Church Organisation

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 2)

Soon-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.”1

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.2  Church health proponents such as Macchia,3 and Koster and Wagenveld4 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)

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.” 1

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 4:11-13.2

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.3

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.4  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.5

Dever also gives import to the biblical qualifications of church leaders.6  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.7  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.8

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.9

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.10

 

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.11

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

Re-Envisioning Vocational Christian Ministry in the Church in Malaysia in Light of Change (Part 1)

Soon-Hock Lim Leave a comment

by Lim Soon Hock, Empowering Churches

INTRODUCTION

The Covid-19 pandemic and the SOP set in place in Malaysia to control it have affected the church and its ministries.1  One of which is the curb on large group meetings.  The traditional church thrives on large meetings.  This is true of ministries within the church like the worship service and also those outside the church like its community services.  This global pandemic has caused, or rather, forced, the church to rethink about how it should do ministry.  In fact, in view of the changes that are taking place in and around the church, it also needs to rethink its ecclesiology,2 and the vocational minister needs to rethink his3 role.

The primary purpose of this paper is a re-envisioning of the role of the vocational minister in light of the aforementioned mega change that is affecting the church and its ministries.  The vocational minister refers to the main pastor of the church.  Nonetheless, in most instances, the discussion is applicable to other pastors in a multi-staff church, as well as to bi-vocational and church leaders who see Christian ministry as their primary vocation.  The minister’s role, however, cannot be separated from the church and its ministry.  Inevitably we have to also discuss issues pertaining to the nature of the church and notions of its ministry.

This paper is an engagement in practical theology, in that it is about the theology of ministry.  Hence, the discussion uses and interfaces with the four commonly accepted ways of doing theology: Scripture, reason, tradition and experience.4  A final point to note about the paper is that while the discussion may be applicable to churches world-wide because of the global effects of Covid-19, the context of this paper is limited to the church in Malaysia.

A DESCRIPTION OF THE MALAYSIAN CHURCH

The best way to describe the Malaysian church regardless of its denomination, language group and size is to tag it with the label “institutionalised.”  At first glance this may appear appropriate since religion is one of the five major institutions of society.5

For our purpose an institution is defined as an establishment with a firmly set purpose, structures and code of practice.6  Timothy Keller in Center Church argues that organisations should have both institutional characteristics and movement dynamics.7  He quotes Hugh Helco, “To live in a culture that turns its back on institutions is equivalent to trying to live in a physical body without a skeleton or hoping to use a language but not its grammar.”8  In other words, as Keller observes, institutions bring order to life.9

Institutions are important and necessary, but they also have several negative characteristics.  They include, the process of decision making that is procedural and slow, innovation is from top down and implementation is done in departmental silos.  An institution may be stable but they are slow to change, their emphasis is on traditions, the past and customs, and future trends are dreaded and denied.10

Alan Hirsch and Dave Ferguson concur when they say,

“…their [institutional structures] intent is almost always good.  Even so, concretized institutionalization does tend to block some of the most powerful aspects of ecclesia as Jesus intended it: a potent social force and gospel phenomenon that sweeps through populations.  Any reading of history, Christian or otherwise, shows that institutional religion can become repressive, stifling creative expressions.

One of the most fundamental reboots we need to do in our day is to rediscover ourselves as the same potent, transforming people movement that started with Jesus and went on to change the world.  The institutional forms have gotten us where we are now and can’t take us farther.  We need to become a people-movement again.”11

Very often with institutionalisation comes institutionalism, and very soon the church is beset with traditionalism and conservatism.  As a result it is not be able to respond quickly and innovatively when confronted with change.  In fact, it may not want to for fear of betraying its long-held beliefs, values and practices.

If this description of the Malaysian church is correct, then the church needs to do some self-evaluation.  However, self-evaluation can only take place if there is self-awareness.  The concept of the church’s self-awareness is discussed at length in Cyril Hovorun’s Meta-Ecclesiology.  He argues that at different epochs of history the Church encountered challenging situations.  They may be spiritual, intellectual, social or political in nature or the result of other historical circumstances.  The challenges of these situations necessitated a response from the Church concerning its self-perception.12

Hovorun’s thesis is helpful for the Malaysian church.  The effects of the Covid-19 pandemic has brought about a huge challenge to the church—which might even be termed a crisis.  How is the church responding?  Will its response enable the church to thrive and advance the cause of the Kingdom of God?  This is dependent on the level of the church’s self-awareness.  The fundamental question that needs to be asked is: Can the Malaysian church see itself beyond its institutionalised nature?

The New Testament Concept of the Church

The New Testament (NT) concept of the church was not that of an institutionalised church.  The institutionalised church is a product of the evolving concept of the church over time as it became more organised, more structured, more rigid, and hence more institutionalised.

The writers of the NT used ekklēsia to term the Christian community.  In antiquity the term was used for an assembly, as in a regularly summoned political body.13  The people who make up the church then, are those who have been called out to gather as the people of God who hold in common a confession of Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour (Mt 16:16, 18, Acts 2:47, 1 Tim 3:15-16).

The foremost characteristic of the church would be the centrality of Christ.  Secondly, it’s about a people coming together for the same cause.14  The church may come together for many Christ-centred purposes (Acts 2:42-4), but its ultimate cause is to be empowered and sent out by the Holy Spirit on a mission (Acts 1:8; 13:2-3) centred around Christ’s work of redemption (1 Cor 11:23-26) leading to God being glorified (Eph 3:21).  This cause, or the primary work of the church and of every individual Christian, is most succinctly captured in Matthew 28:18-20, otherwise known as the Great Commission.

This NT concept of the church has direct implications on how the Malaysian church ought to perceive itself and its primary mission, and also how the vocational minister ought to perceive himself and his primary function.

Go to Part 2

Church Strategic Planning Literature Review (Part 3)

Soon-Hock Lim Leave a comment

(Click here for Part 1 & here for Part 2)

THE CONGREGATIONAL-CULTURE STRATEGY

The quote, “Culture eats strategy for breakfast” has been attributed to management guru Peter Drucker.1  The statement implies that the culture of an organisation determines its success regardless of how effective its strategy may be.2  Hence, nurturing a healthy corporate culture that everyone buys into is critical to the success of the organisation.  In view of the foregoing statements it may appear that the term “congregational-culture strategy” is self-contradictory.  I am referring to the need for a church to attend to its congregational culture as a strategic means for its health.

Aubrey Malphurs, in his book Look Before You Lead: How to Discern & Shape Your Church Culture, defines a church’s congregational culture as “its unique expression of its shared values and beliefs.”3  That means, one, a church’s congregational culture is made up of three components: its beliefs, values and behaviour.4  Two, these beliefs and values are held in common by the majority in the church.5  Three, these shared beliefs and values are seen in the expressions or behaviour of the people in the church which gives the church its unique identity6 vis-à-vis another church that, for the same reason, has its own distinct congregational culture.

Malphurs use of the term “beliefs” is not about a church’s doctrinal position but as it concerns the fundamental aspects of the church’s congregational life.7  These beliefs are convictions that the people in the church assume to be true and they are not subject to rational proof.8  It is from the root of its beliefs that a church’s values are formed.9  The values tell us why a church does what it does.10  However, they only become actual values when they are acted on.  Those values that are not acted on remain merely as aspirational values.11  When the values are acted on they are seen in the behaviour of the people in the church, which becomes the outward or visible evidence of its congregational culture.

If the culture of a church is vital to the success of the church, it is inevitable then, that conscious effort is taken to shape the church’s culture so that it produces a healthy church.  Malphurs states that the person that has the greatest responsibility to shape a church’s culture is the pastor.12  It is by no means an easy task, because shaping congregational culture requires change.  Malphurs explains the preparation, personnel and process required to shape the culture of a church.13  Preparation includes praying for change, doing a church analysis, reading the church’s culture, and managing change.14  Process includes reading the church’s current culture, thawing out the current culture, transitioning the culture to a new level, and re-forming the new culture at the new level.15  Personnel is about the kind of person the pastor ought to be if he is to successfully steer the church to a culture change.

Malphurs other book Advanced Strategic Planning: A New Model for Church and Ministry Leaders16 is a useful companion to Look Before Your Lead.  Although the former was written before the latter, the right order to read the books would be the latter before the former.  Look Before You Lead provides the big picture about the necessity to shape congregational culture for church health and the steps that a pastor or church leaders may take to bring about the needed change.  Advanced Strategic Planning goes into the nuts and bolts about developing a church’s core values, mission and vision statements, and ministry strategy.

The importance of shaping congregational culture as a strategic means for developing healthy churches is found in Malphurs’ statement, “we’ve discovered that it’s a waste of time and money to attempt to lead a culturally toxic church that clings to the traditions of men rather than the clear teaching of Scripture through the strategic-envisioning process.”17  In light of this statement, shaping congregational culture is an indispensable requirement to develop healthy churches.  One of the research questions in Matthew C. McCraw’s dissertation made this inquiry, “Of the local churches that possesses a healthy organizational culture what steps were taken to intentionally create culture?”18  His research conclusion from the case studies “revealed the steps that each (church) took to create a healthy culture in their congregations.”19  In other words, shaping congregational culture has to be intentional and definite steps must be taken towards accomplishing that intentionality.

 

CONCLUSION

As I stated in the introduction, the three categories of strategic planning towards church health, namely Characteristic-Development, Process-Driven and Congregational-Culture are not mutually exclusive.  For example, the use of NCD principles or PDC model is not simply about establishing church health via the development of the critical characteristics of a healthy church or moving people through a process of discipleship respectively.  For the ethos of NCD or PDC to work effectively the churches that use these strategies need to have a congregational culture that upholds these philosophies of ministry respectively.  Hence, determining what ought to be the desired congregational culture and shaping it to become that which is desired must be the starting point for any strategic plan to develop a healthy church.

All three strategies are useful.  They are to be used at different phases of change and improvement of a church’s health because they are targeted at different levels of a church’s corporate life.  The congregational-culture strategy helps set the foundation for what the pastor and church leaders believe should be the overarching ethos of the church.  The process-driven strategy helps to establish a church-wide process that the church leadership believe will move its people, to use Rick Warren’s term, from community to core.20  Finally, the characteristic-development strategy helps church leaders to target attention on specific areas of church life and ministry.  When all three strategies are used in concert with one another it will serve to significantly improve the health of the church.

by Lim Soon Hock, Empowering Churches

Church Strategic Planning Literature Review (Part 1)

Soon-Hock Lim Leave a comment

by Lim Soon Hock, Empowering Churches

INTRODUCTION

A discussion on church health cannot stop at the descriptive level of what a church should be and should do.  The discussion must include how the church is to strategically plan towards health and growth.  The health of a church may be described as the church’s condition when viewed against the New Testament teaching about the Church of Jesus Christ, including its effectiveness in fulfilling the Great Commission (Mt 28:19-20) and the Great Commandment (Mt 22:37-40).  The growth of a church refers to both its quantitative and qualitative growth which are observable and measurable.  Strategic planning in the context of a church may be defined as a systematic process of envisioning a desired future that is aligned with the Bible and translating this vision into broadly defined goals or objectives and a sequence of steps to achieve them.1

Apart from the obvious that a church’s vision must be aligned with the Bible, there are four other key elements in the above definition about strategic planning that we must note.  One, strategic planning begins with the church’s desired end or vision and works backward to its current status.  In other words, to quote Steven Covey’s third habit in the 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, we “begin with the end in mind.”2  Two, strategic planning deals with the broader picture, the church’s vision, and is flexible about the methods to reach it.  Three, strategic planning calls for the development of an intentional plan to achieve the defined goals that lead to the realisation of the church’s vision.  And four, strategic planning requires a process.

The purpose of this paper is to review significant literature about church strategic planning that is focussed on the health of the church.  The literature is reviewed under the following categories that I have termed as: Characteristic-Development, Process-Driven and Congregational-Culture strategies.3  The teaching and practises of these approaches are not mutually exclusive of each other as they overlap at some points.  However, their respective emphasis is also evident.  These will be highlighted and discussed as I review the publications.

 

THE CHARACTERISTIC-DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY

The study and practise of church health may be approached from a few angles.  One of them may be termed as the “Principle approach.”4  The principal proponents include Christian A. Schwarz and Stephen A. Macchia.5  They have a list of quality characteristics which they deem to be essential to the health of churches in general.  Schwarz’s Natural Church Development (NCD) eight quality characteristics are: empowering leadership, gift-oriented ministry, passionate spirituality, functional structures, inspiring worship service, holistic small groups, need-oriented evangelism, and loving relationships.6  Macchia’s ten characteristics are: God’s empowering presence, God-exalting worship, spiritual disciplines, learning and growing in community, a commitment to loving and caring relationships, servant-leadership development, an outward focus, wise administration and accountability, networking with the body of Christ, and stewardship and generosity.7  Their lists are not identical, but their approach to church health is similar.  They believe that a church must be strong, by maintaining high quality levels, in all the essential characteristics of a church.

A characteristic-development strategy typically begins with an analysis of the health of the church.  This is done with the use of a church health analysis tool that includes a questionnaire survey.  Schwarz’s NCD has a 91-question Natural Church Development Survey8 and Macchia’s Leadership Transformation Inc. has a 72-question Church Health Assessment Tool (CHAT)9 that churches are encouraged to use to evaluate their health.  The completed questionnaires are submitted to NCD or CHAT for a computer generated report that gives a snapshot of the church’s present health.  Included in the report are recommendations that the church leadership team may take to develop greater health for their church.

It appears that NCD is the only church health specialist that gives a definite strategy, beyond providing churches a tool to conduct a church health analysis.  Its strategy is based on one of NCD’s key tenets called “the minimum factor” which theorises that the growth of a church cannot rise beyond the level of its lowest quality characteristic.  Hence, the prime strategy is for the church to give the greatest attention to its lowest quality characteristic.10

What does a church actually do to improve on the quality of its health characteristics, and in particular for its lowest characteristic?  NCD is one of the few church health specialists that has a whole workbook produced for this purpose, the Implementation Guide to Natural Church Development.11  Included in the book is a section detailing “ten action steps” and another section on “how to improve your minimum factor” for each of the quality characteristics.

The strategic process, such as the one advocated by NCD, of analysing, reporting, recommending (solutions) and implementing (the steps), with a follow-up evaluation, is critical for all churches that desire to develop church health.  However, addressing the “minimum factor” may not necessarily be the primary issue that a church needs to focus on.  Sometimes the “minimum factor” is simply a symptom of a deeper issue or it may have at its source another primary issue that requires greater attention.

(Click here to go to Part 2)

Church Culture in a Pandemic

Soon-Hock Lim Leave a comment

by Lim Soon Hock, Empowering Churches

After 30 years as a pastor I came to realise (I’m a slow learner) that one of the most important ingredients differentiating poor, good and great churches is church culture. Does a church have the right kind of culture for it to be a good or great church?

The unexpected disruption caused by the Covid-19 pandemic has made the issue of church culture even more important.

For one, the cohesiveness of the church is very much put to the test because in-person meetings have been curtailed. This is especially disruptive for corporate worship, which is traditionally the main church event.

As I write this, Malaysia is reeling from a third wave of the virus, and much of the country was again under a Movement Control Order for the last two months. Churches have resorted to the use of online technology.

Will a church survive—nay, thrive in the pandemic? I believe the answer depends very much on its culture.

A Crisis Shows Up a Church’s Real Culture

Aubrey Malphurs, in his book Look Before You Lead: How to Discern & Shape Your Church Culture, defines a church’s congregational culture as “its unique expression of its shared values and beliefs”(p20). That is, a church’s congregational culture is made up of three components: its beliefs, values and behaviour. When beliefs and values are held in common by the majority in the church and are then actually seen in the people’s behaviour, they become culture—they give expression to the church’s unique identity.

It is this congregational culture that determines whether a church simply survives or thrives in this present challenge. Unsurprisingly, it is in a time of crisis that the real culture of a congregation becomes clearly evident. For example, is there a real culture of commitment, sacrifice, faithfulness and the like in the church? Or, were they just aspirational values? Or, worse yet, were they simply wishful thinking?

In particular, does the church have a culture where every member is connected, committed and participating in a small group? At a time when large gatherings are curtailed, small groups are the best vehicles for fellowship, discipleship and even outreach. This may be done online, in-person or in a hybrid form.

It is never too late to start a small group ministry or to encourage members to get into one. However, it is much more advantageous if small groups were already part and parcel of the culture of the church. The difference between the two is like an athlete fumbling to put on his running shoes when the starting pistol goes off and an athlete who already has his shoes on.

The Roles of the Pastor and Consultant in Shaping Church Culture

If the culture of a church is vital to the success of the church, it is inevitable that conscious effort is taken to shape the church’s culture so that it produces a healthy church. Malphurs states that the person that has the greatest responsibility to shape a church’s culture is the pastor (p129). It is by no means an easy task, because shaping congregational culture requires change. Malphurs explains that preparation, personnel and process are required to shape the culture of a church (p10-12).

I believe that church consultants have a role to play to help pastors and church leaders understand the importance of church culture. They can act as the leaders’ sounding board as the latter pursue a conscious effort to shape their congregational culture. Moreover, church consultants can study and analyse the real culture of the church (which the leaders may have blind spots), and suggest ways to develop the church’s unique and desired congregational culture that is Scripture-faithful, healthy and life-giving.

The importance of shaping congregational culture as a strategic means for developing healthy churches is found in Malphurs’ statement, “we’ve discovered that it’s a waste of time and money to attempt to lead a culturally toxic church that clings to the traditions of men rather than the clear teaching of Scripture through the strategic-envisioning process,” (p17). Hence, I believe that shaping congregational culture is an indispensable requirement to develop healthy churches.

Reference: Mulphurs, Aubrey. Look Before You Lead: How to Discern & Shape Your Church Culture. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2013

This article was first written for the the Society for Church Consulting blog posts on 15 December 2020. You may access it here.

 

Church Health Literature Review (Part 2)

Soon-Hock Lim Leave a comment

(Click here for Part 1)

THE BIBLICAL APPROACH TO CHURCH HEALTH

The advocates of the biblical 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.1  He disagrees with the focus on pragmatism and numerical church growth of popular models of church.2  He also disagrees that appearances of relevance and outward responses are key indicators of being a successful church.3  Instead he opines, “We need churches in which the key indicator of success is not evident results but by persevering biblical faithfulness.”4

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.5  Dever admits that these are not the only marks of a healthy church and may not even be the most important.6  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.7  By expositional preaching he means preaching a message from a passage of Scripture in its context.8  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-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 Pastor9 would fall into the category of a biblical approach to church health.  The purpose of Stott’s book is to set out the biblical and essential marks that characterise an authentic and living church.10  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.11  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 biblical-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?12  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, 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

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. Just as much, we need mental and spiritual clarity; and this, 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 the 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, the poor quality and the ineffective means of communication. However, more serious 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. And, it is inevitable that they will not be able to provide clarity to 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 like 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 clear philosophies 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.