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).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)

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.”¹⁷

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.¹⁸ One of John Maxwell’s laws of leadership is the “The Law of Connection: leaders touch a heart before they ask for a hand.”¹⁹

Thom S. Rainer submits eight keys of “Acts 6/7 Leadership”; one of which is their “unconditional love of the people.”²⁰ His research led him to conclude that breakout church leaders “communicate(d) clearly their love for the members of the congregation.”²¹

In a proposal of a composite framework for Christian leader development outcomes Keith R. Krispin’s third category, out of five, is “Relational Skills”.²² 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….”²³

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.²⁴ 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) leadership²⁵

The critical importance of visionary leadership in the assessment of the respondents is supported by the views of Christian-based leadership experts.²⁶ However, the respondents also viewed relational leadership as among the most important leadership types that church leaders should embody. This view is in line with and supported by our study of the NT and the literature review about the church and church health.

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

Go to Part 4

Leadership Requirements for Healthy Churches (Part 2)

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

by Lim Soon Hock, Empowering Churches

Click here for Part 1

THE TYPE OF CHURCH LEADERS NEEDED FOR A HEALTHY CHURCH

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

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

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

New Testament Teaching on the Attributes of Church Leaders

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

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

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

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

The imageries also inform us of the motivation and the role of church leaders. That is, they are to be motivated by love (1 Thess 2:7-8), and their role is to nurture and encourage believers in the things of God (v11-12). Thomas Chin calls this “Father Leadership.”²⁷

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.²⁸ Church health proponents such as Macchia,²⁹ and Koster and Wagenveld³⁰ agree that such an attribute ought to mark church leaders.

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

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

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

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

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

Go to Part 3

Leadership Requirements for Healthy Churches (Part 1)

15 May 202219 May 2022Soon-Hock Lim Leave a comment

by Lim Soon Hock, Empowering Churches

INTRODUCTION

The New Testament (NT) states that Jesus is the Head of the church (Eph 4:15), and that He is the One who builds His church (Mt 16:18). These statements make it plain that Jesus is the Leader of His church.

The leaders of local churches are those whom the Lord appoints, and through whom He leads the church (1 Pet 5:1-4). The focus of the paper is on the leaders of the local church, however, the understanding that Jesus is the ultimate Leader of every church should not be missed. In the words of Leighton Ford, “Jesus in us continues to lead through us.” ³¹

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 4:11-13.³²

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.³³

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.³⁴ 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.³⁵

Dever also gives import to the biblical qualifications of church leaders.³⁶ 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.³⁷ 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.³⁸

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.³⁹

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.⁴⁰

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.⁴¹

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)

8 March 202210 March 2022Soon-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.⁴² 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.⁴³

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 Technology⁴⁴ 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.⁴⁵ 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.”⁴⁶ 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.”⁴⁷

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.⁴⁸ In this regards the minister needs to provide the leadership model of discipling in small groups in his church.⁴⁹

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.⁵⁰ Hence, the pastor reproduces according to his own kind.⁵¹

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.⁵²

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.⁵³ Their comparative chart of the three images of the pastor is helpful.⁵⁴

The same sentiment is shared by William Willimon. In A Reader for Ordained Ministry he discusses a number of images of the 21^st 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.”⁵⁵ 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.”⁵⁶ 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.⁵⁷

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 churches⁵⁸ 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)

6 March 20228 March 2022Soon-Hock Lim 1 Comment

by Lim Soon Hock, Empowering Churches

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.⁵² 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.⁵⁹ 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,⁶⁰ poimnē,⁶¹ and poimnion.⁶² 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.⁶³ 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.”⁶⁴ 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

Sabbatical for Pastors (Part 3): Policy

23 October 201823 October 2018Soon-Hock Lim Leave a comment

(Click on the link to Part 1 and/or Part 2 if you have not read them.)

One of the reasons churches don’t give Sabbaticals to their pastors is because they fear that it would be wrongly or unwisely used. The best way to make sure that everyone is on the same page is to draw up a comprehensive Sabbatical Policy; to provide clear guidelines and expectations from both the pastor (eg. how he is to utilise the sabbatical leave) and the church (eg. what support it would give the pastor).

Below are important items that a church leadership should deliberate when drawing up a Sabbatical Policy.

Who is entitled to a Sabbatical?

Are all church staff entitled to sabbatical leave or is it only for pastoral staff? Are part-time and ministry staff eligible or is it only for those who are full-time and hold senior pastoral positions?

2. When can a pastor apply for a Sabbatical?

After three, six or ten years of service? For a very long tenured pastor, can he* apply for a second and subsequent lot of sabbatical leave?

(* All reference to the male gender shall also apply to the female.)

3. What is the duration of the Sabbatical?

Is the duration of the sabbatical leave the same for all or does it commensurate with the seniority and role of the pastor?

4. What is the purpose of Sabbatical?

This needs to be stated clearly as it will determine what the pastor is expected to be doing during his sabbatical.

5. What should the Sabbatical programme include?

Should it include formal study and training? Visits to other churches and learning from other more senior ministers? Personal reflection and retreats? How much time should he give to the different parts of his programme including time with his family and physical rest?

6. What is expected from the pastor following his Sabbatical?

Is he expected to write a report of his Sabbatical? Is he obligated to serve the church for a certain period of time upon his return? What happens if he resigns during or following his Sabbatical?

7. When and how is the pastor to make his Sabbatical application?

When should the pastor submit his application for sabbatical leave? When should he submit his proposed programme? To whom is he to submit his application and proposed programme? Is his Sabbatical subject to mutual agreement and approval by the church leadership?

8. What support will the church give to the pastor when he goes for his Sabbatical?

Will the pastor be given his full pay? Will his expenses for study, training and retreats be borne by the church? Will the church provide additional finances for a family holiday? (to Disneyland?)

Obviously I have my thoughts on the above questions that, in my estimate, would form good and fair parameters of a Sabbatical Policy, but I shall, at this time, leave it unsaid except for a couple of things.

One, I would not lump sabbatical with study leave. They are not the same thing. Their respective purposes are different. A study leave is for the pastor to pursue further formal study or training, and this is usually done in a theological school. A pastor’s Sabbatical is to afford him time for personal renewal in body, soul and spirit, and not forgetting, the all-important family time. I agree that the programme should include some study time, but it is not to be a pursuit of a higher academic qualification. And, as some of my readers have pointed out to me; a Sabbatical is not a holiday. I certainly agree. It’s a time to recharge the batteries.

The only other thing I want to mention is that the pastor must make himself accountable to the leadership about how he has used his Sabbatical. This is one way of allaying concerns over misuse. It is a simple matter for the pastor to write a short report on how he has spent his time during his sabbatical leave. What he did, how each component of his Sabbatical programme has helped him, and what he might be bringing back to the church that will be a blessing to them. (Please note that the pastor would have had already submitted a proposed programme which would have then been agreed upon by the church leadership before he went on his Sabbatical.)

Bottom line: I really believe Sabbaticals are good for both the pastor and the church.

Sabbatical for Pastors (Part 2): 7 Reasons

17 October 201823 October 2018Soon-Hock Lim 2 Comments

In Part 1 of my blog post on Sabbatical for Pastors I shared my findings on how widely (or rather, uncommonly) this is practised among churches in Malaysia. In this follow-up post I’ll give you my reasons for rooting for Sabbatical for Pastors.

The main contention against Sabbaticals is that, well, the rest of the people in the church don’t get one where they work (unless they are professors in an university). So, why should pastors get one?

What most don’t realise is that a pastor’s work is one of the most emotionally, mentally and spiritually taxing jobs in the world. For that, they need a Sabbatical to revitalise them, that a short vacation cannot do. They need an extended time away from an environment that drains them; and to spend that time in a different environment that can provide them with renewal in their body, soul and spirit. (By the way, I think that others like social workers and psychiatrists should also get sabbatical leave.)

Many cannot appreciate that the pastoral ministry is that demanding. They contend that someone who is responsible for hundreds of employees and accountable to shareholders and Boards for the bottom line has an equally (if not, more) stressful job. It is not my intention to get into a debate over this. However, I am yet to hear anyone who had moved from his or her “secular” job to become a full-time pastor say that the latter is less stressful than the former. In fact, the reverse is more accurate. Some have even secretly entertained the thought, “Why did I give up my job to work in the church?” (I know I did! And probably more times than I want to admit.)

Someone wrote to me after reading my previous post: “Israel didn’t give the land sabbatical rest for 490 years as God had commanded. This resulted in 70 years of exile; one year for every seven years.” Now, that’s a thought for us to think on.

Here are my reasons churches need to give their pastors sabbatical leave:

The pastor’s job often takes a toll on him* emotionally, mentally, and spiritually. The Sabbatical is to give time to the pastor for personal renewal in all departments of his life. (*This also applies to female pastors, and the following statements should be read accordingly.)
The pastor’s job not only takes a toll on him but also on his whole family in the same three areas mentioned above. It is not unusual for the wife and the children to be affected even more than the pastor. The Sabbatical in part is to give time for the pastor to have more quality time with his family.
A properly utilised Sabbatical will empower the pastor for future ministry. A well-rested person (in body, mind and emotions) is obviously better able to handle the challenges of the pastoral ministry than one who is running on empty (or even, half-empty).
A spiritually renewed pastor afforded through a Sabbatical will be able to provide better spiritual nurture and leadership to his church when he returns.
The study and training acquired during the Sabbatical will further equip the pastor to serve his church.
The pastor and his family will feel loved and affirmed when the church understands their pastor’s and family’s needs. Giving their pastor a Sabbatical shows in a tangible way that they do.
It provides an opportunity for the leaders of the church to rise up to fill the gap during the pastor’s absence. In a larger church where there are multiple pastoral staff, it provides an opportunity for the second-man to step up. A step, perhaps, towards succession planning.

My four months Sabbatical in 2000 when I serving at Georgetown Baptist Church was possibly the best I’ve ever had. I started my Sabbatical browned-out from ministry and running-on-empty (or rather, running-on-reserves). I returned refreshed, changed and better equipped for ministry. Even my preaching style changed! The Sabbatical led to the best and most fruitful seven years of ministry ever at GBC!

Read the next blog post on what to include in a Sabbatical Policy. The need for this is to prevent misunderstanding and to give clarity on what a pastor’s sabbatical leave entails.

Sabbatical for Pastors (Part 1)

11 October 201817 October 2018Soon-Hock Lim 3 Comments

Wow! Was I surprised by what I found out about sabbatical leave for pastors among Malaysian churches. I thought it was fairly widely practised; at least among the English-speaking churches. After all, in the two churches that I served both of them had clear policies and arrangements for my Sabbatical! I guess I should thank the Lord that I had been among the privileged few!

The survey I conducted will certainly not qualify as “scientific research”. I simply messaged some of my Christian friends and pastors to do a quick survey with the following questions: 1. Does your church give sabbatical leave to your pastor? 2. If so, a) After how many years of service? b) How long is the sabbatical leave? and c) Is there a policy that guides what the pastor should do during his Sabbatical?

From the responses I received I understand that pastors in the mainline churches are given sabbatical leave; and the policy is set at the denominational level. However, among the evangelical (and charismatic) churches there does not seem to be any. Definitely not at the denominational level. And if a church has such an arrangement for its pastors, it is through its own initiative. The numbers for this, however, are comparatively few. Non-denominational churches practise this even less.

I had thought that the above scenario was because the Church in Malaysia is relatively newer compared to the Church in the West. I was again terribly surprised. Dr. Thom Rainer, President & CEO of LifeWay Christian Resources, and a respected church consultant and researcher in the United States estimates that only 5% of the churches in the US have Sabbatical arrangements for their pastors.

Back to the Malaysian Church scene; among the mainline churches a pastor may be granted sabbatical leave after he (or she) has served for between five to ten years (depending on the denomination). In one denomination the pastor is allowed to apply for subsequent Sabbaticals after every seven years of service. Another denomination, however, limits the total number of Sabbaticals a pastor is allowed to take to two. As for the length of the sabbatical, it ranges from three months to a year, depending on the denomination.

With regards to what the pastor is supposed to do during his Sabbatical, I am told that for one denomination the pastor gets to decide what he wants to do (I presume he would have to submit his proposal for agreement or approval by his leadership team or the person he is accountable to). In a couple of other denominations the Sabbaticals are more like study leave; where a pastor is expected to enrol in a Seminary (or equivalent) to further his training; which is usually translated into more than a year of post-graduate studies.

That’s the brushstroke of the practise of Sabbaticals for pastors in Malaysia (among the English-speaking churches). In short, it is not widely-practised and when it is the purpose is usually associated with further theological education.

Go to Part 2 where I tell you why I believe Sabbaticals for pastors are necessary.

The Misunderstood Ephesians 4:11-12 (Part 2)

21 August 201818 October 2018Soon-Hock Lim Leave a comment

In Part 1 I wrote about how the church has continually misunderstood the role of God’s gifted-persons such as the apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers (or, pastor-teachers). The wrong understanding is: Since they are gifted by the Lord then they should be the ones to do ministry, while the rest of the church just sit back and soak. Ephesians 4:11-12, however, teaches to the contrary. The right understanding is: The primary job of the gifted-persons is to empower; it is the job of all in the church, who have been thus empowered, to do ministry. In this way the body of Christ is built up.

Alright, so we now know what the gifted-persons are to empower God’s people for. The follow-up question is: What is the former to empower the latter with? A misunderstanding of the former usually leads to a misunderstanding of the latter.

It’s apparent that we can only empower another person in the area that we ourselves have the ability or talent. A non-musician can’t teach someone to play the piano. A drummer can’t teach someone to play the saxophone. To state the obvious, only a bassist can teach a guitarist how to play the bass.

As it is in the natural; so it is with the spiritual. We can only empower others to do what we ourselves have been gifted to do. The apostle, among other things, pioneers ministries. Correspondingly, when raising up leaders in the body of Christ, his job is to empower others, for example, to plant churches or to start new Christian ventures.

As for the prophet, he is to train believers to hear and to speak a now word from the Lord. The evangelist is to raise up the people in the church to effectively share the Gospel with unbelievers. The pastor is to train the members in the body to provide pastoral and spiritual care for one another (and also for those outside the church). And the teacher is to teach others how to teach the Word of God.

It doesn’t mean that these gifted-persons don’t do ministry with their giftings. If they had not, they would not have gotten to know their gifts and ministry, and to develop them to the extent that they are now able to pass them on to others.

In fact, they rightly never stop exercising their gifts. The evangelist still evangelises the lost and the pastor still nurtures people in the faith. They still have to walk their talk; and not just talk about how they used to walk! More than what they had done, it is what they are doing that gives them credibility as they train others. It is from their current experiences of ministry that they can best illustrate and inspire others to do what they are doing.

I like what John Maxwell says in his Leadership Bible. I think it might be appropriately called “Multiplication Maxims”. They are stated in the first line of each point, and I follow-up with a bit of my own commentary.

It takes one to know one. We tend to see what we possess ourselves.

It is not that we can never see what others have if we don’t have it ourselves. But it would be true to say that we can more easily recognise something in someone because we know what it looks like in us. Furthermore, we are able to evaluate the degree of the gifting and its potential for development.

It takes one to show one. We cannot model for someone what we haven’t done.

I am stating the obvious: Nobody can teach what he doesn’t know. He won’t be able to explain it nor show how something is done when he has never done it himself. We can only model for others how to operate in a certain spiritual gift or ministry when we have experience in doing it ourselves. Besides the issue of ability it is also about credibility.

It takes one to grow one. We cannot train someone until we’ve done it ourselves.

This kind-of-follows Maxim No. 2 about modelling. This is about training. And the more we have developed the gift and ministry the more we will be able to grow others in these areas.

Clearly, when a church puts into practise Ephesians 4:11-12 it will have many more people with an apostolic, prophetic, evangelistic, pastoral and teaching giftings and ministry (though, in varying degrees). Imagine how more effective the church would be when that happens.