Leadership Succession From Within

This blog posting is a follow-up to the previous one I wrote, and I am calling it: Leadership Succession from Within. I wrote this article some 10 years ago for Georgetown Baptist Church’s 50th Anniversary magazine (2006). I have made some minor edits to make it more appropriate for the blog. I believe it is worth a read and  careful thought.

Succession Planning

Many churches start well, but when the pioneers or the pastors move on—the church starts to falter. This may last for years, until it is able to engage another capable pastor. The momentum, however, that had been built up during the previous pastor’s tenure is all but lost, and the new pastor has to practically start from ground zero.

To their credit, the leaders of Georgetown Baptist Church did well to keep the church going when the previous pastor left for Petaling Jaya: ably organizing themselves to provide pastoral care for the whole church and then still had the time, energy and vision to plant a new church in another part of the city.

It was not until December 1993, almost four years later, that I became GBC’s next pastor. Imagine how much more the church would have developed if there had not been such a gap—if there had been another pastor who immediately took over. Not just any pastor, but a pastor who had been groomed from within the church. Engaging someone from outside would mean time for the new pastor and the church to get to know and trust each other. Inevitably, I had to start almost from the ground. As a result the church hardly saw any numerical growth in the first four years of my tenure.

Before I left I was determined that this would not happen again; that there would be a pastor groomed up from within GBC and waiting in the wings to take over…. In such a situation there might still be hiccups, but certainly much less. This is because the succeeding pastor already understands the philosophy of ministry and vision of the church, he has worked with the church leadership, the members know him and have “taken to him”. Not that he will simply carry on doing everything that the previous pastor has done. Any good pastor will definitely introduce change, but he will have the advantage of building on the blocks—blocks that he has helped to develop in the first place.

Leaders must never fear raising up other leaders; even if it means that some of them will outshine us! That was what I aimed for. My goal was to pass the church into the hands of better men and women.

Paul was a great apostle—some say, the greatest. But in my mind Barnabas was the greater man. He recruited Paul because he saw Paul’s potential. He mentored Paul and wasn’t afraid that Paul might overtake him. Eventually when Paul did, he wasn’t concerned for his own face. My hope is to be a Barnabas to some Pauls.

Success is not about growing a great church. “Success” is about having a “successor” to take the church even further.

Leadership Succession

In recent weeks I attended two very significant events. The first was the celebration of the life and ministry of Pr. Dr. Daniel Ho, who at the age of 65 stepped down as the Senior Pastor of Damansara Utama Methodist Church. The second was the celebration of Georgetown Baptist Church’s  60th Anniversary and dedication of their new building with a seating capacity for 1,200 people.

Close-up on the Hand of a Male Athlete Passing a Relay Baton to Another Athlete, With a Dramatic Sky in the Background

Daniel Ho’s readiness to step down as the SP of DUMC, a church he co-founded and led for more than 30 years, and which has grown into a mega church, is a testimony to his humility and leadership philosophy. Too many pastors (including lay leaders/elders) don’t know how to let go. And that is one of the reasons for the stagnation or even decline among some churches.

However, Daniel Ho had worked hard on the development of the leadership for the next and even later generations. He had been grooming his young lieutenants for a long time, and over the last couple of years he had taken deliberate steps to transit the leadership of DUMC to the designated successor, Chris Kam.

It’s the stories of Moses and Joshua, Elijah and Elisha, Paul and Timothy played out in our contemporary church scene.

I cannot claim to have been as intentional as the Biblical examples or Daniel Ho, but I did my bit at GBC. After 13 years as the SP I felt I was no longer the right person to take the church to the next level. GBC needed someone fresh, more able and with greater energy. I believed that Ng Kok Aun was God’s man. In fact it was by my encouragement that he had stepped into the full-time ministry eight years earlier. And during that time as we served together he had proven himself faithful and able.

At the point of transition, Kok Aun may not have been fully ready to assume the role of GBC’s SP (my fault due to lack of foresight), but 10 years later it is evident that he is God’s man for this season. The church has grown; it is healthy, strong and united. And one of the evidences for this is the new church building.

I strongly believe that there is a huge need for intentional leadership succession in the church today. Pastors and church leaders need to identify and intentionally raise up their successors. Secondly, a pastor or church leader must not overstay his time, especially if he is the main leader of the church. When he is no longer the man to lead the church he should be ready to admit it and step out. If a pastor is not prepared to do the latter he will not do the former. This calls for humility and honesty, as a pastor listens for the leading of the Lord during the different seasons of his life and ministry. It may be time to go and for his successor to take over.

We must think long term, we must think into the next and later generations; for without succession there can no long term success into the future generations.

Read next about “Leadership Succession from Within”.

Transfer Growth

Changing Church

There is possibly a church in your town that is growing exponentially, but not without some negative impact on the other churches around it. They have lost members to this church. Inevitably it has been accused of sheep-stealing, growing through transfers rather than conversions (though this is usually an unfounded perception from people who have not gone to the church themselves), or teaching some kind of sugar-coated watered down Christianity which appeals to the less mature.

What is your attitude towards transfer growth?

When People Leave My Church

I do not believe that being critical of the success of another church is in the best interest of the Kingdom, nor ours. Instead of accusing others it is better to take a hard look at ourselves. If I were the pastor who is losing members to another church, the first thing I would do is to ask, “Why is my church losing people to the other church? There must be something (or many things) that the other church is doing right that makes people—including members from my church—want to go to there. What can I learn from the other church that will help my church do better—so that not more members will leave my church; instead more people will come because they find it to be a great church to be a part of?”

Screaming at another church for “sheep-stealing” is not going to help anyone—the least of all myself. But learning how to do church better would be a great blessing to my church. And if all the churches in my city did likewise and continued to grow in spiritual vibrancy and effectiveness it will certainly lead to the advancement of the Kingdom. For the sake of the Kingdom, this has got to be our attitude.

When People Come to My Church

On the other hand, if I were the pastor of the church that is drawing people from other churches I would be very careful to tell my members not to invite them. For the simple reason: we don’t want to grow through transfers but conversions. We don’t want to just grow the church; we want to grow the Kingdom. And the latter can only happen through conversions.

However, if people from other churches came on their own accord, it would not be right for the pastor to tell them not to come. People have a right to choose which church they want to be a part of, or to change their involvement from one church to another. Furthermore, they may have very good reasons for leaving their church, and it will not do them any good if they are then told they are not welcomed here. The opportunity to bless and help someone in need may be lost—and very possibly we may even lose the person to his problems or to the world.

It’s Better to Have a Positive Attitude

I  believe it is important that we view transfer growth more positively and with greater grace. Let us learn from growing churches, even if some of their growth is due to transfers. On the other hand, let us not be guilty of soliciting members from other churches. But if they choose to come, welcome them and take responsibility to shepherd them for the Kingdom.

Church Culture

I only came to realise after more more than 25 years in the pastoral ministry (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?

I believe that culture is even more important than vision. For example, the church may have a great vision: To win the city for Jesus, or to disciple the marketplace for Christ. But if the church does not have the right culture to support that vision, the vision simply remains a pipe dream.

Church Culture

Culture, in any setting, whether of an ethnic group or an organization, develops over time. The primary factor that shapes a group’s culture is, of course, their set of beliefs. Influential people (usually founders and leaders) and significant events also help shape, or may even change, the group’s culture (by changing the group’s beliefs). The leaders of some organizations are acutely aware of this, and they consciously shape their culture. Most, however, are not—and so, do not. If an organization’s culture is simply allowed to evolve, rather than deliberately shaped, what usually results is bad culture. The same may be said of the church.

For example, punctuality is not really part of Malaysian culture, and this is evident in most Malaysian churches. Many Malaysian Christians are late for church meetings, including the worship service. To cater for this most worship services in Malaysian churches don’t start on time. If a church wants to correct this it will have to consciously and deliberately develop a culture of punctuality.

This is equally true for things like prayer and evangelism. No Christian will deny that these two disciplines are supposed to be hallmarks of the church. We may say we believe in them or even put up slogans to tell people what we believe about them. But if the members don’t attend the church prayer meeting or ministry workers don’t really pray over their ministry, we are merely giving prayer lip service. Similarly with evangelism. Despite what we may say about what we believe vis-à-vis the Great Commission, if the people in the church are not witnessing for the Lord, evangelism is not part of the culture of the church.  When the behaviour of the people don’t validate what is supposed to be their belief it is not an actual value of the church. At best it is an aspirational value and at worst it is simply wishful thinking.

If you are a pastor or a church leader and you have not thought much about your church culture, I want to encourage you to start thinking and praying about it with your fellow-leaders. Whether your church remains where it is or forges ahead more strongly and purposefully depends a great deal on the kind of culture you have in your church.

Begin with your beliefs. For example, what do you believe is the purpose of teaching the Word of God? If you believe that it is for life change (Rom 12:2) you will not teach to simply pass information, but aim for transformation. What do you believe are the roles of the pastor and the church members? If you believe what Ephesians 4:11-13 says, then the pastor must not be expected to do everything from preaching to printing the church bulletin while the members sit snugly in their pews waiting to be served. Instead, the pastor must be set apart to lead and equip the members of the church so that they can be  empowered to do effective ministry. When that happens, it would be a very powerful culture indeed.

If there’s anything that the modern day church needs to get right urgently it is their church culture. The health and effectiveness of your church depends on it.

The Offering Sermon

Offering

While we were talking about a certain church my friend asked me, “Is it true that they always have a sermon before the offering is taken?” I said, “Yes. That’s part of their church culture.” Obviously, this is not a practice of his church. It is the same with the tradition I have been associated with for the many years I have been a Christian. There is hardly a comment when the tithe is taken; except for a simple statement like, “Let’s worship the Lord with our tithes and offering.” And a prayer either before or after the offering is taken.

My friend asked me, “Don’t people feel offended by all this “money talk”? Doesn’t this give a bad image of the church—that it is always talking about money and getting people to give their money to the church?” I said, “That was what I used to think.”

Over the last one year I’ve been attending a church that always has a short message before the offering is taken. One of the reasons they do that is to provide opportunities to train up potential speakers. And I must add, these young adults do very well. They speak from an appropriate verse or passage in the Bible. And almost without fail they share something from their own journey and lessons on “giving”. The stress they inevitably make is about the attitude of the heart—how we give; not how much we give.

Am I offended by this constant weekly mini-sermons on giving? Honestly, I am not. I am encouraged by the genuine spirit of happy giving that I see in the lives of those who have shared. And it is not just from the same few leaders; I have heard at least ten persons share on this. Their heart is in the right place; their attitude towards money is in the right place. It has encouraged my own attitude to giving.

In former times, I would simply put my tithe into the offering bag without too much of a thought. I certainly didn’t do it grudgingly or unhappily. But neither did I do it with any real sense of worship or thankfulness. I give my tithe because that is what I’m to do. That’s the Christian thing to do. That is my act of worship. But I have to admit, that the act of worship lacked the spirit of worship!

In Harvest Generation Church I learned something more about the kind of attitude we should have when we give (Yes, it is possible to learn something new after 41 years as a Christian and 29 years as a pastor!). Just before the collection is taken we would be asked to lift up the offering in our hands in worship to the Lord and to verbally thank Him for His provision and the privilege of giving. When I do this my mind and heart become consciously engaged in the act of giving. And this has made a huge difference in my attitude when I give.

Try that! It doesn’t matter whether your church has a mini sermon before the offering is taken or not. As you wait for the offering bag (or plate or bucket) to be passed to you, lift up your tithe to the Lord, verbalise your praise and thankfulness to Him from your heart for the offering you are about to make. It will do wonders to your spirit.

Note that the context in which Paul makes the oft-quoted statement, “Thanks be God for his indescribable gift!” (2 Cor 9:15) is about giving. I think that pretty much sums it all.

Blessed Christmas!

Pastors and Elders

Recently I was asked to share my thoughts on the role of the pastor in the church. Among other things, I explained that in the New Testament the local church had only two kinds of leaders: Elders and Deacons. And pastors fall into the category of elders.

PastorThe New Testament is very clear that “Pastor”, “Elder” and “Overseer” refer to the same person, occupying the same position and playing the same role. These terms are translated from three different Greek words, used interchangeably. For example, 1 Peter 5:1-2 reads, “To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder…. Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers….” In Acts 20:17 Luke writes,  “From Miletus, Paul sent to Ephesus for the elders of the church.” Then, in v28 Paul exhorts these elders to, “Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God….” (italics mine). I don’t think it can be any plainer than that.

Why three different words? Simply because each term tells us something more about this very important office in the church. “Elder” underscores the maturity of the person. “Overseer” explains the person’s leadership role. “Pastor” identifies the person’s pastoral function.

Obviously, this conclusion has serious implications on church polity as it is practiced today, and including our understanding of the role of the Pastor. If the Bible teaches that Pastors and Elders are one and the same, we can’t, therefore, have Pastors in a separate category from the Elders of the church. The Pastor in a single-staff church, or the Lead Pastor in a multi-staff church, must have equal standing, authority and leadership with the other Elders. It clearly contradicts the New Testament when a person who is designated as a Pastor, carrying out the pastoral function, but does not have the leadership authority of an Elder.

If there is no intention for such a person to be part of the Eldership then it is best that he is not called “Pastor” (or “Lead/Senior/Main Pastor”). It will only lead to a  lot of misunderstanding and great frustration. It is best to designate such a person as a “Ministry Staff”, or by his job title such as the “Cell Group Director”.

Furthermore, in some multi-staff churches an attempt is made to differentiate between Pastors who have the same standing with the Elders and those who do not. The former is given the designation “Pastor-Elder”. To say the least, that is an oxymoron. Something that we have conjured up to solve a problem we had created in the first place.

To add to the confusion, some churches have “lay pastors”. They are “lay” in the sense that they are not paid staff. They are given the designation “Pastor” in that they carry out pastoral ministry. However, they are not Elders of the church. The point is not that no one other than Pastors or Elders may carry out pastoral ministry. Certainly, every believer and especially the more mature ones should provide pastoral care for other members of the Body. But it does not mean that they are to be designated as Pastors. If a person is to be designated as a Pastor, then he is also an Elder.

It is gravely unfortunate that the term “Pastor” in use in many evangelical churches today is primarily about the person’s pastoral function rather than his designation. This anomaly, however, has never been the intended teaching of the New Testament.

All these problems have arisen simply because of the unbiblical differentiation we have made between “Pastor” and “Elder”. It is time that we get it right. It is time that we return to the New Testament teaching about who we call “Pastors” and their role, and also about the leadership structure of the church.

Leadership Dichotomy

One of the issues that cropped up at a meeting with a group of marketplace Christian leaders was about leadership style (for a lack of a better word). We noticed that corporate leaders, including Christian ones, provide strong leadership and expect everyone to follow through on agreed or accepted policies and objectives. However, when these same Christian leaders are in a so-called Christian context, like a church or a Christian organization, suddenly their views on leadership style changes.

leadership

For example, in the marketplace we expect a certain level of competency and commitment from those who work under our leadership. If they don’t do what is expected of them, despite all the help and encouragement afforded to them, we will eventually have to take some drastic steps. If they can’t do the job as required—they will be moved. If they won’t (say, because of an attitude problem)—they will be removed.

In the church, and even Christian organisations, however, leaders are expected to tolerate shoddy work and poor attitude (even bad attitude)—because, we reason, it is the Christian thing to do. Furthermore, the same people who exercise strong leadership in their place of work, will tell the pastor and elders that it is wrong for them to exercise strong leadership in the church.

There is something clearly amiss here. We have been deluded to accept a dichotomy between what we term, the “secular “and the “spiritual”. But as one preacher said, “Nothing is secular. Everything is spiritual, except sin.” There should not be a contradiction between the kind of leadership you exercise in your office and that in the church.

You can’t say, it is alright to dismiss someone who is not performing in his job, but it is not Christian to remove someone who is not carrying out his ministry responsibility seriously. If it is not Christian to do the latter, neither is it Christian to do the former. The place does not determine whether it is Christian or not. It is our attitude and the process that we take that determine that. Our leadership should be Christian regardless of where we exercise it; whether in the marketplace or the church. What we cannot do in the church, we cannot do in our office. What you believe you can do in your office, you should agree that it can also be done in the church. And to keep us on the road of good and godly leadership we have the best-selling guide of all—the Bible.

This blog post is not a discussion on leadership principles; to determine what’s right or wrong, good or bad leadership. The point I am making here is that we are not to dichotomise leadership in the marketplace and in the church. Leadership is to be the same in both arenas—Christian and Biblical.

The Disciple’s Growth Process

growing plant

I had a great time teaching again at Harvest Generation Church’s Bible Study on 28 & 29 August, as I did the previous two times. The church is primarily made up of a bunch of passionate, hungry and teachable young people. Their attentiveness and responsiveness make teaching them such a great delight.

Over the two evenings I taught on “The Disciple’s Growth Process”, which included: The Call to Spiritual Growth, The Areas for Growth, and The Growth Process. One of the key points in the Call to Spiritual Growth is that growth is not automatic. Growth for a Christian can only happen if we “remain in the Vine” (Jn 15:4) and, when we use what the Lord has given to us. The first calls for us to draw from the resources of Christ, the second is like going to the gym and pumping iron—we work our muscles to grow stronger and healthier.

When I presented to the group the Areas for Growth, I think they were overwhelmed by the fact that there were so many; such as, Truth, Spiritual Disciplines, and Ministry Development. Furthermore, the breadth that these subjects cover are vast. For example, one of the spiritual disciplines that Christians engage in is prayer. Often the first things we learn about prayer is that we are to pray in Jesus’ name. We may also be taught to use the acronym ACTS to guide us and to give us a balanced approach to prayer. As we progress we may learn to pray conversational prayer, praying the Word and praying in the Spirit. Later on we may learn to engage in prayer warfare, prophetic prayer and ministering to people through prayer. There is so much more, from the elementary to the deep things of prayer. This gives us an idea of how deep we can go in the many other areas of our spiritual lives. God’s spiritual ocean is very deep. The question is, How deep do you want to go?

At the two evenings with HGC the prime focus of our study was on The Growth Process. Here I attempted to show them through a chart and with the use of a roadmap imagery how a clear process can help a disciple grow spiritually. Jesus did that with his disciples. Mark 3:14-15 tell us that Jesus trained his disciples (“with him”), empowered them (“have authority to drive out demons”) and sent them to do ministry (“send them out to preach”). While the details of the process will not be the same for all Christians, nonetheless, there is a process that the Lord uses to develop us.

A church needs to understand this. Besides providing an environment conducive for growth a church also needs to put in place a process in order to help Christians grow in their discipleship and ministry.

If you want to know more, I will be more than happy to conduct this seminar or tailor something suitable for your church.

More Than Just Expediency

To date nine churches and groups have printed about 400 copies of my Bible study More Than Just Position for use in their small groups. These are studies based on the lives of selected kings of Israel. The lessons include matters of leadership (political and spiritual), influence (good & bad), principles and practices.

ecmy_books_MTJP

One of the studies in More Than Just Position is about Jeroboam, the first king of the Northern Kingdom. It’s titled: More Than Just Expediency. But I can just hear Jeroboam scream, Hey stupid. What get things done is expediency, not principles.

In order to keep his people from going over to the South he erected golden calf idols as their gods; one each in Bethel and Dan. And he then told his people, Why bother to go down to Jerusalem when you can worship your god right here. He did this despite the fact that he knew it was a direct violation of God’s laws and which would lead his people into idolatry. But never you mind about this; it was the expedient thing to do.

As I was pondering on the current affairs of our country, I could not help but see parallels between the two nations (Israel and Malaysia) and the two times (10th-6th BCE and today). The adage “There’s nothing new under the sun” is so true.

Johor DAP chief Liew Chin Tong made a statement today (reported in the Malaysian Insider, 10 Aug 2015). He said that Johor DAP was willing to cooperate with Johor UMNO to fight corruption and free Malaysia from racial politics, “but the cooperation must be based on principles, and not expediency.”

That’s how it should be; whether it pertains to the religious, political or commercial spheres. Principles cannot be sacrificed at the altar of expediency. Principles must always have first and final say, above expediency.

Malaysia today needs courageous and principled leaders.

Please email empoweringchurches.my@gmail.com if you interested in receiving a sample of the Bible study, More Than Just Position.

Health Check

I could have died long before I reached three-score years and ten. Worse, I could have become a vegetable lying in bed waiting to die. A health check showed that I had two arteries blocked at 90%. I had no symptoms of heart problems, and if not for my wife’s insistence for a health test when I turned 50, I would have just ignorantly carried on until it was too late.

stethoscope_and_heartshapedChurches, like individuals, also need to have a health check. A church that is not doing well might be oblivious of it. There may not be any clear indicative symptoms. Maybe the leaders are blind to them, or in denial. Perhaps they are too close to the situation to see the problems, or their vested interests prevent them from doing so.

Over a span of 30 years in the pastoral ministry, I have observed that most of our churches are not healthy. Furthermore, pastors and church leaders do not do a health check to determine the condition of their church. Most have never thought of it. Some don’t want to. They may not say it, but they don’t want to “face the brutal facts”.

(An excerpt from Before ER: A Call to Church Health by Lim Soon Hock)