considering the source.

So Josh Howerton has been at the center of a number of online controversies.

You know, one of them was his plagiarism.

And his plagiarism has been egregious.

In fact, not only has he been found to plagiarize a bunch of his sermons, but there was a point at which he told an absolutely awful joke—very misogynist.

Very—I mean, if you put yourself in the shoes of a woman who maybe has been abused by her husband, I mean, it’s talking about the wedding night and basically telling the woman to do whatever her husband says, you know, kind of unquestionably.

And he got up and he finally apologized.

And when he apologized, he actually plagiarized his apology.

I mean, it’s unbelievable.

We actually have a clip of it going back and forth.

Josh Howerton: Church, if you got your Bibles, and I hope you do, grab them. We’re going to be in Psalm 34.

And as you find your way to Psalm 34, I just need to address a thing.

Unidentified speaker: I need to address a thing.

Josh Howerton: I’m going to address a thing.

Okay. The Bible says in Proverbs 12:18 that careless words stab like a sword, and wise words lead to healing.

Unidentified speaker: It says that careless words can stab like a sword, but that wise words lead to healing.

Josh Howerton: And what the Bible means in Proverbs 12 when it says careless words stab like a sword, it means regardless of your intent—like if I was careless with a pocketknife and it slipped out of my hand and stabbed you in the face.

Unidentified speaker: And what that verse means is that, like, even if somebody had a steak knife and they had the intent to cut their steak and their hand slipped and accidentally stabbed you in the face.

Julie Roys: And he laughed all of this stuff off. Like, “Oh, that’s no big deal.”

No, this guy’s a plagiarizer.

And he’s been the subject of online mobs because he’s done some bad things or some really ridiculous things.

And then there’s the spiritual abuse that people have, you know, accused him of.

And I’ve never seen him take an actual, like, humble position where he listens to his critics.

So it doesn’t surprise me that he’s grooming—it seems he’s grooming his elders and his board to dismiss these things.

But understand, they’re doing this podcast not just for elders and boards.

I mean, that’s specifically who they’re talking about, but there are a lot of online listeners.

So in many cases, these congregants are listening to them.

And what are they being—what’s happening to them?

They’re being groomed to just laugh it off. Laugh it off. Laugh those critics off.

Instead of, again, whenever there’s an online—you know, whenever there’s a controversy or a scandal or whatever, and things are blowing up, I go and I listen to it.

Like you said, even here, it wasn’t taken out of context.

So what do you do?

You go and you listen to that full podcast.

What are they actually saying?

And then you judge it using discernment.

But yeah, I just—this thing of telling them and training your boards to just sort of, “Hey, it’s a healthy board if they just laugh it off and dismiss the critics.”

I mean, that’s kind of scary to me.

So in this next clip, the Joshes basically undermine their critics by saying, “Hey, if you weren’t in the room, you probably don’t have the full story.”

And this is why you can’t believe everything that you read online.

Josh McPherson: So the other thing you’ve been able to do and I’ve been able to do is, because we know some of these guys, have been in some of these circles, we can show them, “Here’s the article. Here’s what was written. Here’s what was said. What do you think?”

And they go, “Well, blah, blah, blah.”

Okay, great. Now let me tell you the rest of the story.

I’ve actually Skyped some of those guys into our board meetings to do that.

And then we give them the whole story, and they can see—they can see the manipulation of what’s getting put on some popular website or quote-unquote Christian watchdog magazine and reported as if it’s legitimate.

And then you give them the actual story, and they go, “Oh my gosh.”

And what you’re trying to show them is you cannot believe what you read online or what you hear being said on social media.

And so, if anything, it gives them an understanding and appreciation for, unless you’re there in the room hearing the conversation, seeing the situation, you probably don’t have the whole story.

Julie Roys: Okay.

Now they’re getting everybody to doubt anything that they read online and to not evaluate that specific story, saying, “Okay, let’s look at this case.”

Because that’s how I do it.

You know, I will go and I’ll look.

I’ll even go to sites where I don’t necessarily like a lot of their reporting or I feel some of it’s biased, but every now and then they’re right, or every now and then they have a story that maybe we didn’t get.

And so I’d like to see, you know, can I learn something from that, or what’s really going on?

So I will say there are times that reporting can be incomplete.

There are times when, despite their best efforts, journalists can get things wrong.

I do think there are some sites that are really, really bad, right?

But here’s the thing that bugs me about this, because this is just one of the oldest defenses that I hear by unhealthy institutions, is that, “Hey, you don’t know the whole story.”

For example, that’s what Phil Johnson, who is—or was; he just recently resigned from Grace to You, which was John MacArthur’s whole preaching and teaching ministry—Phil Johnson claimed after I reported about how John MacArthur had punished Eileen Gray for not taking back her child-abusing husband.

Johnson claimed that MacArthur and the elders had exculpatory evidence, but they weren’t at liberty to share it.

Now, this is very convenient, right?

I mean, “We have exculpatory evidence, but we can’t tell you.”

And you’re supposed to just take our word for it, when I have documentation after documentation after documentation showing that my reporting was true.

Later, one of their own elders, Elder Hohn Cho, investigated the Eileen Gray case, and he concluded the exact opposite of what Phil Johnson said.

He said Eileen’s husband, David Gray, had abused their children—which, of course, he’s spending time in prison right now for it—and MacArthur needed to apologize publicly for disparaging Eileen for not bringing her abusive husband back into their home to, again, expose their children to his abuse.

Similarly, in this recent podcast with Jeremy Boreing, Mark Driscoll claimed that a pastor’s job is to tell the truth and then get lied about.

So he’s setting up, “Hey, I’m getting lied about left and right.”

But then he claims that he has some knowledge that would exonerate him from the allegations, but because the knowledge came in, say, a counseling-type setting, he just can’t divulge it.

So here are situations where he’s absolutely bullied and harmed people, but instead of apologizing to the victim, he plays the victim.

And again, it’s this whole, “If you only knew. They’re all lying about me, and, you know, I know the truth, but I just can’t tell you.”

So, I mean, like, what can you ever say to that when a pastor says, “Well, if you only knew what else was being said in the room,” but then they’re not telling you?

I mean, I do respect if these men are talking about a situation where there actually is another side and they bring the facts.

But it seems like what they’re trying to say is, “I can give you one situation where such-and-such a site got the story wrong, and here’s the rest of the story. And now, you know, let’s broaden that out to everything and say you should disregard everything.”

And I’m like, no.

Take a look at each situation on its own merit and judge it.

But don’t just write everything off and allow a pastor to say, “There’s more to the story. Just trust me.”

Lance Ford: Yeah, well, case in point, within days of refusing to submit to the discipline of the elders at Mars Hill Church, Mark Driscoll, with his buddy Robert Morris, with a microphone in hand, was telling his side of the story.

And then not long thereafter, he’s on TV with James Robison doing the same thing.

And it’s just fabrication.

And totally, Mark Driscoll was the victim.

Even to the point—and Julie, you’ll remember—when Mark Driscoll said, “Oh, well, we don’t even know who the people are that have been hurt. I don’t even know who I would apologize to.”

Remember?

And then that’s when the whole—they started even, I think, a Facebook group called “We Are Not Anonymous.”

“No, Mark Driscoll, you know exactly who we are.”

Julie Roys: Yeah.

And if you look at the notes that were published online of these meetings, the charges were very specific.

The incidents were very specific.

He knew exactly who they were talking about.

Lance Ford: So up until this point, someone might argue, “Hey, this is simply strong organizational leadership.”

But then the podcast moves from organizational strategy into explicit theology.

And this is where the conversation becomes more deeply problematic.

Josh McPherson: Heaven down, not pew up.

Josh Howerton: This is so important.

Josh McPherson: This was huge.

I told the guys, “We are here to represent God to the people. You are not here to represent the people to God.”

Josh Howerton: Are you going to talk about your complaint department thing?

Josh McPherson: What part?

Josh Howerton: We don’t have one.

Josh McPherson: Well, that’s my point.

Yeah.

So this is huge, okay?

So the heaven down, not pew up.

I told the men—and I got pretty fiery in this—I said, “Our job at this table is to hear from God. Period. Full stop.

“If you walk in here and say, ‘What about so-and-so? What about such-and-such?’ you’re gone.

“We are not here to be directed by the fear or manipulation of man. We are here to be directed by the voice of God.”

I believe it’s God’s anointed and called man.

It’s my job to get the vision and the direction. That gets confirmed in our executive team. We bring that to you, and it gets confirmed in the plurality of our team.

But we are not here taking polls.

So at least my third: monarchy, not democracy.

Josh Howerton: Monarchy, not democracy.

Josh McPherson: We follow the King, not the polls.

And so a lot of boards are honestly built around a democratic structure.

So the board members walk in feeling they need to represent a certain constituency in the church.

Josh Howerton: Gross.

Josh McPherson: You know, “I’m hearing some concerns among the whatever,” or whatever.

It’s like, do not walk in here representing a grievance from a constituency to try to affect where we’re going.

Now, listen to sheep? Yes.

Care for sheep? Yes.

Obviously, obviously, obviously.

But we represent the King.

Lance Ford: We could just stop here and start about a five-part series just on that clip, okay?

I mean, this is a perfect example of language that sounds very spiritual.

But when you unpack what’s actually being said, it becomes deeply troubling.

“We’re here to represent God to the people. You’re not here to represent the people to God.”

Now, think about that for a moment, friends.

And in fact, my son was watching that clip with me the other day when I was at my office working, and he immediately blurted out, “What? He’s playing Pope—the vicar of Christ.”

I mean, this was my son. He’s a better theologian than I am, by the way.

He said, “He just described what it means to be a vicar—a vicar of Christ.”

Now, I’m not going to push that comparison too far, but I understand why my son reacted that way.

Because the question is, what role are these leaders claiming for themselves between God and the congregation?

Scripture says very clearly there’s one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus.

Now, Christians certainly represent Christ in the world.

In fact, Paul calls us ambassadors for Christ.

And pastors, they teach Scripture. Elders lead. Teachers, they speak the Word of God.

So the problem isn’t simply the phrase, “We represent God.”

The problem is the architecture that follows.

“Heaven down, not pew up.”

By the way, that’s a Mark Driscollism.

So, you know, these guys run together.

“Heaven down, not pew up.”

“We represent God to the people.”

“Our job at this table is to hear from God.”

And then moments later, he says, “As God’s anointed and called man, it’s my job to get the vision and the direction.”

And then the “pew up” statement.

Okay, so Julie, if you’re not grossed out enough yet—

Julie Roys: I am grossed out.

Lance Ford: Right. I know you are.

So, but don’t miss that little quip.

Because this is another way of declaring a clergy-laity divide, which is an absolute false dichotomy.

So the people, their place is the pew.

Sit and watch.

Stay in your place.

Julie Roys: I just have one response to these statements:

“How dare you! Who in the hell do you think you are?”

Seriously.

Who do these guys think they are?

Right?

I mean, what they’re describing is something called the Moses model.

It’s something that is absolutely taught in ARC churches, also known as the Association of Related Churches.

It’s also taught in Calvary Chapel churches.

And it’s one of the reasons that there are so many scandals in these churches.

The pastor is essentially Moses.

He is the Old Testament prophet who hears directly from God.

And the rest of us, we’re just peons who need to stay out of the pastor’s way.

I mean, this is a complete denial of Acts 2 and what happened at Pentecost.

What does Peter say when explaining why he and the apostles were speaking in tongues?

“In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people.

“Your sons and daughters will prophesy.

“Your young men will see visions.

“Your old men will dream dreams.

“Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy.”

Guys, in the Old Testament, the Holy Spirit fell only on certain people, like prophets and occasionally kings like Saul.

But now the Holy Spirit is available to all of us.

I mean, seriously, Josh Howerton and Josh McPherson, have you not read the New Testament?

I mean, that anybody could believe this, that only they can hear from God.

Like, get over yourselves.

The rest of the body can hear from God just fine.

The Holy Spirit is available to all of us.

Men, women, young, old.

And it’s certainly not just pastors.

Lance Ford: Exactly.

What these men are communicating is not biblical.

And what’s so scary about the Moses model is that it places a human leadership structure between Christ and his body as the channel through which God’s direction supposedly flows.

And that’s exactly what people are objecting to.

Now, one of the defenses that we’ve heard is, “But the vision is confirmed by plurality.”

Okay.

But confirmation is not the same thing as shared discernment.

And that is a really important distinction.

Because if I say that God gives me the vision and you confirm it, well, I’ve already established where the vision originates.

So I’ve already established the direction of authority.

And the plurality is just functioning primarily as a validator of what the leader says he has received already.

And so that’s very different from the New Testament picture that we see in Acts 15, for example.

The early church is facing an enormous theological controversy in Acts 15.

And what do they eventually say?

They say, “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us.”

They didn’t say, “It seemed good to James, and the rest of us confirmed it.”

You know, I mean, it’s crazy.

Not, “The anointed man received the direction and the board validated it.”

No.

“It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us.”

Now, that is what shared discernment really is.

That’s a plurality actually discerning together under the headship of Jesus.

And this is why I think that this “heaven down” language is so problematic.

The New Testament doesn’t give us one uniquely anointed man that hears from God for the body.

It gives us an anointed body under one head.

It gives us a Spirit-filled people.

It gives us elders that discern together.

It gives us brothers and sisters with different gifts and different perspectives and different functions, all under the lordship of Jesus.

So I’m not saying that Josh McPherson’s a heretic.

I am saying that this governing principle is profoundly unbiblical, and it’s dangerously close to assigning church leaders a mediating role that belongs to Christ alone.

And so the church does not need a human conduit through which heaven’s direction flows downward.

It already has a head, and that head is Jesus Christ.

Julie Roys: Well, Lance, you spent years writing about the tendency of churches to build themselves under, you know, the solo heroic leader.

In fact, in The Atlas Factor, one of your books, you use Atlas, the mythological figure for, like, carrying the heavens on his shoulders, to describe what we’ve done to pastors.

I mean, the pastor carries the vision, the organization, the direction, the preaching, the mission, and everyone else is arranged around helping him carry the load.

But that is way too much for any one person to shoulder.

And it’s why so many of these pastors are breaking under the pressure.

And that’s why I hear—you know, when I hear this “God’s anointed man” being used to establish a church governance hierarchy, alarms just go off for me.

Jesus is the Anointed One.

Jesus is the head.

And the Spirit resides within his body.

Now, people are going to say, “But the church isn’t a democracy.”

Interestingly, the last place I heard that was in an Anglican church where our bishop ended up embroiled in a scandal.

And I’ve often thought back on that statement that actually the bishop made.

And I remember when I confronted him with some serious issues that I saw, and I could tell by his response he was not accustomed to people challenging him.

In fact, I went home and I said to my husband, I’m like, “I don’t think, from the look I got on his face, like, I don’t think anybody’s actually challenged him on anything in a really, really long time.”

He was like the king of our church.

And that whole system not only was unhealthy for, you know, the church itself, but it turned out to be to his own peril.

Because, again, he ended up embroiled in this scandal that I don’t think he would have been had he been listening to those around him.

Certainly, I knew some people personally who had been speaking.

Maybe not as boldly, maybe, you know, not saying things as bluntly as I did to him.

But there were some people who were trying to speak, but he just wasn’t listening.

Lance Ford: Well, and that’s the thing, Julie.

Christianity does have a monarchy.

There is a king, but the king is not the senior pastor.

And so when people use these analogies, whether it’s Moses or it’s King David, it’s not the analogy to be used for a present-day pastor.

Because the King’s name is Jesus.

And this is where senior-pastor-centered systems can just subtly confuse the headship of Christ with the leadership of a human being.

And if Jesus is really the head, then the role of leaders is not to become a secondary head underneath Jesus.

In fact, Ephesians 4 says that leaders equip the saints so that the whole body grows as every part does its work.

And so that’s a radically different picture than this other type of language.

Julie Roys: Well, next, Josh McPherson argues that the pastor’s role is to govern, not pastor.

Josh McPherson: We’re here to govern, not pastor.

Josh Howerton: Okay. Ah, that’s important, Josh.

Josh McPherson: That’s a huge difference.

So our pastoral team is pastoring the people.

We’re here to govern and lead the mission of the kingdom of God that’s being expressed through the church.

Julie Roys: What?

I mean, Lance, what on earth is Josh McPherson saying here?

And apparently, Josh Howerton agrees.

Lance Ford: Well, one of his defenders—in fact, another megachurch pastor, Ryan Visconti, who is the lead pastor of Generation Church—says that critics are misunderstanding these guys.

Now, this all comes from a long tweet that Ryan Visconti did on X defending these guys.

And he says that McPherson is simply distinguishing governing responsibility from pastoral care.

I don’t misunderstand it.

I don’t misunderstand it.

You don’t misunderstand it.

Because that’s exactly what we’re critiquing here.

Because the New Testament doesn’t separate those things the way that this model does.

You know, in Acts 20, Paul calls the elders of Ephesus.

And then he tells those elders, “The Holy Spirit made you overseers.”

And what are those overseers commanded to do?

Shepherd the church of God.

Elder, overseer, shepherd.

In fact, Peter does the same thing in 1 Peter 5.

He addresses the elders, and he commands them to shepherd God’s flock, exercising oversight.

So when you say, “We’re here to govern, not pastor,” there’s a very basic and fair question:

Where does the New Testament make that separation that you just made in that statement?

Biblical oversight is pastoral by its very nature.

Biblical shepherding includes oversight.

Julie Roys: It scares me when I hear pastors say that they don’t shepherd.

Like you’re saying, I mean, an overseer should shepherd.

I mean, that’s what Scripture says.

I just don’t understand it.

A former member at Josh Howerton’s church actually told me that she heard him say, “I don’t shepherd people. But when you look at the top of the org chart, I’m at the top.”

This is the world’s model of leading.

It’s corporate.

It’s cold.

It’s pragmatic.

It’s why a Mark Driscoll can say, “You either get on the bus or you get run over by the bus.”

In the CEO model, people are expendable.

But that is not what Jesus taught.

It is the antithesis of what Jesus taught.

And so, honestly, I can’t believe that Christians buy that.

Like, are they reading their Bibles?

I mean, where is that model found anywhere in the New Testament?

But just when you thought it couldn’t get any worse, it actually does.

Josh McPherson: Number four: strengthen pastor, not throttle pastor.

Josh Howerton: I don’t know what that means.

Josh McPherson: You’re here to strengthen my hand and my calling, not throttle me back and make sure I don’t get us in any trouble.

Josh Howerton: Wow.

Very different.

What would you say to a board member who heard that and he was like, “Wait, man, like, I thought my job was to hold you accountable”?

Josh McPherson: Yeah, then you probably wouldn’t be on my board very long.

Josh Howerton: No, we obviously—you believe in accountability.

Josh McPherson: Yeah. I mean, that sounds arrogant, but if that’s the top—I get nervous with the word accountability.

Because I think sometimes it can be the way that men with less courage control men who have more courage, and they’re afraid they’re going to get them into trouble.

The private shouldn’t have the ability to tell the lieutenant where we go because the private thinks there’s going to be war over there.

“I don’t think we should go there, lieutenant.”

And he can say he’s keeping the troops safe.

But in reality, he’s covering his own hiney and keeping the platoon from doing their job, which is to get into some skirmishes and move the battle line forward.

And so if I tell the board, “Your job is to hold me accountable,” they come in with a wrong posture.

Josh Howerton: That’s the wrong primary mentality.

Josh McPherson: It’s the wrong primary mentality.

We’re all accountable before God.

Josh Howerton: Yeah.

Josh McPherson: Right?

So it’s a different posture.

They’re here to strengthen the hand of me as a pastor, not throttle me back to make sure I don’t get us into too much trouble.

Josh Howerton: And you’re especially—I want to make sure I understand—you’re especially talking about issues of strategy, not morality.

Like if a pastor’s wandering into, “Hey, man, he’s straying on his marriage.”

Josh McPherson: Yes, it’s their job to hop in and da-da-da-da-da. Absolutely. Yeah. Absolutely.

Julie Roys: Several things that he does in that last clip—Josh McPherson does—remind me so much of Mark Driscoll.

And one of the things he says is, “It might sound arrogant, but.”

And that’s something Driscoll did repeatedly when he was confronted by his elders for some of his behavior.

And he’d be like, “Well, this might sound arrogant, but.”

And then he does it.

And it is arrogant.

And what he says is arrogant.

I mean, like, he thinks he’s so smart, you know, that he just needs to go and they need to get behind him.

You know, I just—it does come across as arrogant because it is arrogant.

And it’s like, you think you’re smarter than everybody else in the room.

You know, it’s like, clearly, clearly.

The other thing that reminds me of Mark Driscoll is his defense to Jeremy Boreing of what happened at Mars Hill, saying it wasn’t a disqualifying scandal.

It was just controversy.

And he said a scandal would be like sexual immorality or committing a crime like stealing.

But bullying, retaliation, deception, silencing whistleblowers—hey, that’s just controversy, right?

And all pastors are to be controversial, right?

And so basically that’s kind of what they’re assuming here, right?

Because Josh Howerton says, “Well, wait, no, you—I mean, like sexual misconduct, something like that, you’re straying in your marriage.”

And then he says, “Yeah, well, yeah, yeah, yeah, sure, that.”

But what about these other things, like bullying?

And I mean, honestly, the way this guy talks, he sounds like a bully.

And that’s just not what Scripture says.

I mean, it says your character also needs to be above reproach, needs to be gentle.

Gentle.

Do you hear gentleness in anything this guy says?

Not arrogant is one of them.

Not arrogant.

Not prone to anger.

I mean, things like that.

I just, when I listen to him, it just doesn’t seem to me like those character qualities are even important to him.

He just likes to be on top.

And I’ve noticed that Mark Driscoll does the same thing always.

It’s like, you know, “I’ve been faithful to my wife. I’ve never committed adultery. I’ve never done this and this and this.”

But he doesn’t say, “And I’ve never bullied my staff. I’ve never been quick to anger. I’ve never—”

He doesn’t mention those very things that Paul mentions as qualifications for being an elder.

Lance Ford: Well, and part of it—isn’t part of it like this hypermasculinity that they promote at these churches?

So, like, blowing up and whatever, you’re just being a man.

Julie Roys: Yeah.

Lance Ford: Right?

Julie Roys: Yeah.

Lance Ford: Yeah. Right.

It’s just being a guy, you know, and we want you to be more of a guy.

Right?

So there’s doublespeak on so many levels here.

And, you know, I would say also this idea that the church has ranks like the military.

This is so problematic.

While the New Testament frequently uses military metaphors, like calling someone a fellow soldier, it completely avoids using hierarchical military ranks for church leadership.

And instead, it uses community and household terms like presbyteros, which is a term that’s borrowed from Jewish tradition referring to a respected leader that guides a community, or diakonos, which is a word that literally means a table waiter or a household servant, or poimēn, which means a shepherd that cares for a flock.

So the idea that the church is led by military officers, it is just off.

It is very off because Jesus said the worldly officials lord it over people.

“Not so with you.”

So even if you accept the military metaphor, why is the pastor the lieutenant?

Why are the board members and elders privates?

Who establishes those ranks?

I’d like to ask.

Because Peter doesn’t call himself the commanding elder.

He calls himself a fellow elder.

That’s 1 Peter 5.

The church isn’t a platoon with the senior pastor occupying higher spiritual rank.

And I say this all the time in these episodes.

You’ll also never even find anyone called a senior pastor.

So you don’t get these rank-based titles.

These are the very things that Jesus forbade in Matthew 23 when he said, don’t call yourself a father, don’t call yourself leader, don’t call yourself teacher.

Because these are rank-based titles.

We are brothers and sisters under one Lord.

That’s the emphasis Jesus gives in Matthew 23.

And that’s the language that you find all through the book of Acts.

You find this sibling language constantly.

Julie Roys: Well, in case there’s any doubt about where Josh Howerton and Josh McPherson stand, they make it painfully clear in this next clip.

Josh McPherson: So when you see a successful business, it’s not guys that have a board of 35 people.

It’s Steve Jobs and Wozniak.

It’s, you know—I mean, it’s two or three guys at the top.

It’s not 15 or 20.

Josh Howerton: Yeah. God never—I just want to—

Josh McPherson: Yeah. And this goes to both principles: strengthen your hand, not throttle your hand, and small, nimble teams.

Josh Howerton: Yeah.

Josh McPherson: Dude, like it or not, some people—it’s like, especially the Reformed guys, they press back on this.

Josh Howerton: Yeah.

Josh McPherson: But, like, in the Scripture, there’s never a moment where the Lord anoints a team.

Josh Howerton: That’s right.

Josh McPherson: The Lord never anoints a committee.

Josh Howerton: That’s right.

Josh McPherson: The Lord anoints a man.

Josh Howerton: That’s right. That’s right.

Josh McPherson: And the purpose of the team—

Josh Howerton: That’s right.

Josh McPherson: —is to help strengthen the hand of the anointed man.

Josh Howerton: Yep. That’s right.

Josh McPherson: Yeah. That’s generalized language.

Josh Howerton: Yeah.

Josh McPherson: And the critique of that is, “Oh, it’s a Moses model.”

It’s like, well, Moses is in the Bible.

Josh Howerton: Yeah. Yeah.

Josh McPherson: It’s so weird.

Josh Howerton: Yeah. Yeah.

Lance Ford: Okay.

So now we’ve gotten to the theological center of this episode.

And I think it deserves a lot more attention than the debate over whether Elisa Childers used the label NAR correctly.

So just forget the label for a minute.

Is what you just heard New Testament ecclesiology?

Friends, you will never find this in the New Testament.

And as Julie mentioned, that’s importing Moses or an Old Testament king into the structure of the local church.

And interestingly, they anticipate that objection.

They essentially say, “People call this a Moses model. Well, Moses is in the Bible.”

Yeah.

Well, so is David.

And so is Solomon.

And so is the Levitical priesthood.

But the question isn’t whether Moses is in the Bible.

The question is: Did Jesus establish Moses as a governing model for the New Testament church?

He did not.

Julie Roys: Amen.

But it’s clear to me that these pastors are borrowing far more from worldly examples of governance than biblical ones.

They continue.

Josh McPherson: Number nine: generals, not soldiers, which is kind of speaking of this.

I wanted CEOs and business leaders because there’s a difference between a guy who’s in the lead seat where he’s at in his life than a guy who’s never been in the lead seat.

I don’t know how to explain it.

And it sounds arrogant.

Like, there’s just no other seat like the lead seat.

Josh Howerton: Yeah. It’s lonely.

Josh McPherson: It’s different.

And if you don’t know how it feels, you might not be able to relate to it as well.

And so I want guys who are in lead seats wherever they’re at in their field of endeavor and profession because they’ll understand what I’m facing, what I’m feeling as well.

They’re so busy dealing with their own stuff, they’re not meddling in my stuff.

Josh Howerton: Yeah. That’s great.

Josh McPherson: You know what I mean?

If you get a guy who works an eight-to-five and is kind of bored and wants to come in and run the show—bro, guys that don’t understand the church world and aren’t immersed in it shouldn’t be given responsibility to make the most important decisions about it.

Julie Roys: There he goes again.

“This might sound arrogant, but.”

“This might sound arrogant, but.”

Yeah, it does sound arrogant, Josh.

It does.

It does sound very arrogant.

And this is where these corporate assumptions just begin driving their ecclesiology.

There’s nothing wrong with CEOs.

There’s nothing wrong with business leaders serving in churches.

But the biblical qualifications for elders in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 don’t say, “Find CEOs,” or, “Find entrepreneurs. Find generals. Find men accustomed to command. Find risk-takers.”

Which is interesting because it’s very clear that McPherson is describing what he thinks a pastor is.

Which is really—I mean, it’s just not at all a New Testament pastor.

But that’s how he sees it.

And then he complains, you know, being at the top and blah, you know.

When you set yourself up as that kind of a leader, you do have to deal with those sorts of things.

You do have to deal with loneliness at the top.

But it’s not because that’s something that—this is how pastoring should be.

It’s what it’s become, unfortunately.

But the qualifications in Scripture are so overwhelmingly about character.

As we mentioned, it’s above reproach, self-controlled, hospitable, gentle, not quarrelsome, not lovers of money, faithful to their household.

It doesn’t surprise me, though, that these guys would be promoting this, you know, super-hyper-macho image of church leadership.

McPherson, his church regularly hosts this FreedomCon men’s conference, and it’s focused on this hypermasculinity and Christian nationalism.

And who speaks there?

A bully like Driscoll and Josh Howerton, Ryan Visconti.

They seem to be out to make Jesus in their own sort of hunter, cowboy, army-general image.

And these men seem to have no place for softer virtues like compassion or empathy, which Jesus clearly embodied.

Honestly, it just comes across to me as a woman as misogynist.

When I listen to them, I don’t feel like they value any feminine virtues.

It’s like all they value is the masculine.

And they just seem like—I mean, honestly, like bragging bros back and forth, the way they talk.

C.S. Lewis once said—it’s one of my favorite quotes—“There ought spiritually to be a man in every woman and a woman in every man, and how horrid ones who haven’t got it are. I can’t bear a man’s man or a woman’s woman.”

Now, he’s not saying anything about trans, right?

I mean, what he’s saying is a man who is all masculine and has no feminine virtues—I mean, that man is, like, warlike, right?

I mean, he has no gentleness, no compassion to offset that, you know, masculine drive to succeed or to initiate.

And a woman who has no masculine virtues becomes sickly passive, right?

She doesn’t have the ability to say no or to stand up when she needs to.

And so it’s this idea that we’re not unidimensional caricatures as men and women.

But these men, I mean, honestly, they just seem like caricatures to me.

And that seems like what they’re just promoting and saying this is what pastors should be.

And honestly, I think it’s kind of scary.

But if you think I’m off, listen to this next clip.

Josh McPherson: Number 10: leaders of men, not pastors of people.

And that’s a gifting thing.

We need pastors of people.

That’s not the gifting we need here.

We need the gift of governance at the table.

Flock-focused shepherds, not sheep-focused shepherds.

And all these things are speaking to gifting and wiring, not character.

Josh Howerton: There you go.

Josh McPherson: Right?

Character’s a given.

We’re assuming that.

That’s like 101 here.

These are men of character.

But now we’re looking at gifting because there can be wonderful, wonderful princes of men—I mean, saints, wonderful men—who would not do well at a governing-board level.

And the error is, “Well, he’s a good guy,” or, “He’s a wonderful pastor. He’ll make a great elder.”

That’s not necessarily the case.

You need someone with the gift of governance.

Or 11: gift of governance, not gift of compassion.

Josh Howerton: Yeah, redundant.

Julie Roys: Can you help me out, Lance?

What is the gift of governance?

I mean, I’m trying to—like, when the gifts are listed, I’m like, where’s this gift of governance?

Am I missing something?

Lance Ford: Well, I’ve been looking for it too.

I mean, in Romans 12, there’s an administration.

But what these guys mean about governance, you will not find it in the New Testament unction or the New Testament call for what leadership in the body would be.

It’s formulated, once again, in the CEO top-down model.

Visionary.

Boss, boss, boss.

That’s, you know—and one of the things that’s really funny is McPherson there says, “Oh, character? Oh, well, we just—you know, that’s a given.”

He just blows it off.

He just blows off 1 Timothy.

Julie Roys: Just like all the scandals.

All the scandals we’re seeing in the church today.

Lance Ford: Exactly.

Because it’s just together—

Julie Roys: Right, because we know these guys are going to have good character, right?

Lance Ford: So it’s—I mean, we’re supposed to have words here because we’re doing a podcast, but it almost leaves you without words.

It’s really verbal insanity.

And, you know, this is where the context doesn’t make it better.

It makes it worse.

Because they are deliberately separating governing elders from pastoral shepherding again.

But Peter tells elders, “Shepherd the flock.”

Paul tells elders, “Shepherd the church of God.”

So we’re not objecting because we misunderstand McPherson.

We’re objecting because we do understand him.

And so the idea that a man could be a wonderful shepherd but somehow not be appropriately gifted to be an elder because you need more CEO-like governance—it’s almost the reverse of the New Testament emphasis.

And notice the high emphasis.

I don’t think I have to tell you to notice it.

But I think that we all need to just really notice the high emphasis on gifting rather than character.

Because McPherson says, “We assume the character part.”

That’s what we’re talking about here.

Well, where has that gotten us with this type of an assumption?

Because the very ethos of what Jesus forbids in Matthew 20 is an ethos that he calls the way of the Gentiles.

And then comes the attack on empathy.

And I knew this was coming from these guys.

Josh McPherson: Number 13: not emotionally manipulated by misplaced empathy.

That’s kind of what we’re saying.

Mob-proof.

By the way, everyone needs to have your board read Emotional Sabotage.

Josh Howerton: Joe Rigney.

Josh McPherson: By Joe Rigney.

Got to read it.

Really, really good.

Last one here is you’ve got to make sure they’re mob-proof.

Seriously, here’s how I looked at it.

Personality is key.

I did not want engineers, doctors, or attorneys on my team as a rule.

Now, I’m trying to think if we have any one attorney right now.

But the point is, I don’t want someone—in general, I don’t want to fill my board, in general, with a group of men whose profession depends on them catching every little detail or somebody dies.

Lance Ford: Okay, okay.

Can I—you know what he just said was he would not want Mr. Rogers on his team.

Mr. Rogers is a man that had empathy, right?

I mean, here’s a person that had character and he had empathy.

But I guarantee you, just looking at him and his sweater, these guys would say, “There’s no way you’re going to be on our board because you’re not manly enough for us. You’re too soft for us.”

I mean, let’s get real.

That’s the mentality that these guys have.

Julie Roys: Well, yeah.

And I think this whole idea that—I mean, it seems to me that they’re saying, like, the biggest danger that we have in the church with pastors or with these boards is that they’re too compassionate.

They’re too empathic.

And I’m sitting here from my standpoint, my vantage point of reporting all these controversies and scandals in places where boards have just completely lacked any emotional empathy at all for people.

And I think this is where they’re not acknowledging that, yes, some people can be emotionally manipulated, but the opposite danger is also real.

Boards can be discipled to treat compassion as a weakness.

They can become more concerned about protecting the institution from accusations than listening carefully to people who say they’ve been harmed.

And when an accountability structure has already been trained to be mob-proof, skeptical of outsiders, skeptical of watchdogs, skeptical of criticism, and worried about misplaced empathy, what I want to know is:

Who’s making sure that the board hasn’t become survivor-proof too?

Lance Ford: Well, and that’s what all this creates.

Because once again—and you heard it earlier in the dialogue from these guys—is that the board, its number one job there really is to protect this lead guy.

Because, I mean, look, he’s the golden goose.

He gets the vision.

He’s the one that hears directly from God that then they are going to confirm it, right?

So it’s not people first.

And once again, they’ve completely lost the definition and the very function of what a shepherd is supposed to be.

Which, once again, an elder is supposed to be a shepherd, right?

Be elder—you know, shepherd the flock of God.

So when you’ve got shepherds that are placing shepherds first rather than sheep first, you’ve just absolutely lost the plot.

And it creates a place—it creates a very dangerous place for the flock.

So it’s not a survivor-safe place whatsoever.

In fact, I know, Julie, you and I—we know, we’ve heard the stories.

You’ve heard more stories than I have, even coming straight out of Lakepointe, Josh Howerton’s church, that it sure doesn’t seem to be a very survivor-safe place.

But it sounds like it’s a pretty safe place for higher-ups.

Julie Roys: I think that’s very well put.

And there have been, sadly, what’s happening at Howerton’s church, very similar—and I’m guessing probably at McPherson’s too—but very similar to Driscoll, because these guys, they govern alike, right?

I mean, and so you’re finding this trail of bodies behind the bus, and it seems like that’s their M.O.

So next, Howerton and McPherson discuss who they listen to and who they don’t listen to.

Josh McPherson: When someone criticizes me, I don’t determine whether I should receive it or not.

I submit that to my executive team.

Josh Howerton: That’s great.

Josh McPherson: “Should I receive this or not?”

And then they discern it and go, “You know what? There’s some truth here.”

Or, “You know what? This is garbage.”

If I gave myself that permission, I would probably receive things I shouldn’t and reject things I should receive.

Josh Howerton: One hundred percent.

Josh McPherson: And so I want guys to understand the nature of criticism in that all my board—I’ve learned from my board.

They say, “Josh, we don’t receive criticism from someone we wouldn’t seek counsel from.”

Josh Howerton: Wow.

Josh McPherson: Right?

And I really appreciate that.

Lance Ford: Notice this circle.

Who evaluates criticism of the leader?

It’s the leader’s executive team.

The very team that’s been selected according to this governance philosophy that we’ve heard.

These are the ones that have been trained to recognize mobs.

These are the ones that value unity, who are supposed to strengthen the leader, that are supposed to become mob-proof.

These are the people that are privates.

Don’t forget, they’re not lieutenants.

That’s not no accountability, but it isn’t independent accountability either.

And I believe that that distinction matters.

Julie Roys: You know, I have to say, as a woman, hearing these guys talk about how they evaluate everything.

And now, like you’re saying, it’s like these bros at the top, right?

And they all decide who’s a valid voice and who isn’t a valid voice.

And just hearing their values and the way that they—you know, just the two Joshes, the way that they filter things—I would expect, as a woman, that if I brought a concern, I would probably be discounted.

And I would guess that any woman who shows any emotion, given that they don’t seem to really value compassion, that she would be written off as hysterical or emotionally manipulative.

I think what they’ve revealed is they’re not safe.

I think Elisa Childers was 100% right when she said that their churches are spiritually dangerous and I’d run for the hills.

I mean, this—as someone who wants to know that the ones that are actually in leadership are protecting and caring for the sheep, I just—I’m just not hearing that.

And I’m not hearing that they’ll even listen to the sheep.

But there’s one caveat that I believe is important that we acknowledge.

You know, Howerton pushes back slightly during the podcast.

In fact, I think that—I don’t even know if it’s so much pushback.

I think he’s trying to kind of save McPherson from himself because he’s anticipating what the pushback is.

I think that’s what’s going on a lot there.

And so when McPherson talks about people that make decisions quickly and tolerate risk, Howerton says his own eight-person board deliberately includes at least one brake-tapper.

Let’s take a listen.

Josh Howerton: Now, I’ll counterpoint.

You may disagree, whatever.

Josh McPherson: Yeah.

Josh Howerton: On our board, we like to have—now, ours is an eight-person board—

Josh McPherson: Yeah.

Josh Howerton: We like to have one, at least one, brake-tapper.

It’s usually like a lawyer.

Josh McPherson: Yeah.

Josh Howerton: Like right now, we have two lawyers.

It’s usually like lawyers, engineers—

Josh McPherson: Yeah.

Josh Howerton: —those kind of guys.

We like to have one because I’m like, I’m all “seize opportunity.”

Josh McPherson: Yeah.

Josh Howerton: I’m very comfortable with a ton of risk.

Josh McPherson: Yeah.

Josh Howerton: I’m go, go, go. All gas, no brakes.

Josh McPherson: Yep. Yep.

Josh Howerton: It’s nice to have one guy that’s like, “Hey, we should pray for six minutes,” you know?

Josh McPherson: Totally, man. Totally. Yeah, yeah. We have one guy like that too.

Lance Ford: Which raises an obvious question.

If that’s Howerton’s actual conviction about elder plurality, then why does he repeatedly and enthusiastically affirm McPherson’s much stronger theological claims all throughout this episode?

“Heaven down.”

“Oh, that’s good.”

“Monarchy.”

“Oh, that’s great.”

“We’re here to govern, not pastor.”

“That’s important.”

“The Lord anoints a man.”

“That’s right.”

“The team’s purpose is strengthening the anointed man.”

“That’s right.”

See, that’s the issue.

So the question isn’t whether Josh Howerton has ever lost a vote.

The question is, what governance theology is he promoting to thousands of pastors who hear this podcast?

And this is where the past few days have become almost a case study in the podcast’s own philosophy.

Remember what the podcast teaches boards to expect.

Criticism will come.

Online mobs will come.

Just that word, “online mobs.”

I mean, it can’t be, like, actual valid criticism that you need to hear.

Outsiders often don’t know the whole story.

Watchdog outlets may distort things.

Board members must not be manipulated by outside pressure.

They need to be mob-proof.

They need to dismiss fake outrage.

Then Childers publicly critiques the governance model.

And what happens?

Her criticism is described as a false accusation.

She’s accused of taking things out of context.

Landon Schott essentially calls her evil and religious scum.

Ryan Visconti warns that she may be bearing false witness.

He warns of slander, divisiveness, sowing discord.

He stresses that she has no ecclesiastical relationship with these men and no governing responsibility within their churches.

And this is such a typical response.

Despite the fact that Howerton and McPherson are preaching to outsiders on their podcast, Visconti is arguing that only their church members can critique them.

It’s nuts.

But it fits remarkably well inside this very framework that the podcast teaches.

Lance Ford: Exactly.

And I think it’s helpful to also note that church discipline and public theological critique are not the same thing.

Elisa Childers is not attempting to depose Josh Howerton as pastor.

She’s evaluating public teaching.

So two pastors published a public episode teaching other pastors how they believe church governance should work.

And Christians don’t need ecclesiastical jurisdiction over a teacher in order to evaluate public teaching by Scripture.

Because if that was the standard, then none of us could evaluate teachers outside of our own congregation.

And ironically, Howerton and McPherson themselves spend portions of the podcast evaluating critics, journalists, watchdogs, pastors, boards, and churches over which they had no ecclesiastical jurisdiction.

Listen, public teaching invites public examination.

Julie Roys: Oh, the irony.

That was such a good point.

They’re doing the exact thing that they seem to be critiquing everyone else of doing.

But let’s return to this whole discussion of NAR.

Ryan Visconti makes one useful correction here.

He says the New Apostolic Reformation is more specific than, quote, “a pastor believes God has called him to lead.”

And Howerton says he rejects contemporary big-A apostles.

And we should take them at his word, unless there’s some evidence that shows otherwise.

So I’m not interested in having a discussion or claiming that Josh Howerton is NAR.

That, again, is not the issue.

But I think it is important to note that while he may not believe in modern apostles, he clearly believes in contemporary prophets on the order of Moses.

Maybe he hasn’t put that together yet.

Like, maybe he hasn’t realized, “Oh yeah, I’m actually falling into this apostles-and-prophets thing that NAR is falling into.”

It’s obvious from this podcast that that’s what’s happening.

And this is what concerns me.

The governance theology taught in this episode is toxic.

And NAR churches don’t have a monopoly on it.

It’s epidemic in evangelical churches throughout the country.

The pastor is elevated above the congregation as this anointed visionary.

The board is reduced to mere supporters of the pastor.

Governors are separated from shepherds.

Dissent is treated suspiciously.

Outside criticism is filtered through insiders.

Corporate executives are prized for governance.

And organizational conformity is elevated as a governing virtue.

You don’t have to be NAR to build an unhealthy hierarchy.

And Jesus confronted this issue directly.

Matthew 20.

Remember, the disciples, they’re arguing about position.

And Jesus says, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them.”

That’s normal human hierarchy.

And then Jesus says, “It shall not be so among you.”

I’ve spent a large part of my writing life coming back to those words.

And, you know, Jesus just doesn’t simply put a nicer Christian at the top of Caesar’s pyramid.

He challenges the architecture from the outset.

And as I said earlier, Matthew 23, Jesus says, “You have one teacher, but you’re all brothers.”

They’re not identical.

You’re not leaderless.

Not roleless.

But brothers.

And this is a fellowship of equals.

And then look at Acts 15.

The church has a massive theological controversy.

And if there ever was a moment for the anointed visionary to receive God’s answer and bring it to the board to be confirmed, then this would be it.

But that’s not what happens.

There’s debate.

There’s a lot of debate.

Peter speaks.

Paul and Barnabas speak.

James speaks.

Scripture is considered.

The Bible says, “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us.”

Not, “It seemed good to the anointed man, and we confirmed it.”

The Spirit and us.

Shared discernment under the headship of Jesus Christ.

That’s what we see there.

And Christ alone is the head.

Always and forever.

So where do we land?

There are things Josh Howerton has said in his own defense that, in isolation, I would say appear to be on track.

If elders genuinely disagree with him, if they genuinely outvote him, if he genuinely welcomes that correction, that all sounds good.

But when we listen to the full podcast, the larger context didn’t make our concerns disappear.

It intensified them.

The full conversation reveals that these men really think they are super special.

They are anointed uniquely to hear God’s voice and to communicate vision.

The rest of us are dispensable.

Our opinions are likely just a distraction.

Our emotions, our manipulation.

I couldn’t help but think of 1 Corinthians 12 in contrast:

“The eye cannot say to the hand, ‘I don’t need you.’

“And the head cannot say to the feet, ‘I don’t need you.’

“On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable.

“And the parts that we think are less honorable, we treat with special honor.

“And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, while our presentable parts need no special treatment.

“But God has put the body together, giving greater honor to the parts that lacked it, so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other.”

Honestly, these men just seem really intoxicated with their position and importance.

I didn’t see Jesus in that podcast.

I saw an arrogant and worldly value system that made them almost untouchable.

And that, I believe, is the full context.

Lance Ford: I agree, Julie.

And that’s why this conversation matters far beyond Josh Howerton, Josh McPherson, or Elisa Childers.

Because thousands of churches are wrestling with how elders and pastors should lead.

Who protects the sheep?

Who holds leaders accountable?

And what happens when a charismatic, gifted pastor is wrong?

And does the governing system make it easier or harder for someone to say so?

The church doesn’t need a more powerful man at the top.

It doesn’t need a braver Atlas.

It already has a head: Jesus Christ.

And beneath that one head, the church is not a mixture of generals and privates.

It’s not anointed men and supporting teams.

It’s a Spirit-filled body, a fellowship of brothers and sisters, with elders who actually shepherd.

Leaders that equip rather than dominate.

And accountability that runs in every direction, including toward the most powerful person in the room.

Because healthy church leadership is not ultimately about strengthening the hand of the leader.

It’s about strengthening the body of Christ.

And those are not always the same thing.

Julie Roys: Lance, thank you so much for joining me for this discussion.

As always, you bring so much biblical wisdom to the table.

I appreciate you, brother.

Oh, I mean, sir.

Lance Ford: Yeah, don’t forget that, for Neil’s sake.

Julie Roys: Well, thanks again.

I do really appreciate it.

Thanks so much for watching this episode of The Roys Report, a podcast dedicated to reporting the truth and restoring the church.

And if you appreciate our work and our mission here at The Roys Report, would you please consider supporting us with a donation?

Our investigative reporting is very time-intensive.

It’s specialized work.

And the only way that we can do it is with the help of people like you.

So to donate, just go to roysreport.com/donate.

And when you give a gift of $50 or more, we’ll send you a copy of Straight: A Compass for America’s Church by David Dennis.

If you feel like the church has lost its way and become a hierarchical machine rather than an organic body, you’re going to resonate with this book.

In it, David offers a compass for those leaving the church, supporting it, and those who have walked away.

And so again, to give a gift, just go to roysreport.com/donate.

And just a reminder to please subscribe to The Roys Report on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or YouTube.

That way, you’ll never miss an episode.

And while you’re at it, I’d really appreciate it if you’d help us spread the word about the podcast by leaving a review.

And then please share the podcast on social media so more people can hear about this great content.

Again, thanks so much for joining me today, and God bless.