A Church’s History and Its Present Health

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How Past Events Affect a Church’s Health

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

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

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

Plotting a Church’s History

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

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

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

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

Church Health Analysis Consultation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Church Health Analysis Training Module

14 March 2025Soon-Hock Lim Leave a comment

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

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

What? The module covers:

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

Pre-requisites. The participants must:

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

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

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

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

Church Consulting Training Module

14 March 202514 March 2025Soon-Hock Lim Leave a comment

Why? Every church in needs help, at least from time to time. Insight from a discerning observer with a fresh pair of eyes. A neutral opinion from an objective perspective. Advice from a trained church consultant.

For this reason, every church denomination in Malaysia should develop a team of church consultants. Under the auspices of their denominational body they engage with the local church to provide insights, resolve conflicts, troubleshoot, analyse the church’s health, determine solutions, and walk the church through the implementation process.

This Church Consulting Training Module will provide a basic but critical foundation for a church denomination to develop such a team of church consultants to serve its group of churches.

What? The module covers:

The purpose of church consulting
The qualities of a church consultant
The process for church consulting
The scope of church consulting
Pre-requisites for successful church consulting
How your theology affects your consultation
Introduction to church health & church health analysis
How to write a report
Case studies
And more

Pre-requisites. The participants must:

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

In 2014, he founded Empower Services & Consultancy as a vehicle to fulfil his God-given vision to empower pastors, church leaders, and churches through church consulting. For a preliminary discussion on the Church Consulting Training Module please write to Soon Hock at empoweringchurches.my@gmail.com.

Balance and Church Health

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

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

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

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

Healthy Churches are Both Strong and Balanced

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

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

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

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

Church Health Analysis

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

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

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

A Proposal for a Church Health Framework

3 June 20242 November 2024Soon-Hock Lim Leave a comment

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

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

In my study I discovered that most church health models do not have a cohesive framework. Among those that do, many are not based on an explicit biblical and theological foundation. Two models that do are Chuck Lawless’ Know Your Church² and Leadership Transformation, Inc.’s Church Health Assessment Tool (CHAT).³

The Three Aspects of the Church

I would like to propose a framework that understands the church (that is a local congregation) in terms of its nature, ministry, and organisation. I first came across the concept in Craig Van Gelder’s The Essence of the Church.⁴ The nature of the church refers to what the church is—its essence, attributes, and characteristics. The ministry of the church refers to what the church does—its purpose, functions, activities, and roles. And the organisation of the church refers to how the church organises itself—which includes its structures, processes, and leadership.

The diagram⁵ on the left presents a visual of the three aspects of the church and their interconnectedness. The ministry of the church is not just about what the church does or its functions, but that it does what it is. In other words, the ministry of the church must be consistent with and flow from its nature. In the process of developing a church health framework with its attendant church health characteristics, two questions need to be asked: (1) what is the biblical nature of the church, and (2) what ministry functions arise from the nature of the church?

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

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

Healthy Churches Intentionally Make Disciples (Part 2)

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

by Lim Soon Hock, Empowering Churches

Click here for Part 1

INTENTIONAL DISCIPLE-MAKING OF JESUS AND PAUL

The Rabbinical Tradition: Practice and Deviation

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

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

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

Marks of Intentionality

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

Focussed Discipling

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

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

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

Clear purpose and goal for the disciple

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

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

A plan to develop disciples

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

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

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

Go to Part 3

Healthy Churches Intentionally Make Disciples (Part 1)

21 October 202226 October 2022Soon-Hock Lim 2 Comments

by Lim Soon Hock, Empowering Churches

INTRODUCTION

The Great Commission in Matthew 28:19-20 is explicit about the primary mission of the church—to make disciples of the nations of the world. This biblical expectation of the church is here assumed. The focus of the paper is on the issue of the church’s disciple-making intentionality as it seeks to fulfil the mandate. By “intentionality” we mean that “everything in the church ministry revolves around the intention of disciple-making.”²⁵ “Disciple-making” is defined as “the process of bringing people into right relationship with God, and developing them to full maturity in Christ through intentional growth strategies, that they might multiply the entire process in others also.”²⁶ The purpose of the research is to determine the requisite factors for a church to successfully implement intentional disciple-making.

Secondly, the research is also about the relationship between disciple-making and church health. That is, how does disciple-making affect the health of a church? This preliminary issue is the paper’s first point of discussion. It is followed by a study of disciple-making by Jesus and Paul, with a focus on intentionality. The third section of the paper is a discussion of the main issue about the requisite factors for an intentional disciple-making church. The research includes a study of the theology and practice of discipling²⁷ from the Bible, Christian literature, and its application among churches in Malaysia.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INTENTIONAL DISCIPLE-MAKING AND CHURCH HEALTH

In the paper, disciple-making is set in the larger context of church health. In this section we explore the views of church health proponents about the relationship between disciple-making and the health of a church. A healthy church may be viewed as a modern metaphor for the mature church in Ephesians 4:11-13. Paul says that when leaders (God’s gifted men) and the people in the church (God’s people) fulfil their respective roles—to empower and to be empowered for service—the church grows to become mature (NIV) or perfect (NKJV). The word “mature” or “perfect” is translated from the Greek telos which literally means “bring-to-an-end, finish, or complete.”²⁸ The “mature man” or “perfect man” (andra teleion) may be seen as the end goal of the Ephesians 4:11-13 process. Gene A. Getz posits that Paul uses the phrase “perfect man” as a metaphor to illustrate that all members of Christ’s body are to be mature reflections of God’s perfect Son, Jesus.²⁹ This maturity, in the context of Ephesians, is to be understood in the corporate or collective sense.³⁰ Akin to this view the paper uses the term “the healthy church” as a modern metaphor for the mature or perfect church, which is the desired goal of the Lord for His church.

In order to determine the level of health of a church many church health proponents have developed a list of church health characteristics.³¹ They do not fully agree on what should be included in the list. However, they agree that understanding what constitute the characteristics of a healthy church and measuring a church against them, is critical to determine the health of a church.³² The church as the Body of Christ (Eph 4:12, 1:22) is often used as an analogy to underscore the need for and the use of a diagnostic approach to determine a church’s health. Tim Koster and John Wagenveld in Take Your Church’s Pulse write,

“Viewing the church as the Body of Christ gives us a helpful way to develop an awareness of how the Holy Spirit is at work in a congregation. When someone visits the doctor, the appointment always begins with the collection of certain basic data: pulse, temperature, blood pressure, …etc. Those simple tests offer insight as to what is happening inside the body. If something is wrong, the tests also offer direction as to treatment….”³³

It is beyond the scope of the paper to delve into a comprehensive comparative study of church health models and their respective lists of church health characteristics. However, in relation to the subject matter of the paper, discipleship is a characteristic in many models. Ten out of the 14 models researched include discipleship in their respective lists of church health characteristics. However, the way the characteristic is described varies between models (see Table 1: The Discipleship Characteristic in Church Health Models below).

Seven models: Beeson, Dever’s Nine Marks, EFCS’s 10 Indicators, Koster’s and Wagenveld’s 10 Vital Signs, Lawless’ Church Health Survey, Searcy’s Healthy Systems, and Warren’s Purpose Driven Church use the word “discipleship” or one of its cognates for the characteristic. Two models: Macchia’s Ten Characteristics, and Stott’s Living Church do not use the word “discipleship”, but their descriptions clearly indicate that they are about discipleship. Getz also does not use the term “discipleship” but it is obvious that many of his model’s characteristics are about discipleship.

The findings from the comparative study of church health models show that proponents of church health believe that discipleship is an important component of church health. They also believe that the level or the quality of discipleship in a church ought to be measured in order to determine the level of health a church enjoys. Getz sums up the sentiment when he writes, “when measuring a church, we must have a comprehensive understanding of biblical discipleship.”³⁴ If the quality of discipleship is critical to the health of a church, it is expected then, that churches must be intentional about disciple-making. Chan comments,

“Spiritual growth is not automatic. New converts and believers cannot be left on their own to grow. There is an intentional follow-up of new converts. There are intentional growth strategies for the development of authentic discipleship in the lives of believers.”³⁵

A limited random survey was conducted by the researcher for the paper among 13 pastors and church leaders of English-speaking Malaysian churches. Only Six out of the 13 respondents indicated that their church has a high degree of disciple-making intentionality. The low proportion of churches engaged in intentional disciple-making among the sample churches might be representative of the overall picture of the church in Malaysia. They know that discipleship is important, but pursuing the mandate through intentional disciple-making is deficient. Hence, if disciple-making is to be intentional, how is the intentionality to be exhibited? In other words, what are the marks of intentional disciple-making for a church?

Go to Part 2

Leadership Requirements for Healthy Churches (Part 4)

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

by Lim Soon Hock, Empowering Churches

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

THE ROLE OF CHURCH LEADERS

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

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

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

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

A Theological Perspective of the Role of Church Leaders

A study of the NT shows that church leaders have many functions. Norman L. Geisler states that an elder is an overseer (1 Pet 5:1-4), a ruler (Heb 13:17), an under-shepherd (1 Pet 5:1-4), a teacher (1 Pet 5;2, 1 Tim 3:2, Tit 1:9), an apologist (Ph 1:17, Tit 1:9), an arbiter of disputes (Acts 15:2), and a watchman (Heb 13:17).³⁶

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).³⁷ 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).³⁸

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.”³⁹ 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.⁴⁰ 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.⁴¹

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.⁴² 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.⁴³ 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.”⁴⁴

The result arising from the leaders’ training and the members’ serving is the building up of the church.⁴⁵ 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.⁴⁶

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.⁴⁷ Their comparative chart of the three images of the pastor is helpful⁴⁸ (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.⁴⁹ 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)⁵⁰

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.⁵¹ Beyond teaching and preaching to the masses and ministering to their needs, He focussed on training the twelve (Mk 9:30-31, Mt 10:1ff). Paul exemplified the empowering leader. Beyond evangelism, planting churches, and teaching, he focussed on training others for ministry and mission such as Timothy, Titus, Silas, Priscilla and Aquila.

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

Leadership Requirements for Healthy Churches (Part 3)

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

by Lim Soon Hock, Empowering Churches

Click here for Part 1, Click here for Part 2

The Relational Church Leader

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

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

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

“Father Leadership is a style of leadership based on relationships. The primary focus is not on a task, but on the person, i.e. the follower. It is about love and not about doing a job. Most styles of leadership focus on skills and performance. Father Leadership flows from the heart. It is a very powerful and influential form of leadership.”⁵²

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.⁵³ One of John Maxwell’s laws of leadership is the “The Law of Connection: leaders touch a heart before they ask for a hand.”⁵⁴

Thom S. Rainer submits eight keys of “Acts 6/7 Leadership”; one of which is their “unconditional love of the people.”⁵⁵ His research led him to conclude that breakout church leaders “communicate(d) clearly their love for the members of the congregation.”⁵⁶

In a proposal of a composite framework for Christian leader development outcomes Keith R. Krispin’s third category, out of five, is “Relational Skills”.⁵⁷ 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….”⁵⁸

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.⁵⁹ 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) leadership⁶⁰

The critical importance of visionary leadership in the assessment of the respondents is supported by the views of Christian-based leadership experts.⁶¹ 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