Church Organisation

Who Leads the Church?

Soon-Hock Lim Leave a comment

Of course, the Lord Jesus Christ, the Head of the Church leads the church. That’s not the issue. The issue is, who is or are the Lord’s appointees to lead a local church? That is one of the most common problems that have led to conflicts and disunity in churches.

Is it the pastor? The chairman? The Board (Council, Committee)? The Eldership? They are all legitimate possibilities. I am certain that the New Testament does not provide us with a blueprint for a Presbyterian, Episcopalian or Congregational church polity. What it does give us are some broad strokes of church leadership, especially the character, qualifications, roles, and functions of church leaders (1 Tim 3:1-13, 1 Pet 1:1-5). Guided by a biblical framework each church has the legitimacy to develop its own form of church governance.

Many books have been written and many scholarly discussions have contributed to the debate over church polity, and by extension, church structure. It is not my intention to revisit the arguments. From the broad strokes provided by the Bible, and especially the New Testament, I intend to argue for, one, team leadership, and two, “all things being equal”, for the pastor to lead the leadership team; and then, together they lead the church.

Team Leadership

“Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely,” is a sad fact; even in the church. Regardless of who is in charge. If too much power is coalesced in one person, the dangers of such abuse of power is very real. The leadership of the church should always be in the hands of a team of leaders with equal leadership authority.  Nobody gets veto rights. Decisions are made collectively after careful deliberation and much prayer (not necessarily in that order). Plurality of leadership should be the order of the day.

The New Testament is clear about the plurality of leaders. Paul instructed Titus to appoint “elders in every town” in Crete (Tit 1:5). Similarly, on their return leg of their first missionary journey, Barnabas and Paul “appointed elders for them in each church” in the cities of Lystra, Iconium and Antioch (Acts 14:21-23).

Church polity and structure differ from denomination to denomination, and from church to church. While there is no one-size-fits-all, there are however, good, better and terrible structures that either enhance or hinder the life and ministry of the church. Some church structures are so complicated that they literally smother the church; all in the name of “check and balance”.

There is no perfect system. In the end it boils down to the human factor. The spirituality, maturity, wisdom, and capability of the appointed church leaders is critical. And if they are the best men and women in the church, based on the foregoing criteria, then they must also be given the mandate to lead the church. While there are no guarantees, the church must trust the plurality of leaders to provide their own “check and balance”.

Team Leader

If having the leadership of the church vested in one person is wrong and dangerous, it is also just as wrong, and a reflection of poor leadership, to have a leadership team without a team leader. I believe that “all things being equal” the pastor should lead the leadership team.

By “all things being equal” I mean that the pastor is just as capable, mature, spiritual, knows his Bible, and has leadership qualities as any of the other leaders in the church. If the pastor isn’t, relative to one or more of the other leaders, then, it is possible that another elder who is more qualified be appointed as the team leader.

There are good reasons for the pastor to lead the leadership team. First, the time factor. The typical pastor serves full-time. He (or she) is thus able to dedicate time to think, pray, and work through the issues of the church. Second, he has received formal training for the ministry. Third, because he is full-time, he is able carve out time to read, attend seminars, and avail himself for continual training so that he can further develop his shepherding and leadership skills. And fourth, his interaction with pastors of other churches allows him to learn from fellow-practitioners.

As I pointed out above, there is no full-proof system. However, based on the above reasons I believe the pastor makes the most suitable team leader for the leadership team and the church.

A Proposal for a Church Health Framework

Soon-Hock Lim Leave a comment

I have been studying church health for some time now, and it is apparent that each advocate of church health has his own understanding and model of church health, and including what constitutes a set of church health characteristics.

I believe, in the process of developing a church health model and determining a set of church health characteristics one must begin with a cohesive church health framework that is based on a biblical and theological foundation. A cohesive framework is helpful and necessary because it gives clarity about the structure of the model. It shows how the parts relate with one another and with the whole model. It also enables evaluation; whether each part is consistent with the whole, and whether the whole model serves its intended purpose—in this case, as a church health model.

In my study I discovered that most church health models do not have a cohesive framework. Among those that do, many are not based on an explicit biblical and theological foundation. Two models that do are Chuck Lawless’ Know Your Church1 and Leadership Transformation, Inc.’s Church Health Assessment Tool (CHAT).2

The Three Aspects of the Church

I would like to propose a framework that understands the church (that is a local congregation) in terms of its nature, ministry, and organisation. I first came across the concept in Craig Van Gelder’s The Essence of the Church.3 The nature of the church refers to what the church is—its essence, attributes, and characteristics. The ministry of the church refers to what the church does—its purpose, functions, activities, and roles. And the organisation of the church refers to how the church organises itself—which includes its structures, processes, and leadership.

The diagram4 on the left presents a visual of the three aspects of the church and their interconnectedness. The ministry of the church is not just about what the church does or its functions, but that it does what it is. In other words, the ministry of the church must be consistent with and flow from its nature. In the process of developing a church health framework with its attendant church health characteristics, two questions need to be asked: (1) what is the biblical nature of the church, and (2) what ministry functions arise from the nature of the church?

Similarly, the organisation of the church is not just about the efficient or even effective organisation of the church. The purpose of good organisation in a church is that it serves and supports the ministry of the church. If a health analysis were carried out on a church and the results show that the organisation of the church is strong while its ministry is relatively weaker, it is questionable if the organisation of the church is serving the biblical purpose of the church. It is likely that the focus of the church’s well-oiled machinery (including its finances) is misplaced on some non-essentials rather than on ministry. Furthermore, how a church organises itself must be consistent with its nature. The church of Jesus Christ is not just any organisation, but a spiritual organism that has been birthed by the Holy Spirit (Acts 2), made up of the people of God (1 Pet 2:9), and who constitutes the body of Christ (Eph 1:22-23).

When we understand the church based on these three aspects of the church, namely, its nature, ministry, and organisation, it will help us determine a more biblically compliant set of church health characteristics.  Then, with the latter, we will be able to measure the health of churches according to the biblical vision and teaching about the church.

Leadership Requirements for Healthy Churches (Part 1)

Soon-Hock Lim Leave a comment

by Lim Soon Hock, Empowering Churches

INTRODUCTION

The New Testament (NT) states that Jesus is the Head of the church (Eph 4:15), and that He is the One who builds His church (Mt 16:18).  These statements make it plain that Jesus is the Leader of His church.

The leaders of local churches are those whom the Lord appoints, and through whom He leads the church (1 Pet 5:1-4).  The focus of the paper is on the leaders of the local church, however, the understanding that Jesus is the ultimate Leader of every church should not be missed.  In the words of Leighton Ford, “Jesus in us continues to lead through us.” 5

The paper assumes that a church must have leadership.  The focus of the research is on the kind of leaders that are needed to develop a healthy church.  The twin problems that the research seeks to answer are: (1) what is a distinctive type of church leadership, and (2) what is a primary role of church leaders, that are essential for the development of a healthy church?

For the purpose of the paper, “type” is defined as the leadership attribute that characterises church leaders.  “Role” is defined as the function of church leaders.  And a “healthy church” may be viewed as a modern metaphor for the mature church that Paul spoke about in Ephesians 4:11-13.6

A delimitation of the paper is that it does not include the factor of church polity.  The subject of church polity is huge and is beyond the scope of the present research.  Finally, the category of leadership viewed in the paper concerns the topmost leadership echelon of the church, regardless of the term that a church may use.  In essence, these leaders are equivalent to the elders in the NT churches.7

The paper begins with a brief review of literature on church health models.  The purpose is to gain an understanding about the relationship between church leadership and church health.  The review is followed by a discussion of the main issues of the paper concerning the type and the role of church leaders that are essential for the development of a healthy church.  The research includes a study of the theology, philosophy, and practice of church leadership from the Bible, Christian literature, and practice among churches in Malaysia.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CHURCH LEADERSHIP AND CHURCH HEALTH

A review of church health models shows that each model has its own set of church health characteristics.  Some characteristics are common to many of the models, while some are only found in a few models, or even unique to a particular model.

The leadership characteristic is found in many church health models.  Out of the 14 models the researcher has studied nine have included leadership.   However, the way the leadership characteristic is described varies between models, as Table 1: The Leadership Characteristic of Church Health Models below shows.

Getz and Dever stress on the biblical or NT teaching on church leadership.  Getz’s focus concerns the spiritual qualifications of church leaders.8  Based on scriptural references such as 1 Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 1:5-9 Getz describes the character and maturity expected of church leaders.9

Dever also gives import to the biblical qualifications of church leaders.10  But he goes beyond the qualifications to note the purpose of church leaders; which is to use their spiritual gifts to edify or build up the church.11  Furthermore, he states that there are four different aspects of leadership; namely, (1) the boss commanding, (2) the out-front example, (3) the supplying of what’s needed, and (4) the serving; and that they are all needed for biblical church leadership.12

Macchia’s stress is on the kind of attribute that should be reflected in church leaders—which for him is, servant leadership.[efn-note]Stephen A. Macchia, Becoming a Healthy Church: 10 Characteristics (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 115.[/efn_note]  He explains that a servant-leader is one who is led by Jesus, loves those whom he leads and serves, a life-long learner, listens to God and to others, lightens the load of others, empowers a team to pursue a vision, and leaves a legacy by raising others up.13

Callahan’s focus is on the development of a strong leadership team.  The kind of leaders (or leadership team) that Callahan envisages; (1) love those they lead, (2) listen to those they love, (3) learn as they listen, and then (4) lead as they love, listen, and learn.14

 

The remaining five models stress on the role of church leaders to empower believers in the church for ministry and leadership.  They may use different terms such as empowering leadership (Schwarz, and Beeson), mobilising leadership (Koster and Wagenveld), and leadership multiplication (EFCA), but essentially, they are concerned about the role of church leaders to empower the believers in the church.  Although Searcy does not use any qualifying term for his leadership characteristic, nonetheless, his survey questions disclose that his emphasis is also on the role of the leaders to empower others in the church.15

The foregoing discussion shows that a wholistic understanding of the leadership characteristic encompasses four areas: (1) biblical qualifications, (2) spiritual maturity and character, (3) leadership type, and (4) the role of the leaders in the church.

Only three out of nine models; namely, Getz, Dever, and Koster and Wagenveld, address the first two areas about the biblical qualifications and character of church leaders (see Table 2: The Type of Church Leaders of Church Health Models below).

These two areas do not appear to be the concerns of the other six models.  It is likely, although the researcher is unable to cite direct quotes, that proponents of these six models have assumed that church leaders must necessarily be biblically qualified and possess a Christlike character.  Their focus is on the type and the role of church leaders.

The researcher observes that they have different views about leadership types, but they have less differences about the role of church leaders.  All these become clearer when we scrutinise the details of their models in the following sections of the paper.

In sum, the study of church health models shows that:

(1) The leadership factor is one of the most critical elements that determines the health of a church.

(2) The church leadership characteristic in church health philosophy covers four areas: (i) qualification, (ii) character, (iii) type, and (iv) role.

(3) It may be assumed that church health proponents agree about the biblical qualifications, maturity, and character of church leaders.  However, they appear to vary in their understanding about what the distinctive type of church leader should be, and to a lesser extent about the primary role of church leaders.

Go to Part 2

Church Health Literature Review (Part 2)

Soon-Hock Lim Leave a comment

(Click here for Part 1)

THE THOLOGICAL APPROACH TO CHURCH HEALTH

The advocates of the theological approach to church health primarily look at what the Bible says about the church—what the church is to be and to do.  One of the most significant contributions to church health literature in this vein is Mark Dever’s Nine Marks of a Healthy Church.16  He disagrees with the focus on pragmatism and numerical church growth of popular models of church.17  He also disagrees that appearances of relevance and outward responses are key indicators of being a successful church.18  Instead he opines, “We need churches in which the key indicator of success is not evident results but by persevering biblical faithfulness.”19

The first five of Dever’s nine marks of a healthy church concern the right preaching of the Word of God: (1) expositional preaching, (2) biblical theology, (3) the gospel, (4) biblical understanding of conversion, and (5) biblical understanding of evangelism.  The last four marks concern discipleship: (6) biblical understanding of church membership, (7) biblical understanding of church discipline, (8) Christian discipleship and growth, and (9) biblical understanding of church leadership.20  Dever admits that these are not the only marks of a healthy church and may not even be the most important.21  What’s critically important is that the teaching on these aspects of church health are derived from Scripture itself, hence the qualifying word “biblical” accompanying most of the marks.

Dever states that the first mark, expositional preaching is the most important, which in his mind is the only form of biblical preaching.22  By expositional preaching he means preaching a message from a passage of Scripture in its context.23  In other words, the text determines the point rather than the text being used to support a pre-conceived point.  A healthy church is one whose beliefs and practices are derived from the Bible, such as Dever’s nine marks themselves.

Most of Dever’s nine marks of a healthy church fall under the category of spiritual health.  They are also described primarily from a spiritual angle.  While the church is a spiritual entity, a comprehensive understanding and evaluation of the health of a church must, nonetheless, include its organisational health.  The latter comprise the structures, systems and processes by which a church uses to develop the marks of a healthy church.  A biblical- or theological-only approach to the study of church health does not appear to address the church’s organisational health.

John Stott’s The Living Church: Convictions of a Lifelong Pastor24 would fall into the category of a theological approach to church health.  The purpose of Stott’s book is to set out the theological and essential marks that characterise an authentic and living church.25  It is obvious that Stott does not mean to stipulate an exhaustive list of such characteristics.  From Acts 2:42-47 he determines that there are four essentials in the kind of church that God envisions: (1) a learning church, (2) a caring church, (3) a worshipping church, and (4) an evangelising church.26  In the remaining chapters of the book he discusses different aspects of church life.  Some are directly related to the four essentials mentioned above, others do not have any connection to the four essentials; such as ministry, giving, and impacting our world for social change.

His concluding chapter on “Looking for Timothys” is not really a conclusion.  It could even be seen as another mark of a healthy church—the need to look out and raise up Timothys.  As with Nine Marks, The Living Church is necessary and helpful in the study of healthy churches because it presents the biblical teaching on what Stott deems to be the marks of a healthy church.  His gleanings from Scripture regarding these marks are insightful.

In a slight departure from an otherwise theological-only approach to church health, Stott encourages surveys to be done of the community and the church to determine if a church has organised itself relevantly to the community, or is there a disconnect between them?27  Surveys or studies such as these are critical since the level of effective community outreach is an important component to determine the overall health of a church.

(Click to go to Part 3)

by Lim Soon Hock, Empowering Churches

The Church Thriving Inspite of Social Distancing

Soon-Hock Lim 4 Comments

Ugh! The Movement Control Order (MCO) has been extended for another two weeks till 28 April. Even for an introvert like me it’s getting a bit too much of time alone! But that’s not the point of this blogpost.

Even when the MCO is finally lifted there is a real possibility that Putrajaya may ban large gatherings for the rest of 2020.

What constitutes a large gathering? According to a report in TheEdgeMarkets it is anything above 250 people (13 March 2020).  However, according to theStar online it is anything above 50 people (4 April 2020). On top of this the authorities may still require people to keep a distance of at least one metre (maybe even two metres) from one another. If this is implemented the capacity of a church’s worship hall will immediately be reduced to hold at most one third of the usual crowd at any one time.

I believe churches will want to abide by the directives, and also to keep their members safe. What can we do to adjust to the situation, and yet thrive in it? Here are some suggestions for the worship service.1

  1. Have multiple services.
  2. Provide overflow rooms with close-circuit TV or live-streaming facilities.
  3. Live stream the service so that members2 can join the service at home. Those who prefer to play it safe can stay home and join the service online. Perhaps, it ought to be made mandatory for the less healthy and elderly.
  4. Members to take turns to attend a live worship. One suggestion is for people to pre-register until the quota is filled, with preference given to those who do not have the technical resources to join the live-stream.

An alternative is to schedule attendance at the live worship by cell groups. What about those who are not in a cell? It then depends on a church’s philosophy of ministry. Either some places are set aside for those who are not in a cell, or they be asked to join a cell as a pre-step to attend a live worship.

The implications of “no large gatherings” is going to be huge on the church. I’ve not begun to address two other important groups, the youth and the children (maybe in another post). And also about outreach—how will we be doing it in the day of social distancing? Here’s the bottom line: I don’t think we can do church in the same way as we did pre-MCO.

Clearly, church is not just about the worship service. Church ultimately is about relationships (vertical and horizontal), discipleship (or discipling) and reaching out to the world (to win the spiritually lost and to impact our world). If worship services are cut shorter to cater for multiple services and the live-stream “audience”, coupled with social distancing and quick exits from the church building, the worship services are not going to cut it as far as the above mentioned objectives are concerned.

A couple of pastors shared with me that this is where the small group ministry is critically important. Small groups can fulfil all the three objectives. We used to think that the establishment of cells was in preparation for persecution. Little did we know that they would also be critical for a time like this.

I want, however, to add that these small groups must be intentional about discipling, if the church wants to thrive, and not to simply ride out this period of uncertainty. A critical factor rests on a very important person—the small group leader. The above-mentioned pastors said that helping their small group leaders to recalibrate and to empower them for their role will be their primary focus. I’m sure one of the areas of training will be about making effective use of online facilities to connect and disciple their members.

So, during the ban on large gatherings there are at least two things your church should do. One, restructure your worship service and make use of the online platform. And two, recalibrate and strengthen your small group ministry with the focus on caring, discipling and reaching out to others.

1 These include suggestions from the pastors who responded to my query.

2 By “members” I do not mean registered members but all who worship regularly at your church.

Lim Soon Hock Empowering Churches

The Church, Covid-19 & IT

Soon-Hock Lim 4 Comments

The government’s Movement Control Order (MCO) counter-measure against Covid-19 has affected how we do church. As a result of this national lockdown Christians are not be able to meet for corporate worship and small group meetings. Needless to say the huge majority of churches in Malaysia have been caught unprepared. Most have not kept up with the digital revolution nor learnt how to make use of the digital platform to further the work of the church.

A few days ago I asked some pastors and church leaders how they are: 1.Connecting with their members, 2. Conducting their small group and prayer meetings, and 3. Doing their “corporate” worship service. I was particularly interested to know how they are using online facilities to help them accomplish the above objectives.

Relaying information to church members is probably the easiest thing to do. WhatsApp, Facebook and the like are already in common use by many, and a church can easily send out information via these multiple social media platforms.

It’s the group meetings that is more challenging, and especially an online substitute for the corporate worship service.

It appears that the application of choice (among the small number of pastors and church leaders that responded to my research) for small group meetings, whether cell meetings or prayer meetings, is Zoom. It is a video conferencing software.

Among the first things you read on its website is that since Covid-19 the number of users have grown rapidly. You can register with Zoom for an account and host a session for free but your conference or meeting is limited to 40 minutes. Beyond that you need to sign up on one of its pay-plans. The good news is that only the host needs to be on the pay-plan. The other participants don’t even need to have an account—you only need to click and join the meeting set up by the host. Skype has been around longer and it serves the same purpose. You can read up and decide which is better or more suited for your purpose.

The bottom line is that your church needs to capitalise on these online platforms in times like this. During normal times they are still needful and useful for the occasional online meetings when everyone’s hard pressed for time or to avoid wasting time stuck in the horrendous urban traffic.

I know of at least one church that is providing daily video devotions for its members. The pastors record a short devotional message using their smartphone and upload it onto google drive. The link is sent to the members for them to view the video anytime of the day. Whether you do it daily or once during mid-week it helps your church member feel connected to you as their pastor during this time of no face-to-face contact.

Before Covid-19 only a handful of churches in Malaysia were live-streaming their worship services. Then, as I have learnt, the Sunday just prior to MCO a few more churches did their first live-streaming. I believe the leaders were already anticipating what was coming. Although the restricted movement has brought a temporary halt to live-streaming it has nonetheless given the church a look at what could be done in the future and also what can be done using online applications under the present lockdown.

Since last Sunday a number of churches are now recording their sermons and uploading them on Facebook and YouTube. Some have piggy-back on Pastor Craig Groeschel’s Church Online Platform (https://churchonlineplatform.com/). Over the next few Sundays, if MCO persists, even more churches will be using one of these online platforms. (As I write this the Prime Minister has announced that the MCO will be extended by another two weeks till April 14. It is clear that your church cannot afford not to use these online facilities.)

Recording and uploading onto Facebook or YouTube is not that difficult. A Baby-Boomer pastor can still learn how to do it. If not find a younger person (in or outside your church) to teach you or help you do it.

Worship might be a little trickier, but it can be done. If you don’t want to break the rules of the MCO then you may have to resort to a one-man band, leading and playing on a musical instrument. Unless your church is fortunate enough to have a worship leader who is surrounded by a musical family! Record the songs and upload them. Then send the links for both the worship and sermon to your members. If you have people who are IT-savvy they will be able to add in the song lyrics  and splice the worship, sermon and announcements into one seamless presentation.

What about the most important part of the worship service—the offering? (Please read that tongue- in-cheek). I think it’s time to provide an option for online giving. The offering done this way is no less an act of worship.

I believe the church needs to make the best use of IT and the online platform to advance the Kingdom of God. IT can be used for good or bad. If the church doesn’t use it for good and the Kingdom, the devil will certainly use it for his own evil purpose. Your choice.

Lim Soon Hock Empowering Churches

Rooting for the Small Church!

Soon-Hock Lim 6 Comments

What is the place of the small church? Should we hypothesise that all churches are meant to grow, and therefore, we must do all we can to breakthrough the barriers that keep a small church from growing?

Or, should we say that the small church has its place and accept that, “My church is, and shall remain, a small church”?

Or, after having evaluated our church we come to the conclusion, “Although we may be a small church, we are nonetheless effective.” Now, (and please do not think that I am being insensitive or negative) if we are effective why then are we not growing? Are there valid and happy reasons?

I don’t have the statistics, but from my observation most of the churches in Malaysia are small. (I wish our national and denominational bodies will do more statistical studies so that we can have a better picture of the state of the Church in Malaysia). By definition a small church is numerically under 200 people; from babies to senior citizens (or as someone once said to me, “We count everything that moves!”). Using this metric, depending on who you quote, 80-90% of the churches in the US are small churches. My guess is that, it is probably the same in Malaysia. If we were to add all the churches in the small towns and villages in both Peninsula and East Malaysia they will certainly make up a very large  percentage of churches in the country. Even in the urban centres most of the churches are small.

There is no shame in being small.

All churches started small! Unless a large church decided to send out more than 200 people to start a new church plant; which has been done before, but it is not the norm. Hence, we are not to despise humble beginnings. However, note that it was never the intention of the parent church or the new church plant for it to remain small. It was planted to win more people to the Lord and to add them to the church. Churches that have lost its passion need to recapture the spirit and vision of those early pioneering days.

There is a huge difference between a small dynamic church that is making impact in its community and even beyond, and a small inward-looking church whose main focus are the needs of the members and trying to survive till Jesus returns.

There are good reasons why a church should remain small, and there are wrong reasons for a church to remain small. Below are some valid reasons:

  1. The community where the church is located, serves and is trying to reach with the Gospel is small; such as a small town or village. Even if the church is located in a large urban centre, the particular ethnic group that it is attempting to reach may be small; such as a migrant community.
  1. The church leaders believe that a small church is stronger relationally, can attain a higher level of member-participation, and achieve greater effectiveness in outreach. In other words, remaining small is a philosophy of ministry where growth is an objective. An outcome of such a philosophy would be church planting. Instead of growing into a large church, the parent church keeps on training and sending its members out to plant new churches. This is called extension growth. Or, the main church starts new ethnic-language congregations. This has been termed bridging growth. An example is when a Malaysian English-speaking church spawns a Tamil- or a Myanmarese-speaking congregation.
  1. Most pastors (and church leaders) are not large church leaders. Fewer still are megachurch pastors. If that is the case then, it is better to have many small churches that have pastors who are able to lead with vision and passion for growth and multiplication, than to load them with guilt that they are not growing their church into a large church.
  1. Small churches are easier to manage and lead. And if most pastors don’t have the capacity to lead large churches, it is best to accept our God-given abilities and work with small churches. Some people think that pastoring a mega church has built-in advantages because it has mega resources. But as I once heard Daniel Ho (former Senior Pastor of DUMC) say, “…we also have mega problems!” And not every (read, “most”) pastors (or lay leaders) are able to handle mega challenges.
  1. Some people don’t want to go to a large church. They prefer the I-know-everyone-in-the-church kind of atmosphere and where the pastor is everyone’s personal shepherd. Should the church grow too big for them, they move out to a smaller church.

Small churches are here to stay—and for good reasons. The thing is, we need to ensure that our church is small for the right reasons, and never at the expense of fulfilling the Great Commission of Jesus Christ.

Clarity

Soon-Hock Lim 4 Comments

Short-sightedness, astigmatism, floaters, and cataracts are eye conditions. When we have them they blur our vision—we can’t see things clearly. We consult an optometrist or an ophthalmologist, depending on the problem, to make a pair of eye glasses (or contact lenses) or to have laser eye surgery done. We do this because we want visual clarity—to see, to read, to drive, to enjoy the beauty around us.

The need for clarity is not just limited to our physical sight. We also need mental and spiritual clarity; not only for the individual, but also for a corporate entity like the church. Without clarity, the people perish, may not be quite what the Bible says, but it is the truth! And I am afraid this happens all too often in the church, to the detriment of relationships and the church’s effectiveness.

Without Clarity

Without clarity there is confusion. The Senior Pastor makes decisions on matters like this? I thought it was the Chairman of the Board who makes the call.

Without clarity there is misalignment. My CG is studying the book of Jonah. I didn’t know that it was mandatory for all CGs to do the study on “Unity” this month.

Without clarity there can be no efficiency. I’ve been walking around in the church building for the last 10 minutes because the signages are so poor. I can’t figure out where I’m supposed to be heading.

Without clarity there can be no teamwork. Chong Beng, you were supposed to bring the pizza. Joe was to bring the drinks. Now we have too much coke and no pizza for our Youth leaders’ meeting!

This is by no means exhaustive, and I am sure you can think of a few more nasty consequences that come from a lack of clarity in the church. Often it has to do with communication; that is, poor and ineffective means of communication. However, a more serious problem is the lack of clarity at the source; that is, the people who are giving the instructions, making the decisions, leading the direction—they are not clear themselves. Inevitably, they will not be able to provide clarity for others.

Areas That Need Clarity

Some of the areas that a church needs corporate clarity includes:

Clarity of purpose. Some churches don’t have a clear purpose about what they are doing or where they are heading. Those that do often just hang up their vision statement on the wall or emblazon it on their website’s homepage. But the leaders don’t talk about it or rally the people to pursue it. Fewer still have achievable and measurable goals to lead the members to fulfil what they like to do (or what they think the Lord wants them to do).

Clarity of Values. By values I don’t mean the church’s doctrinal beliefs. These are important, and no church should be without absolute clarity about their theological beliefs. However, the values I am referring to here are about a church’s organisational beliefs as a corporate body or group of people who have banded together to serve the Lord and His purpose. People will only stick together and work with one another to the extent that they share the same values. If they don’t, they won’t. Confusion in this area leads to uncertainty and disillusionment. Clarity and acceptance of the shared values is the glue that holds the team together.

Clarity of Philosophy of Ministry. Conflicts in the church today have very much less to do with doctrinal issues. Sometimes it is over values. But really, most times it is over the philosophy of ministry—the way things are done. Hence, if it is unclear it is a cause for misunderstandings and dragging-of-the-feet which can escalate into outright conflicts. Worship-wars is in part due to a conflict of philosophies of ministry. So is the multiplication of cell groups, the number of paid staff the church may engage, and the amount of money the church should save as against giving it away to support missions. Every church needs a clear philosophy of ministry for all the critical areas of church life and organisation. (Read my earlier blogpost on Philosophy of Ministry here.)

Clarity in the Lines of Authority. This an obvious biggie! Who’s in-charge? Who’s responsible? Where does the buck stop? Who’s got the final say? Every church needs to get it right and make it absolutely clear to everyone.

Again, the above list is not exhaustive. But I hope it is plain enough that your church needs clarity! Here’s a point of application for you. What is one area in your church that lacks clarity? Work on it today. What’s unclear that needs clarity? Who are the stakeholders that should be consulted? Write three to five statements to provide clarity and get all the stakeholders to agree on them. Communicate it to the church clearly, repeatedly, creatively, and in as many ways as possible. Then repeat the process in another area. It will get you clarity and save you a lot of headaches and heartaches.

 

Team Management Model

Soon-Hock Lim 1 Comment

The following is taken from Feeding & Leading by Kenneth O. Gangel, Victor Books, Wheaton, IL, 1989 (Chapter 1: Understanding Administrative Process, pp25-27). The diagrammatical presentation that he titled as “Team Management Model” shows what might be the best approach to the administrative-management-leadership when we take into consideration both “concern for people” (people-oriented) and “concern for production” (task-oriented).

Starting with the left bottom segment, Gangel wrote, “…1,1 or low-low with impoverished management. Here the administrative leader carries out only the minimal effort to do what is absolutely essential to keep the ministry going. He is low in both concern for people…and concern for production….

“Moving along the line to 1,9 the autocratic leader is heavy on authority-obedience. A pastor concerns himself only with what people can give to the church and insists they be there ever time the doors are open. He tends to be legalistic and demanding.

“His counterpart is 9,1, called by the creators of this chart country club management. Picture a pastor who lovingly relates to everyone while forgetting appointments, never preparing for business meetings, and failing to develop lay leadership. People may put up with him because they love him but they understand the church’s goals are not being achieved.

“On this model we don’t want to aim for the middle. To do so is to choose mediocrity. The 5,5 organization man management is probably a step ahead of the other three…but has not achieved the highest point on this chart which is 9,9—team management. Team leadership is the genius of the New Testament. Exemplified first in Jesus and the disciples, it continues in the ministry of the apostles both in the early church and all of the missionary journeys. It creates what Lyle Schaller calls “ownership” in the organization.

(For a brief biography and contributions of Kenneth O Gangel (1935-2009) you can go to the link here.)

Complementary Leadership Style Model

Soon-Hock Lim 1 Comment

The following is taken from Feeding & Leading by Kenneth O. Gangel, Victor Books, Wheaton, IL, 1989 (Chapter 1: Understanding Administrative Process, pp23-25). The diagrammatical presentation he gives (below) is a great help in understanding various administrative/leadership styles. And how, with understanding, we can pull them together to provide a more balanced and complementary practise of leadership.

Gangel wrote, “Beginning with the lower left quadrant we see the amiable administrative style. Essentially giving a free rein in leadership, the amiable administrator tends to sit back, talk about people and feelings, and openly show reactions and emotions everyone can see. He is warm, approachable, and likeable, but a bit slow to act and undisciplined in time and procedures.

“Moving counterclockwise we find the expressive administrator whose heavy sentiment and empathy make him a feeling personality. He speaks quickly and easily to and about people, generally wants his opinions to be accepted, and appears generally impulsive, approachable, and warm. His major abilities lie in teaching, persuading, arousing enthusiasm, and communicating new ideas.

“The driving style administrator is the intuitive type we often associate with strong, natural leadership. Action-oriented, cool, competitive, and decisive, he wants to give the impression of being in charge an eager to led group process. As the visionary possibility-thinker of the organization, he looks ahead, nudges the group toward things which seem impossible, and furnishes the organization with new ideas.

“Finally we have the analytical or logical administrative style. He speaks slowly, cautiously, and often seems wrapped up in his own logic and argument. He’s interested in research and rarely like to act without a strong supply of facts and data within reach. He helps us to find flaws in group thinking, like to organize and reorganize, holds consistently to the policy handbook, and though no Christian leaders likes to do it, is the most adept t firing people when necessary.

“…Which one is the best? For the participation-oriented Christian leader, a constant pushing from an extreme toward the middle…the balanced middle brings together the best qualities of each style….

“But even more importantly the model shows us how administrative and leadership styles complement one another.”

(For a brief biography and contributions of Kenneth O Gangel (1935-2009) you can go to the link here.)