A Church’s History and Its Present Health

23 March 202526 March 2025Soon-Hock Lim Leave a comment

Can Past Events and Experiences of a Church Affect Its Health?

I believe most observers of churches will agree that events in the history of a church can have a long and lasting effect on its health. That is, positive past experiences serve to strengthen a church’s health, while negative past experiences cause damage to its health.

As with the human body, so with the church body. A painful experience in a person’s life can affect his health in some way (emotionally, psychologically, spiritually, and or physically). Similarly, a negative event in the life a church can also affect its health.

And yet, hardly any church looks into its history and, much less, deals with the negative and painful events of its past.

In His letters to the seven churches of Asia (Rev 2-3), the Lord might appear to be just describing the present condition of the churches and telling them what they needed to do to get back into shape.

It is obvious, however, that they did not arrive at their present condition overnight; it had developed over time. The basic cause or root problem originated sometime in the past. For example, the adulteration of Pergamum’s beliefs with the teaching of Balaam and the Nicolaitans (Rev 2:14-16) started at some point in time by someone at a certain event. As these false teachers and teachings were not rejected at the onset nor addressed subsequently, they became entrenched in the church.

How Past Events Affect a Church’s Health

The acceptance of wrong teaching is just one of many possible reasons for a church’s poor condition. Conflicts and disunity, such as in the Corinthian church (1 Cor 1:10-13), is not unusual in churches across the globe today. And when it reaches a critical point, it often leads to a church split. This might result in the establishment of a new church, but it is one that is born out of strife. And the church carries with it the trauma and the bitter spirit by which it was birthed.

At the same time, the original church suffers just as much. It is also straddled with trauma and carries with it the same bitter spirit. It is not surprising when the church is beset with poor health. Nor is it surprising when the new church experiences conflicts and disunity, and perhaps even its own church split later on. When that happens, what we have is a pattern that is now entrenched into the spiritual psyche of the church.

The happy point to note, is that, the reverse is just as true. Past good events such as a spiritual, ministry or financial breakthrough, seasons of successes and revivals, and the like, empower the church towards greater health. The life of the church is marked by love, faith, and hope.

Plotting a Church’s History

I am convinced that it is necessary to look seriously into a church’s history, to analyse the effects of both positive and negative experiences of the church (but especially, the latter) on its health.

One helpful way to determine if a church’s history has affected its health is to list all critical happenings in its history. It should include both good and bad experiences. For example, a breakthrough in a church’s outreach to its local community is a positive experience, while the unhappy termination or resignation of a pastor is a negative experience. This list of happenings is then plotted on a timeline.

Secondly, plot the annual numerical growth of the church on a timeline, from the time of the church’s inception till the present. Then finally, superimpose the church’s happenings in its history against the church’s growth chart. From this, an analyst will be able to note causes and effects, and the ensuing patterns. A careful analysis of this primary data will determine if the church’s past experiences have affected its health. Furthermore, the analysis will help uncover the reason(s) for the church’s health condition.

An analysis is not the solution, but it is the prerequisite to seek the Lord for the right thing to do to bring healing, restoration, and renewal to the church.

Church Health Analysis Consultation

14 March 202526 March 2025Soon-Hock Lim Leave a comment

Why? Jesus, the Lord of the church, expects His church to be healthy and growing (Eph 4:11-16). Studies have shown that healthy churches grow; certainly, in quality, and often, numerically. It is, therefore, incumbent upon every church to attend to its health.

To develop better health, a church needs to first determine its present level of health, strengths and weaknesses, and the contributing reasons for them. Only then, can it take the right steps to strengthen its health.

The analysis of a church’s health is carried out by using a diagnostic instrument called CHART: The Church Health Analysis & Revitalisation Tool. This is a unique instrument that the analyst developed for his Doctor of Ministry project which he completed in 2024. It has been field tested and proven to be reliable and accurate.

CHART. The Church Health Analysis & Revitalisation Tool is a comprehensive church health diagnostic instrument.

The primary component of the instrument is the quantitative survey questionnaire that everyone in the church are encouraged to participate. Three other parts provide supportive and collaborative data. They are: the church’s statistical data, interviews with church leaders and members, and the analyst’s personal observation during an onsite visit(s) of the church.

CHART’s analysis of the church is based on three aspects of the church: the nature, ministry, and organisation of the church. Under these aspects of the church, CHART measures 12 related church health characteristics; three under nature, six under ministry, and three under organisation.

The process of collecting, collating, and analysing the data, and writing the church health report will take six to eight weeks.

The Analyst. Rev. Dr. Lim Soon Hock is a certified church consultant with the Society for Church Consulting (USA; website: https://churchconsulting.org/). He has had about 30 years of pastoral ministry that includes being the Senior Pastor of Georgetown Baptist Church, Penang, and PJ Evangelical Free Church, Petaling Jaya.

Soon Hock completed a Doctor of Ministry from the Malaysia Baptist Theological Seminary, Penang in 2024. For his doctoral project he developed a unique church health diagnostic instrument called CHArT: The Church Health Analysis Tool. In 2014, he founded Empower Services & Consultancy as a vehicle to pursue his God-given vision to empower pastors, church leaders, and churches through church consulting.

For a preliminary discussion on conducting a church health analysis for your church please write to Soon Hock at empoweringchurches.my@gmail.com.

Church Health Analysis Training Module

14 March 2025Soon-Hock Lim Leave a comment

The Church Health Analysis Training Module will give a church health analyst a biblical understanding of church health and equip him or her with a powerful tool to conduct a comprehensive church health analysis.

The diagnostic instrument is called CHART: The Church Health Analysis & Revitalisation Tool. The module includes training for a church health analyst to competently use the instrument.

What? The module covers:

Church health: Its biblical & theological basis
Church health analysis: Its purpose & goals
Church health characteristics
CHART: Model & framework
Training in the use of CHART to conduct a comprehensive church health analysis
Issues related to and have effect on a church’s health, such as: church culture, history of the church, church organisation & structure, and systems & processes

Pre-requisites. The participants must:

Be recommended by denominational leaders
Have basic theological training
Be experienced pastors or church leaders
Have a credible track record in church ministry

The Trainer. Rev. Dr. Lim Soon Hock is Malaysia’s first certified church consultant with the Society for Church Consulting (USA; website: https://churchconsulting.org/). He has had about 30 years of pastoral ministry that includes being the Senior Pastor of Georgetown Baptist Church, Penang, and PJ Evangelical Free Church, Petaling Jaya.

Soon Hock completed a Doctor of Ministry from the Malaysia Baptist Theological Seminary, Penang in 2024. For his doctoral project he developed a unique church health diagnostic instrument called CHArT: The Church Health Analysis Tool. In 2014, he founded Empower Services & Consultancy as a vehicle to fulfil his God-given vision to empower pastors, church leaders, and churches through church consulting. C

For a preliminary discussion on the Church Health Analysis Training Module please write to Soon Hock at empoweringchurches.my@gmail.com.

Balance and Church Health

2 November 202416 March 2025Soon-Hock Lim Leave a comment

“Balance” in the minds of many people is an unexciting word.

Even if we think that balance is important, we may still not factor it into the framework of the church’s life and ministry. Maybe it is because the idea of balance lacks a sense of dynamism—it’s neither here nor there. Maybe we have the impression that a balanced church lacks distinctiveness to make it stand out among the myriad of churches—and we want our church to be out-standing.

However, the Lord has not called the church to be outstanding, but to be faithful. Neither has He called churches to develop distinctiveness between themselves, but to be effective in carrying out His mission in the world.

Healthy Churches are Both Strong and Balanced

Many advocates of church health, such as Rick Warren (Purpose Drive Church), Christian Schwarz (Natural Church Development), Stephen Machia (Becoming a Healthy Church), and Nelson Searcy (Healthy Systems, Healthy Church) stress on holistic balance. Their models vary with regard to what constitutes the characteristics of a healthy church. However, they agree that a church must be both strong and balanced in all of their model’s health characteristics.

Christian Schwarz writes about the “harmonious interplay of all (NCD’s) eight elements” (Natural Church Development, p39). Rick Warren states that “the five New Testament purpose of the church must be in equilibrium with the others for health to occur” (Purpose Driven Church, p49).

In my previous blogpost, “A Proposal for a Church Health Framework”, I proposed that it is helpful to understand the church in terms of its nature, ministry, and organisation. Based on my study of Scripture, theology, and research on other church health models I concluded that 12 church health characteristics, under the three aspects of the church, are critical characteristics to determine the health of a church (refer to the Figure 1 above). My set of characteristics have similarities and differences with other church health models. That aside, the most important point to note is that the health levels of all the characteristics are to be as strong as possible; and in relation to one another, they are to be as balanced as possible.

A church is obviously not healthy if all the health characteristics are at poor levels; even if they may be at relatively balanced levels with one another. In such a case, the church is balanced but weak. Neither is a church healthy if some (or even many) of the health characteristics are strong, but others (or even just a few) are weak (or comparatively much weaker). The imbalance has made the church significantly less healthy than it would otherwise be. A church is only as strong as its greatest weakness (refer to Fig. 2 above; taken from NCD).

Church Health Analysis

A church may be able to determine its level of health through the use of church health diagnostic instruments, such as Christian Schwarz’s Natural Church Development, Stephen Macchia’s Church Health Assessment Tool, and Chuck Lawless’ Know Your Church. I have also developed an instrument called the Church Health Analysis & Revitalisation Tool (CHART).

With the use of CHART an analyst is able to determine the level of health for each church health characteristic and the level of balance between them. The same may also be determined for the three aspects of the church, that is its nature, ministry, and organisation.¹ When a church is able to identify its areas of strength and weakness, and imbalance, it can then take measures to address them. The goal is to ensure that the church’s health characteristics are developed to high levels of health and are significantly balanced between them.

You might also be interested to read an earlier blogpost entitled, “Dynamic Balance.” The article is also about balance, but from a different aspect—the need for balance between Word and Spirit. The article is found here.

A Proposal for a Church Health Framework

3 June 20242 November 2024Soon-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 Church² and Leadership Transformation, Inc.’s Church Health Assessment Tool (CHAT).³

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.⁴ 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 diagram⁵ 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.

Healthy Churches Intentionally Make Disciples (Part 2)

25 October 202231 May 2023Soon-Hock Lim Leave a comment

by Lim Soon Hock, Empowering Churches

Click here for Part 1

INTENTIONAL DISCIPLE-MAKING OF JESUS AND PAUL

The Rabbinical Tradition: Practice and Deviation

Discipling did not begin with Jesus or the NT church. The Greek teachers and philosophers had their mathetes or disciple.⁶ The Hebrews had their own form of discipling as seen in the relationship between Moses and Joshua (Exo 24:13), Elijah’s school of prophets (2 kg 2:3), and the Jewish rabbis and their students. Bill Hull observes five characteristics in the rabbinical tradition. The student or disciple: (1) decides to follow a particular teacher, (2) memorises the teacher’s words, (3) learns the teacher’s way of ministry, (4) imitates the teacher’s life and character, and (5) raises up his own disciples.⁷

Akin to the tradition of the rabbis Jesus also gathered disciples around Him (Mk 1:16-20). However, R. T. France comments that “it is misleading…to express this relationship (between Jesus and His disciples) in terms of a rabbi and his talmîdîm. Rabbis did not call their followers; rather, the pupil adopted the teacher. It marks him (Jesus) as a prophet rather than a rabbi.”⁸ Notwithstanding, there were similarities between the rabbinical tradition and that of Jesus’. He taught the disciples more deeply; beyond His public discourses (Mk 9:30, Lk 11:1-4). He trained them for ministry (Mt 9:35-10:16). By His life and actions Jesus instilled His values into the lives of His disciples, and provided for them an example to follow (Mk 9:33-37, 10:35-45). Lastly, Jesus also expected His disciples to raise up other disciples. This is evident from the Great Commission (Mt 28:19-20).

As the apostle Paul came from the rabbinical tradition⁹ the same pattern may be observed in his ministry. He gathered around him disciples like Timothy, Titus and Silas. He taught them God’s Word (2 Tim 1:13). He trained them for ministry (Acts 16:1-3, 19:21-22). He influenced them by a life lived out before them and from the example of his character (2 Tim 3:10-11, 1 Cor 11:1). And he also instructed them to make disciples; to pass on to faithful men what they had learnt from him (2 Tim 2:2). An important deviation from the rabbinical tradition is that Christian disciplers¹⁰ do not raise up their own disciples; rather, they raise up or make disciples for Jesus Christ.¹¹ The people they disciple follow Jesus, learn and obey His words, serve His mission, grow in Christlikeness, and also make more disciples for Jesus.

Marks of Intentionality

Intentionality in the disciple-making ministry of Jesus and Paul is seen in the following:

Focussed Discipling

Huge crowds followed Jesus (Mt 14:13-14) and gathered to listen to His teaching (Mt 5:1). But He only chose 12 men for focussed discipling (Mk 1:16-20, 3:13-14). He intentionally discipled this small group because they would carry on His work or mission when He ascended to heaven (Acts 6:2).¹² Out of the 12, He concentrated on three: Peter, James, and John (Mt 17:1, 26:37). And out of the three, He centred on Peter because He had marked Peter to be the initial leader and spokesman for the infant church (Acts 1:15, 2:14).

The focus on the 12 does not mean that Jesus did not disciple anyone else. On one occasion Jesus sent out 72 of His disciples to preach the Kingdom of God and to heal the sick (Lk 10:1-16). When they returned from their mission stint He held a debrief for them to further teach and encourage them (Lk 10:17-24). While the 72 did not enjoy the close, intense, and consistent discipling that the 12 had with Jesus, nonetheless, they were discipled by Him. The difference is in the intensity. Jesus was focussed on discipling the 12. Ajith Fernando writes, “As the Savior of the world, he cares equally for everyone in the world. That is why he came down to save the world…. But when he accepted the limitations of humanity, he took on a special responsibility for a few people, whom he trained to carry out his work after he left the world.”¹³

A similar pattern is seen in Paul’s ministry. Many came to faith in Christ through his ministry (Acts 14:1, 1 Thess 1:6, 9). He taught the people in the churches he founded and visited. In a broad sense Paul discipled all of them through his teaching. However, he devoted focussed discipling to only some; such as Timothy, Titus, and Silas. Commenting on this principle, David Watson wrote, “Any wise leader will likewise concentrate his time with a small group of committed Christians, twelve probably being the maximum number for effective discipling.”¹⁴ In sum, intentionality (of disciple-making) is evidenced by focus (on selected persons for discipling).

Clear purpose and goal for the disciple

Jesus planned for the day when He would leave earth. He knew He would return to the Father after He had accomplished His foundational work of sacrificing His life for the sins of mankind (Jn 16:5, 17:13). However, the follow through on His mission to evangelise the world (Mk 16:15-16) and disciple the nations (Mt 28:19-20) would be entrusted to His disciples (Jn 17:18). The disciples had been with Him: they knew and loved Him, they were trained and empowered by Him, and they were wholly convinced and convicted about His person and mission (1 Jn 1:1-4). In other words, Jesus intentionally selected and trained a special group of men with a clear purpose: to be like Him and to do what He did. Jesus said, “A student is not above his teacher, but everyone who is fully trained will be like his teacher” (Lk 6:40).

Likewise, Paul had clear goals for the disciples under his charge. The first concerned the growth of the disciple in Christ (1 Tim 4:15-16). The discipleship encompassed the whole of life: personal (Eph 4:17-5:17), home (5:22-6:4), church (4:1-16, 5:19-24), work (6:5-9), and spiritual warfare (6:10-20). The goal was for the disciple to become like Christ, or to be transformed into Christlikeness, in every aspect of his life (Rom 12:2). The second goal was for the disciple to be empowered to multiply himself in the lives of others. Paul’s instruction to Timothy is explicit, “And the things you heard from me say in the presence of many witnesses, entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified teach others also” (2 Tim 2:2). The reliable men whom Timothy was to teach were also expected to teach others. The intentionality of purpose seen in both Jesus’ and Paul’s disciple-making is unmistakable. Chan states, “The litmus test of an intentional disciplemaking church is twofold: spiritual maturity and spiritual multiplication.¹⁵

A plan to develop disciples

A careful study of the Gospels shows that Jesus did not leave the disciples’ development to chance. While the growth is not in a straight line, neither is it haphazard. Jesus had a plan to develop His disciples. Hull agrees with A. B. Bruce’s perception of Jesus’ three-phase¹⁶ discipleship development for the disciples, and adds a fourth. The four phases are: (1) “Come and see” (Jn 1:39) – where the disciples learned about the person of Jesus, His ministry and mission,¹⁷ (2) “Come and follow me” (Mt 4:19, Mk 1:16-18) – where Jesus taught the disciples the priorities of the absolutes of Scripture, importance of prayer, the need for community, and the work of outreach,¹⁸ (3) “Come and be with me” (Mk 3:13-14) – where Jesus prepared the disciples to take responsibility for world missions,¹⁹ and (4) “Remain in me” (Jn 15: 5, 7) – where the disciples began to learn to live with and be empowered by the Holy Spirit.²⁰

Greg Ogden expands the “come and be with me” phase with a four-stage development of the disciples. Stage 1: Jesus as a living example where the disciples watched Him carefully and began to absorb His message and ministry. Stage 2: Jesus as the provocative educator where He informed the disciples of a new kingdom perspective and dislodged wrong ideas and assumptions. Stage 3: Jesus as supportive coach, such as the time when He sent them out on a short-term mission. And Stage 4: Jesus as the ultimate delegator that followed His death and resurrection, and the handing of His mission to the disciples.²¹

Similarly, Paul had a plan to develop those under his charge. Paul may not have used the term “disciple”, as a study of the Pauline epistles shows. However, it does not mean that discipleship was unimportant to Paul. He simply stated it in different terms. Ogden comments, “The defining, though not exclusive, metaphor that shapes Paul’s understanding of the goal and the process of disciple making is spiritual parenting.”²² The role of the spiritual parent is to nurture and guide the disciple to move towards maturity in Christ (1 Thess 2:7, 11-12). Ogden perceives four stages in Paul’s model. Stage 1: Infancy – Imitation; Stage 2: Childhood – Identification; Stage 3: Adolescence – Exhortation; and Stage 4: Adulthood – Participation.²³ Paul’s plan of disciple-making included teaching (2 Tim 2:2, 3:10, 14), encouraging (1 Tim 4:12), disciplining (2 Tim 1:7-8), and empowering (2 Tim 1:6). However, his overarching philosophy of disciple-making is encapsulated in 1 Corinthians 11:1, “Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.” In the process of discipling others Paul taught them to follow his life and character.²⁴ Paul’s philosophy of disciple-making points to the critical role of the discipler.

Go to Part 3

Leadership Requirements for Healthy Churches (Part 4)

3 June 202225 October 2022Soon-Hock Lim Leave a comment

by Lim Soon Hock, Empowering Churches

Click here for Part 1, Click here for Part 2, Click here for Part 3

THE ROLE OF CHURCH LEADERS

The second part of the research question asks, “What is a primary role of church leaders that is needed to develop healthy churches?” By “role” we mean the function of church leaders. The fifth column in Table 3 below presents the views of five (out of nine) church health models about the primary role of church leaders. It appears that there is much agreement between them.

For Dever, the role of church leaders is to edify the church. Koster and Wagenveld state that it is to help believers find their ministry according to their gifts. Or, in the words of Callahan, their life’s searches.

Schwarz says it is to empower believers. And for Macchia, it is to raise believers; in other words, to develop the believers. While EFCA’s and Searcy’s models do not specifically explain their perspectives of the primary role of church leaders, nonetheless, they clearly sate that healthy churches are Intentional about leadership development.

In sum, the collective view of church health proponents about the role of church leaders is: to edify the people in the church for their spiritual growth and to empower them to serve the Lord with their God-given gifts in ministry.

A Theological Perspective of the Role of Church Leaders

A study of the NT shows that church leaders have many functions. Norman L. Geisler states that an elder is an overseer (1 Pet 5:1-4), a ruler (Heb 13:17), an under-shepherd (1 Pet 5:1-4), a teacher (1 Pet 5;2, 1 Tim 3:2, Tit 1:9), an apologist (Ph 1:17, Tit 1:9), an arbiter of disputes (Acts 15:2), and a watchman (Heb 13:17).²⁵

Alexander Strauch distils the role of shepherd elders into four areas: (1) protecting (Acts 20:28-31, Tit 1:9b), (2) feeding (1 Tim 5:17-18), (3) leading (1 Tim 5:17a, and (4) caring for the practical needs of the flock (Acts 6:1-6).²⁶ Grudem condenses the role of an elder even further to simply governing (1 Tim 5:17) and teaching (Eph 4:11, 1 Tim 5:17).²⁷

From the foregoing descriptions it appears that the primary roles of church leaders are to provide spiritual oversight over the church and spiritual care for the people in the church. However, this perspective fails to consider the mission of the church, and corollary, the role of church leaders in relation to the church’s mission.

The Mission of the Church and the Role of Church Leaders

Christopher Wright states that when we “draw our biblical theology of the church’s mission from the whole Bible…it becomes clear that the mission of God’s people is vast and various.”²⁸ It is beyond the scope of the paper to discuss the depth and breadth of the church’s mission. Suffice to say that God is on a mission in the world, and the church is called to participate in His mission.²⁹ How the church participates in God’s mission is through its missions. “Missions” in the plural, as Wright points out, refers to “the multitude of activities that God’s people can engage in to participate in God’s mission.³⁰

In order for believers to effectively participate in God’s mission they need more than spiritual nurture for their own spiritual growth; they need to be empowered for ministry and mission. For example, the Bible teaches and commands that all believers are to do the “works of service” (Eph 4:12) and to “make disciples” (Mt 28:19). The ability to carry out these activities of God’s mission, as it is with all the other activities of God’s mission, does not come naturally. Believers need to be taught, trained, equipped, and empowered to carry out God’s mission.

Ephesians 4:11-13 states,

¹¹ It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, ¹² to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up ¹³ until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

According to the above text, the people in the church are to do the works of service.³¹ The people who prepare or equip (katartismos) them are the leaders that God gifts to the church, such as the apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastor-teachers.³² R. C. Sproul comments,

“…in addition to ministering to the needs of people, leaders are called to train people, to give them the equipment, the tools, the knowledge and the skills necessary for works of service. The most effective churches that I know are churches where the ministerial staff devote many hours in training and mobilising their congregations to be mighty armies of saints, as they minister to a dying world.”³³

The result arising from the leaders’ training and the members’ serving is the building up of the church.³⁴ An end-goal is that the church becomes a “mature man” (andra teleion). Or, to use our modern-day metaphor—a “healthy church”.

In tandem with the above, Colin Marshall and Tony Payne call for ministry mind-shifts. Their list of 10 ministry mind-shift items include: from running programmes to building people, from running events to training people, from relying on training institutions to establishing local training, from engaging in management to engaging in ministry and from seeking church growth to desiring gospel growth.³⁵

They propose a mental image of the pastor as trainer who functions as a preacher and trainer, instead of a clergyman who is a preacher and service-provider or a CEO who is a preacher and manager.³⁶ Their comparative chart of the three images of the pastor is helpful³⁷ (see Table 4 below).

From the foregoing discussion we understand that church leaders have many responsibilities. However, in the light of developing a healthy church that effectively engages in its mission, a primary role, then, of church leaders is to empower the people in the church for their mission.

Views on Leadership Roles from Pastors and Church Leaders

In the survey conducted for the research paper, the respondents were asked to choose one from out of six leadership roles that best reflected their leadership role in the church. The six leadership roles were: (1) teacher and preacher, (2) intercessor, (3) counsellor, (4) pastor, (5) equipper, and (6) oversight.³⁸ An “others” category was included for the respondents to write their own, should none of the above suitably reflected their leadership role. The results were: teacher and preacher (7 respondents), intercessor (0), counsellor (0), pastor (1), equipper (2), oversight (2), and others (2) (see Appendix B, Table 6).

Secondly, the respondents were asked to rank the leadership roles that church leaders should perform in order of importance (1 being the most important, and 6 being the least important). From the average ranking collated for each leadership role, teacher and preacher was placed as the most important (average rank of 2.46). This was followed by the roles of pastor (2.77) and oversight (2.85). Further down in order of importance were the roles of intercessor (3.61), equipper (4.77), and lastly, counsellor (5.46)³⁹

The views of the respondents reflected the traditional theological perspective of the role of church leaders. They considered teaching believers the Word of God, providing pastoral care for members, and ensuring proper spiritual governance over the church as the priority functions of church leaders. Equipping members for service is given a low priority.

However, this view of the respondents goes against the emphasis of many church health proponents, and including Sproul, Marshall and Payne. The aforementioned experts contend that a primary role of church leaders is to empower the believers for their spiritual growth, service, and mission so that the whole church may be built up (Eph 4:11-13). For example, when leaders carry out their functions, such as teaching and preaching, it must be with the intent of empowering believers for their spiritual growth, service, and mission, so that the latter can effectively participate in the development of a healthy church and advancement of the Kingdom of God.

CONCLUSION

The research has ascertained that for a church to develop as a healthy church it needs a certain kind of leadership. It’s a leadership that leads from out of the bond of relationship with the followers and empowers them for service, so that together they may build up the body of Christ.

This is not to say that the other types of leadership attributes are not important. They are important, but relational leadership is like the foundation upon which all the other leadership types, like the visionary, transformational, and administrative types, build on. When there is a strong, healthy, and trusting relationship between leaders and followers, the followers will follow the leaders, not because they have to but because they want to.

Similarly, the emphasis on empowering leaders as a primary leadership role is not to deny the importance of the other roles. However, the leadership role must go beyond the “maintenance” of the personal spiritual lives of the members and corporate spiritual governance of the church to that of empowerment of the members for service and mission, so that everyone can effectively participate to build up the body of Christ.

Jesus exemplified the empowering leader.⁴⁰ Beyond teaching and preaching to the masses and ministering to their needs, He focussed on training the twelve (Mk 9:30-31, Mt 10:1ff). Paul exemplified the empowering leader. Beyond evangelism, planting churches, and teaching, he focussed on training others for ministry and mission such as Timothy, Titus, Silas, Priscilla and Aquila.

The contemporary Malaysian pastor and church leader will do well to emulate their example if they are to develop healthy churches. The neglect of this vital leadership role of empowering or equipping the church for service might be a major reason for the poor health of many churches in Malaysia.

Leadership Requirements for Healthy Churches (Part 3)

27 May 20223 June 2022Soon-Hock Lim Leave a comment

by Lim Soon Hock, Empowering Churches

Click here for Part 1, Click here for Part 2

The Relational Church Leader

The three NT imageries for church leaders present a common factor that is critical to the meaning of leadership: the relationship between leaders and followers; like parents with their children, shepherds with their flock, and servants with those whom they serve.

“Relational church leaders” may be a suitable term to describe this leadership type. They place a high value on developing healthy, helpful, and encouraging relationships with those whom they mentor, care for, and serve. Their effectiveness to lead the church is directly dependent on the relational health they have with the people in the church.

Chin’s explanation of his Father Leadership model is illuminative of relational church leaders. He writes,

“Father Leadership is a style of leadership based on relationships. The primary focus is not on a task, but on the person, i.e. the follower. It is about love and not about doing a job. Most styles of leadership focus on skills and performance. Father Leadership flows from the heart. It is a very powerful and influential form of leadership.”⁴¹

Harris W. Lee opines that leadership is a call to three things, one of which is to relationship—with other leaders as well as the people to be led.⁴² One of John Maxwell’s laws of leadership is the “The Law of Connection: leaders touch a heart before they ask for a hand.”⁴³

Thom S. Rainer submits eight keys of “Acts 6/7 Leadership”; one of which is their “unconditional love of the people.”⁴⁴ His research led him to conclude that breakout church leaders “communicate(d) clearly their love for the members of the congregation.”⁴⁵

In a proposal of a composite framework for Christian leader development outcomes Keith R. Krispin’s third category, out of five, is “Relational Skills”.⁴⁶ He writes,

“At the heart of the leadership process are the relationships between and among leaders and followers. Thus, relational skills feature prominently in most approaches to leader development. Relational maturity is also evident in a biblical understanding of leader and the nature of the church, as evidenced in the numerous “one another” passages where believers are commanded to love one another (Jn 13:34-35), care for each other (1 Cor 12:24-25), and forgive one another (Eph 4:2)…. The social skills category includes general communication skills… emotional intelligence…teamwork…conflict management…, and orientation to the broader community and world….”⁴⁷

In sum, the relationship between leaders and followers is at the heart of church leadership, and the import of this factor calls for relational maturity, especially on the part of the leaders.

The five church health models in the study may appear to present different descriptions for their type of church leader. However, upon closer scrutiny, an important underlying factor is observed: a healthy relationship between leaders and followers. Macchia’s, and Koster’s and Wagenveld’s servant-leader is predicated on such a relationship.

Callahan’s four steps of leadership learning and Dever’s four aspects of Christlike leadership (BOSS) are meaningless without such a relationship between leader and follower. Schwarz’s description is clear that leaders must not only be goal oriented but also relationship oriented. It is evident that the underlying type of church leader for the above-mentioned church health models is the relational church leader.

Views on Leadership Types from Pastors and Church Leaders

A survey among some pastors and church leaders appear to bear out the above conclusion about the type of leadership that is called for in the church. A limited random survey was conducted by the researcher for the paper among 13 pastors and church leaders of English-speaking Malaysian churches.

They were asked to choose one from out of seven leadership types that best reflected their personal type of leadership. The seven leadership types were: (1) coach, (2) visionary, (3) servant, (4) transactional, (5) transformational, (6) relational, and (7) administration.⁴⁸ An “others” category was included for the respondents to write their own, should none of the above suitably reflected their leadership type. The results were: coach (2 respondents), visionary (2), servant (3), transactional (0), transformational (1), relational (4), administration (0), and Others – Team (1).

Secondly, the respondents were asked to rank the leadership types in order of importance that church leaders should exemplify (1 being the most important, and 7 being the least important). From the average ranking collated for each leadership type, visionary leadership came out as the most important (average rank of 2.69), followed very closely by servant (2.84) and relational (2.85) leadership. Further down the order of importance were coach (3.69) and transformational (4.08) leadership. The least important types were administration (5) and transactional (6.9) leadership⁴⁹

The critical importance of visionary leadership in the assessment of the respondents is supported by the views of Christian-based leadership experts.⁵⁰ However, the respondents also viewed relational leadership as among the most important leadership types that church leaders should embody. This view is in line with and supported by our study of the NT and the literature review about the church and church health.

It may be surmised that the critical place of relational leadership is likened to the shoulder on which the other leadership types stand on—including visionary leadership. For example, after a vision has been cast, it is the relationship between the leader(s) and the followers that determines whether the latter will want to join and pursue the vision articulated by the former.

Go to Part 4

Leadership Requirements for Healthy Churches (Part 2)

19 May 202227 May 2022Soon-Hock Lim Leave a comment

by Lim Soon Hock, Empowering Churches

Click here for Part 1

THE TYPE OF CHURCH LEADERS NEEDED FOR A HEALTHY CHURCH

The first part of the research question is, “What is a distinctive type of church leadership that is needed to develop healthy churches?” By “type” we mean the leadership attribute that characterises church leaders.

The fourth column in Table 2 below presents the views of six (out of nine) church health models about the type of leaders that are needed to develop healthy churches. They appear to differ with one another, if not in substance, then, in the way they describe the leadership attribute of church leaders.

Before we analyse their descriptions, it is essential that we first ascertain NT teaching on the attributes of church leaders.

New Testament Teaching on the Attributes of Church Leaders

Christian leadership characteristics were both demonstrated and taught by NT church leaders like Paul and Peter. One such NT leadership characteristic is “leadership by example”, which Paul demonstrated during his missionary endeavour in Thessalonica (1 Thess 1:5-6). He also exhorted Timothy to do the same (1 Tim 4:12, 15-16). Likewise, Peter prodded the elders to be “examples to the flock” (1 Pet 5:3b).

Another NT leadership characteristic is “firm leadership” as seen in the strong words that Paul used to correct the church in Corinth (1 Cor 5:9-11) and Galatia (Gal 1:6-9). He also told Timothy to be firm in his teaching (1 Tim 4:11), and to correct those who had erred (1 Tim 6:17).

Yet another NT leadership characteristic is “caring leadership”. Paul’s relationship with the Thessalonians was “like a mother caring for her children” (1 Thess 2:7), and like a father who provided support, comfort, and encouragement to his children (v11-12).

The last-mentioned reference suggests another means of understanding NT church leadership characteristic—through the use of imageries. Paul’s application of the imageries of a mother’s and a father’s relationship with their children, in reference to his relationship with the Thessalonians, illuminates the kind of relationship church leaders ought to have with the members.

The imageries also inform us of the motivation and the role of church leaders. That is, they are to be motivated by love (1 Thess 2:7-8), and their role is to nurture and encourage believers in the things of God (v11-12). Thomas Chin calls this “Father Leadership.”⁵¹

Closely related to the nuance of the parent imagery to characterise church leaders is the often-used biblical imagery of the shepherd. Peter applied the imagery to the elders when he addressed them about their responsibility to believers whom he called “God’s flock” (1 Pet 5:2). Paul used it when he gave his farewell discourse to the Ephesian elders at Miletus (Acts 20: 28).

As shepherds, church leaders are to exemplify the leadership characteristic of caring for their flock by feeding, guiding, and protecting those under their charge; thus, ensuring that the latter are spiritually healthy.

A third imagery is that of a servant. Peter told the elders that they were to be “eager to serve; not lording over those entrusted to you” (1 Pet 5:2b-3a). Some have termed this as “servant-leadership”. In contemporary leadership and management teaching, the concept of servant-leadership or servant-leader is attributed to Robert K. Greenleaf.⁵² Church health proponents such as Macchia,⁵³ and Koster and Wagenveld⁵⁴ agree that such an attribute ought to mark church leaders.

It is unsurprising that the abovementioned imageries of leadership; parent, shepherd, and servant; were used of Jesus. They were both self-applied and applied on Him by others.

When the Lord lamented the duplicity of Jerusalem, He said He had come to them like a mother hen gathering her chickens under her wings (Lk 13:33)—which is reminiscent of the parent imagery.

Jesus used the shepherd imagery as He painted a picture of His relationship with His followers (Jn 10:11). Peter also identified Jesus as the Chief Shepherd in 1 Peter 5:4 to whom the shepherds of the church, the elders, were accountable to for the discharge of their leadership responsibilities.

Jesus applied the servant imagery when He told the disciples that He “did not come to be served, but to serve” (Mk 10:45). At the event of the Last Supper He took on the role of a lowly servant and washed the feet of the disciples (Jn 13:1-17).

If Jesus as the Leader of the church exhibited these leadership attributes, it is incumbent then that His appointed leaders in the church also exhibit the same attributes.

Go to Part 3

Leadership Requirements for Healthy Churches (Part 1)

15 May 202219 May 2022Soon-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.” ⁵⁵

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 4:11-13.⁵⁶

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.⁵⁷

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.⁵⁸ 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.⁵⁹

Dever also gives import to the biblical qualifications of church leaders.⁶⁰ 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.⁶¹ 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.⁶²

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.⁶³

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.⁶⁴

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.⁶⁵

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