Leadership

Healthy Churches Intentionally Make Disciples (Part 3)

Soon-Hock Lim Leave a comment

by Lim Soon Hock, Empowering Churches

Click here for Part 1, Click here for Part 2

REQUISITE FACTORS FOR AN INTENTIONAL DISCIPLE-MAKING CHURCH

The study thus far has shown that the discipleship of God’s people is critical to the health of a church.  However, discipleship does not happen by chance.  If a church is to be healthy it needs to be as intentional as Jesus and Paul in disciple-making.  Four factors may be discerned from the disciple-making ministry of Jesus and Paul that are requisites for an intentional disciple-making church:

  1. A biblical understanding of the characteristics of a disciple of Jesus Christ,
  2. An effective process to make disciples,
  3. Committed and capable disciplers, and
  4. A church culture that promotes disciple-making.

The Disciple

If a church is to be an intentional disciple-making church it must first have a clear biblical understanding of the characteristics of a disciple of Jesus Christ.  Chan envisages the NT disciple as a “certain kind of product”1 who is characterised by five marks.  He is: (1) grounded in the Word of God (Jn 15:7, Mt 7:24-27), (2) submitted fully to the Lordship of Christ (Lk 9:23, Mt 6:33), (3) walks in love (Jn 13:34-35), (4) bears much fruit (Jn 15:5), and (5) equips others and multiplies (Eph 4:12).2  Hull describes a disciple with the use of a “six-fold definition of being conformed to Christ’s image.”3  They are: (1) transformed mind: believe what Jesus believed, (2) transformed character: live the way Jesus lived, (3) transformed relationship: love as Jesus loved, (4) transformed habits: train as Jesus trained, (5) transformed service: minister as Jesus ministered, and (6) transformed influence: lead the way Jesus led.4  Avery T. Willis, Jr.’s MasterLife has a succinct definition for discipleship, from which a definition of a disciple may be easily developed.  He states, “Christian discipleship is developing a personal, lifelong, obedient relationship with Jesus Christ in which He changes your character into Christlikeness, transforms your values into kingdom values, and involves you in His mission in the home, the church, and the world.”5

Chan, Hull, and Willis provide a clear description of a disciple.  They may differ in the way they say it, but they are clear about the goal or the “product”—what a disciple of Jesus Christ looks like.  It is imperative for every church to have a clear biblical description for the kind of disciple they want so that they can work towards “making it”.

The Process

The second requisite factor of an intentional disciple-making church is that it must have an effective process to make disciples.  Chan’s, Hull’s, and Willis’ definitions of a disciple show that the development of a disciple of Jesus Christ is multifaceted.  Furthermore, inherent in the idea of development is that a disciple goes through phases of growth.6  For this reason discipling must be seen as a process.  Hull comments, “To keep discipling effective, remember: discipling is not an event; it is a process…. The church has the responsibility to provide the clear vision and the vehicles that bring Christians into mature discipleship.”7  However, the philosophy of the disciple-making process varies between the proponents; from program-based discipling to relational discipling.

Willis’ MasterLife may be categorised as program-based discipling because the four workbooks it offers form a complete discipleship curriculum.8  Notwithstanding, Willis envisaged that MasterLife is to be used as a discipleship process.9  Hull deems Rick Warren’s Purpose Driven Church (PDC) model’s “Life Development Process”10 (LDP) as a program.11  However, Warren clarifies that PDC’s five purposes are arranged into a sequential process.12  A model like the LDP might best be described as a process with multiple programs, and that these programs may be replaced with improved programs to better achieve their purpose—to make disciples.  Or, in the words of Thom S. Rainer and Eric Geiger in the Simple Church, “A simple church is a congregation designed around a straight forward and strategic process that moves people through the stages of spiritual growth.”13  The definition acknowledges the need for a process to move people through the stages of growth.  However, Rainer and Geiger lament that most churches miss this truth.14  Whether it’s one program or multiple programs, discipleship must be developed into a process.  In other words, a process is a necessary means to achieve the goal for spiritual growth of the believers in the church and to make disciples.

Only four out of the 13 respondents surveyed opined that that their respective churches have a developed disciple-making process (see Appendix B).  The researcher has no detailed information about their respective processes, except that three respondents (out of the four) commented that their respective churches use common materials to disciple their members.  The materials may be changed when necessary.  These four respondents also indicated that their churches have a high degree of disciple-making intentionality.  Eight out of the remaining nine respondents indicated that their churches have a low degree of intentionality and lack a disciple-making process.

Ogden opines that one of the major reasons for the “low estate of discipleship is that most churches have no clear, public pathway to maturity.”15  He also advocates a discipling process; though, not a process with programs, but a process through relational discipling.  Ogden explains discipling to mean “a process that takes place within accountable relationships over a period of time for the purpose of bringing believers to spiritual maturity in Christ.”16  He advocates personal discipling in highly accountable, relational discipleship units of three or four.17  Both Hull and Chan advocate personal discipling as well as the use of small groups in disciple-making.18  One respondent in the survey indicated that his church has high degree of intentionality but it does have a developed process.  He commented that his church’s disciple-making focus is on building relationships and trust.  Every leader in his church is encouraged to spend time, serve together, and journey with the disciple.  This is perhaps illustrative of Ogden’s point on relational discipling.

The Discipler

The third requisite for an intentional disciple-making church is for committed and capable disciplers.  If discipling is a discipler helping a disciple develop into full maturity in Christ,19 then, the former by his (or her) life’s example must exemplify for the latter what it means to be mature in Christ.  Chan comments, “If you are not positively modelling, you are not positively mentoring….because things are more caught than taught, modelling is tremendously significant.21 through relational discipling.22

A discipler does not need to have the stature of a Paul or a pastor/elder.  If that were the case then very few would qualify.  Chan is right when he says that God intends discipling to be for every believer, not just the apostles.23  Colin Marshall and Tony Payne state that “to be a disciple is to be a disciple-maker.”24  In other words, any growing disciple can be a discipler of another.  Marshall and Payne go so far as to say, “All Christian should be disciple-makers….”25  Certainly, a discipler with greater maturity in Christ and training in disciple-making is likely to have a greater impact on a disciple.  For this reason, an intentional disciple-making church must be about training its people to be disciplers. Marshall and Payne believe that one of the critical ministry mind-shifts a church must make is a shift from running events to training people.26  A related mind-shift is from relying on training institutions to establishing local training.27  The challenge, then, is for the local church to provide training for its people to be “vine growers” or disciple makers.28

Church Culture

The fourth requisite for an intentional disciple-making church is a church culture of disciple-making.  One, or even a handful of disciplers do not make a disciple-making church.  If we accept Chan’s definition of disciple-making and what is meant by intentionality then disciple-making must form a most critical part of a church’s culture.  Aubrey Malphurs defines a church’s congregational culture as “the unique expression of the interaction of the church’s beliefs and its values, which explain its behaviour in general and display its unique identity in particular.”29  In other words, belief determines values, and values are expressed in behaviour.  A disciple-making church is one that is convinced and convicted by the biblical injunction and teaching on discipleship and disciple-making.  This shared belief leads the church to establish values about discipleship and disciple-making.  These shared values are so important that they are expressed in the common behaviour of the people in the church through their lives and ministry.

The persons most responsible to develop a disciple-making culture are the pastor and leaders of the church.  Malphurs opines that the pastor is the key church culture sculptor.30  Chan states that “the key to a disciple-making church is the disciple-making pastor.”31  The pastor together with the leaders do this through modelling, teaching and preaching, praying, developing a discipleship process, and training disciplers.  Hence, beside the pastor, church leaders must also lead in the example of disciple-making if the latter is to become a culture in the church.  Chan states,

“The right kind of leadership must be developed.  The disciple-making process must begin on the right leadership platform.  Leaders are inspiring when they model discipleship to the church and are actively involved in disciple-making.  Once we have leaders being effectively discipled, they will be discipling others, and the chain effect will be multiplied downwards.”32

From the survey sample, seven out of the 13 respondents indicated that many of their pastors are engaged in disciple-making (see Appendix B).  However, only three out of these same seven indicated that many of their church leaders (excluding the pastors) are engaged in disciple-making.  Furthermore, five (of 13) indicated that their churches have a culture of disciple-making.  However, only two (of the five) indicated that many of their pastors and church leaders are engaged in disciple-making; another two indicated that many of their pastors are engaged in disciple-making, but less so among the church leaders; and one indicated that not many of the church’s pastors and leaders are engaged in disciple-making.  Since culture is set by the leaders, it is incongruous for a church to have a disciple-making culture when the leaders do not exemplify it.  Disciple-making only becomes culture in a church when the church as a whole; pastors, leaders, and members hold a shared belief and shared values about disciple-making that are actualised.

CONCLUSION

The church of Jesus Christ has a mandate to make disciples, and fulfilling the mandate is a vital characteristic of a healthy church.  However, the success of a church to fulfil the mandate is hinged on the critical issue of its disciple-making intentionality.  The research has ascertained that for a church to be intentional about disciple-making it must have: (1) a biblical understanding of the characteristics of a disciple of Jesus Christ, (2) an effective process to make disciples, (3) committed and capable disciplers, and (4) a church culture that promotes disciple-making.

The ultimate objective is requisite number four: to a develop a church culture that promotes disciple-making.  The reason is because, once disciple-making becomes culture, the church simply does what it is.  However, the first three requisites—the disciple, the discipler, and the process—are also important components of the disciple-making culture.  The more these three requisites are developed in a church, the more deeply will a disciple-making culture be established be in the church.  In this regard, pastors and church leaders must lead by example.  All the leaders must be engaged in disciple-making.  Furthermore, a clear and effective process to make disciples must be developed for the whole church.  The church must not only be clear about the kind of disciple it desires to develop, it must also have an effective pathway to reach the objective.  Good intentions without a clear and effective process will not succeed.  Finally, while discipleship and discipling programs are necessary items in the process, even more important is the discipling relationship.  Relational discipling by the discipler with the disciple is key to disciple-making.

Leadership Requirements for Healthy Churches (Part 4)

Soon-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).1

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).2  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).3

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.”4  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.5  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.6

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.7  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.8  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.”9

The result arising from the leaders’ training and the members’ serving is the building up of the church.10  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.11

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.12  Their comparative chart of the three images of the pastor is helpful13 (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.14  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)15

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.16  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)

Soon-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.”1

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.2  One of John Maxwell’s laws of leadership is the “The Law of Connection: leaders touch a heart before they ask for a hand.”3

Thom S. Rainer submits eight keys of “Acts 6/7 Leadership”; one of which is their “unconditional love of the people.”4  His research led him to conclude that breakout church leaders “communicate(d) clearly their love for the members of the congregation.”5

In a proposal of a composite framework for Christian leader development outcomes Keith R. Krispin’s third category, out of five, is “Relational Skills”.6  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….”7

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.8  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) leadership9

The critical importance of visionary leadership in the assessment of the respondents is supported by the views of Christian-based leadership experts.10  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)

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 3)

Soon-Hock Lim Leave a comment

by Lim Soon Hock, Empowering Churches

This paper was written in November 2020 when the government of Malaysia imposed restrictive curbs, SOPs, and lockdowns to prevent the spread of the coronavirus (Covid-19). This significantly affected the activities of the church.

Click here for Part 2, and here for Part 1

A REVIEW OF THE ROLE OF THE VOCATIONAL MINISTER IN THE MALAYSIAN CHURCH IN LIGHT OF A CHALLENGING CHANGE

As we review the role of the vocational minister in the Malaysian church, the first point to note is that change in and around the church does not alter the minister’s ministry functions.  However, change may alter his emphasises from among his varied functions and how he carries out his functions.

An example is from the changing size of a church.  Gary L. McIntosh posits that churches have different needs depending on size.  A small church is not just a miniature version of a large church but an entirely different entity.1  Hence, as a church grows from small to medium-size to large the dynamics of the church also changes.  This does not only affect the church’s structure, orientation and strategies but also the pastor’s role.2

Change in or outside the church always demands a response if it is to be positively addressed.  On one hand it should be met with a response of consistency concerning the purpose and values of the church.  On the other hand, it should be met with a recalibration of the priorities and methodology of doing church and ministry.

The Minister’s Leadership Function

In a crisis brought about by change, among the three functions of leading, feeding and caring, the minister must prioritise his leadership function.  He needs to study the change, the effects of the change and how to address the change.  He doesn’t do this alone but with his leadership team.  Nonetheless, it is incumbent upon the minister to take the lead.  Leadership is a key function of the vocational minister. He cannot surrender that role to anyone.

The Use of Technology3 and Online Platform

The biggest visible change in the Malaysian church as a response to the effects of the  pandemic has been the adoption of the online platform as a substitute or as a complement to limited onsite meetings.  When the Movement Control Order was first enforced in Malaysia on 18 March 2020 churches all across the country were caught totally unprepared (except a few churches that already had an online presence).  Churches responded with varying degrees of rapidity, expansiveness and intensity in their adoption of the online platform.

 

Some churches immediately started to learn and use the available technology to livestream their worship services.  Most churches were slow to adopt the new technology.  Some were quick to make use of existing digital communication tools for small group meetings and to provide daily or weekly devotional content for their members.  Others felt challenged by the new technology or were stretched by their limited resources.  Some churches made significant financial investment to upgrade their equipment for quality virtual broadcast.  Many simply hoped and prayed that all this would quickly pass and the church would be able go back to do church and ministry like the time pre-Covid-19.

These varying degrees of responses from churches in Malaysia underscore the importance of the leadership function of the minister.  In other words, the minister’s leadership determines how his church responds to change.4  Moreover, a church’s response to external changes demands internal changes.  Managing congregational changes requires wise, Scripture-guided and clear leadership from the minister.

The Unchanging Purpose of God and His Church

More importantly, the minister’s leadership is needed to direct the church in a “long obedience in the same direction.”5  Priorities and methods may change, but the purpose and values of the church do not change.  The minister must constantly and continually lead the church towards the purpose of God as revealed in Scripture.  Foremost, in terms of the mission of the church, is to make disciples of the nations (the Great Commission, Mt 28:18-20).

Hirsch and Ferguson contend that,

“…Jesus gets the privilege of decisively defining the movement that claims his name; nonetheless, leaders in his church need to take this task of defining the parameters of how people think about the church with utmost seriousness.  Allowing Jesus to guide us, it is part of the leadership task to somehow manage how the rest of the organisation as a whole sees itself and its function in the world.  In other words, it’s the leaders’ job to define ecclesia for the people and organization they lead.

This puts a huge theological responsibility on leadership to ensure they have a vision of the church that is consistent with the church Jesus built.  We cannot shirk this, especially in moments of crisis that require accurate recalibration.”6

What is the recalibration that is needed to fulfil the Great Commission in this new season where mass gatherings are curtailed?  The answer must be in small groups.  The ministry of small groups is not new, but in this new season it needs to be emphasised and reconstructed.  The minister needs to lead the charge in reconstructing the small group ministry of the church.  For example, the small group needs to become even smaller.  12 may no longer work.  20 is certainly unworkable.  Six might be ideal.  Also, the general thrust of the small groups in coming together for Bible study and fellowship is not significantly focussed enough if the church is to fulfil the purpose of the Great Commission.  The thrust of the small groups has to be disciple-making and life-on-life discipling.7  In this regards the minister needs to provide the leadership model of discipling in small groups in his church.8

The Minister as Trainer

The minister obviously cannot carry out discipling by himself.  He needs to multiply himself.  In other words, he needs to empower others to do the same (2 Tim 2:2).  He has to see himself as one of God’s gifts to the church whose function is to equip the saints for the work of ministry (Eph 4:11-13).  And the area which he is to equip his church is naturally in the area of his giftedness or expertise, which is to shepherd or disciple others.9  Hence, the pastor reproduces according to his own kind.10

Colin Marshall and Tony Payne call for ministry mind-shifts.  Their list of 10 ministry mind-shift items includes: 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.11

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.12  Their comparative chart of the three images of the pastor is helpful.13

The same sentiment is shared by William Willimon.  In A Reader for Ordained Ministry he discusses a number of images of the 21st Century pastor that includes the more far flung images of media mogul and political negotiator and the more commonly held images of preacher and servant.  He asserts that it is the nature of the Christian ministry to be multifaceted and multidimensional.  He insists that the “gospel does not change, but the context in which the gospel is preached and is enacted do change.  A predominate pastoral image might have been fruitful in one age may not be so in the next.”14  Nonetheless, because the Christian ministry is significantly countercultural, Willimon says he finds “much to be commended in the image of the pastor as a missionary, or more accurately, a lead missionary or equipper of the missionaries.”15  The last point is key to the minister’s function in the present and challenging season of change.  The minister’s function is not only to lead his church to fulfil the unchanging commission of disciple-making, but also to train and empower his church for this same purpose.

The church member, who has been thus trained, may not be called nor able to preach in a large meeting, but he can carry out a disciple-making ministry with a small group of people.  During this season where large gatherings are curtailed this makes for a significant ministry strategy.  A next step might be for the vocational minister to further train and release able men and women to start new churches in their neighbourhood and places of work; in fact anywhere, where they can engage non-believers and disciple believers.  It is time for a mental shift, to stop thinking of church in terms of church gatherings, but to be the church everywhere.  This is in total alignment with the NT concept of the church, which is simply a people gathered, centred around Christ and in mission for the Kingdom.16

CONCLUSION

The Malaysian church may not be aware, or may not want to admit, that its subservience to its institutionalised nature has made it quite impotent.  The needs of the members, the programmes of the church, and keeping the church establishment intact are more important than the mission of the church.  That being the case, in a season when the church is hit hard with an external and challenging change the prevailing mindset of the church cannot effectively respond to the change.  Neither can it keep its focus on its mission.

It is the role of the vocational minister to provide leadership for the church to respond to the change.  No doubt, the minister’s function is also to feed and care for the sheep whom the Lord has entrusted to him, but in a season of change he needs to step-up in his leadership function to lead the church to fulfil the unchanging purpose that God has for His church, namely, to make disciples of the nations.

The vocational minister can do this best by multiplying himself through training his members to be disciple-makers.  In the present challenge when the church gathered needs to go small, the move to disciple-making in small groups is ideal.  Perhaps, these empowered disciples can even start small churches where the Lord has put them.  It is not difficult to envision a movement of organic churches17 mushrooming all over a city, a nation and in the nations of the world.  This is perhaps the answer to lockdowns due to a pandemic or in times of persecution.  And it might very well lead to a movement that Keller, Hirsch and Ferguson speak about in their books.

Re-Envisioning Vocational Christian Ministry in the Church in Malaysia in Light of Change (Part 2)

Soon-Hock Lim Leave a comment

by Lim Soon Hock, Empowering Churches

This paper was written in November 2020 when the government of Malaysia imposed restrictive curbs, SOPs, and lockdowns to prevent the spread of the coronavirus (Covid-19). This significantly affected the activities of the church.

Click here for Part 1

A DESCRIPTION OF THE VOCATIONAL MINISTER IN THE MALAYSIAN CHURCH

Hovorun’s point about self-awareness is also applicable for the vocational minister.  The vocational minister needs to be aware of his person, role and functions as a minister in the church.  Self-awareness allows for self-evaluation and self-correction.

In the Malaysian church the general perception is that the role of the vocational minister is to carry out pastoral functions and to meet the pastoral needs of the members of the church.  A simple example is the expectation of members for the main pastor to visit them in hospital and pray for them.  It is not enough that another pastor or a lay-leader visits and prays for them—it must be the main pastor.  The unfortunate result arising from the institutionalism of the church is the perception and expectation that the work of the pastor is to keep the church serviced.

The minister by nature of his role has many functions.  Seward Hiltner in Ferment in the Ministry lists at least nine important functions: preaching, administering, teaching, shepherding, evangelising, celebrating, reconciling, theologising and discipline.1  With so many and varied ministerial functions what should be the overarching function of the minister if he were to make sense and prioritise his varied functions?

The New Testament Image of the Vocational Minister

The NT word for the pastor is poimēn which means shepherd.2  The term is mostly applied to Jesus (Jn 10:11, 14, 16, Heb 13:20, 1 Pet 2:25, Rev 7:17) and once to describe one of the four kinds of men that the Lord gifts to the church (Eph 4:11).  Cognates of poimēn in the NT include poimainō,3 poimnē,4 and poimnion.5  They are used literally for vocational shepherds and their work of tending their sheep, and also figuratively of Jesus and church leaders and their work of ministry among the people under their care. The use of poimēn and its cognates makes the shepherd imagery an apt description for the minister.

The shepherd imagery, with cues from Psalm 23:1-4, sums up the primary role of the minister as leading, feeding and caring for the people in the church.  Leading includes leading the people to the Lord, to grow in their relationship with Jesus and to learn faith and dependence on Him (Gal 4:19).  It also means leading the church collectively towards the purpose of God (Acts 13:1-3, 15:1-35).  Feeding includes teaching the people the Word of God; its truth and application in their lives.  It also involves training them to be effective disciples and workers in the Kingdom of God (Eph 4:11-13, 2 Tim 2:2).  Caring includes spiritual nurturing, binding up the wounds of the soul through counselling and prayer (Js 5:13-16) and protecting the flock from false teaching (Acts 20:28-35).

The Role of the Vocational Minister in the Malaysian Church

As we return to the description of the vocational minister in the Malaysian church, it is clear that among the three functions of leading, feeding and caring, the caring function is the one most expected of the minister.  The least expected is the leading function, and especially in relation to directing the church towards God’s purpose for the church.  I will pick up on this point in the subsequent section of the paper.  The feeding function lies  between the above two functions in terms of what is expected of the minister.

The church in general may recognise the importance of the minister’s role in feeding the flock with the Word of God but in reality they do not place the minister’s teaching function as important as caring for their needs.  I have observed that many churches do not adequately provide the minister with time and resources to empower him to be an apt teacher of the Word.  Neither do they make the minister’s teaching function his primary role in the church.

Chow Lien Hwa’s article in the SEA Journal of Theology calls for a minister to be a theologian in his church.  It is important because, as Chow says, the minister-theologian has the ability to contextualise theology for his area.6  Sunny Tan Boon Sang echoes the sentiment in a review of Chow’s article, “A resident pastor-theologian would be one who could devote himself/herself to the ongoing task of facilitating and supervising the work of theology in a local church.”7  This reminder is even more critical in the context of change because the ability of the minister to determine and lead a right response to the challenge of change requires sound understanding and teaching from Scripture (2 Tim 2:15).

Go to Part 3

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.

 

The Church Thriving Inspite of Social Distancing

Soon-Hock Lim 4 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lim Soon Hock Empowering Churches

Seeking God (Part 3): Prayer Posture

Soon-Hock Lim Leave a comment

(For Part 1 click here)

(For Part 2 click here)

In this third and last of my three-part post on seeking God I want to elaborate on what Jeremiah 29:13-14 says about our prayer posture as we seek God.

Firstly, the Lord EXPECTS us to seek Him. In the verse the Lord says, “You will seek me.” It is not If you want to, or Should you want to, or I hope you will—it is, you will. God expects us to seek Him. Truth be told, God commands it. For what purpose? Primarily that we may know Him. And when we know Him we will know His will, and desire to align ourselves to Him and do His will.

Secondly, we are to seek God EXCLUSIVELY. That is to say, it is God and God alone who we are to seek. For new and young believers, especially those who have come out from other religions and hence, who have previously worshipped other gods, what this means is that there is no place for syncretism. Jesus is not one of the many gods that we worship. He is the only God whom we are to worship and seek. The problem of the Israelites during Jeremiah’s time was that they added the gods of the surrounding nations into their worship, and as a result they were led away from God. That was the principal reason the Lord judged the nation of Israel and sent the people into exile.

For those of us who have been Christians a little longer this may not be a problem. However, there may be a subtle and even greater danger—that we go seeking for counsel and help from elsewhere instead of seeking God first. Or we may run from one church to another or one conference to another—hoping to find some magic formula to lift our lives. The Lord says, “You will seek me.” Prayer must be the first, last and also undergird everything we do.

Thirdly, the Lord says, “seek me with all your heart.” That is, with the ENTIRETY of your heart, or wholeheartedly. Seeking God calls for effort and discipline. It is an effort of the heart—of wanting God, waiting upon Him, desiring to hear from Him and realigning ourselves to Him and His agenda.

A classic example in the Bible is Nehemiah. When we read his story and the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem we often think of Nehemiah as action man. He was always doing something: evaluating, planning, strategising, giving instructions, even physically helping to rebuild the walls, contending with the opposition and dealing with rebellious people. If that is all we thought of Nehemiah—as action man—we have gotten him very wrong.

What was the very first thing that Nehemiah did when his brother told him of the sorry state of Jerusalem? Nehemiah 1:4 tells us, “When I heard these things, I sat down and wept. For some days I mourned and fasted and prayed before the God of heaven.” Nehemiah’s first response to the news was prayer and fasting. And when you eavesdrop into his prayer you can hear the depth of his feelings; how he sought the Lord with all his heart. It was during this four months of seeking God (four months had passed between Chapter 1:1 and 2:1) that he understood the heart of the Lord for Jerusalem. It was in his time of prayer when the Lord told Nehemiah what He wanted him to do.

This dovetails into the fourth element we find in Jeremiah 29:13-14. The Lord says, “I will be found by you.” That’s God’s promise, or the result of what happens when we seek the Lord with all our hearts. From another perspective—this is where faith kicks in. Earlier on we learnt that the Lord expects us to seek Him. Now, here is His promise—that we can expect to find Him, to hear from Him and to encounter Him. That is to say, pray EXPECTANTLY—pray with faith, believing we will see the Lord and hear from Him.

Lim Soon Hock Empowering Churches