Author: Soon-Hock Lim

Seeking God (Part 2): Importance of Alignment

Soon-Hock Lim Leave a comment

(For Part 1 click here)

In the previous post I said that in order for us to do the God-thing, we need to hear from the Lord, and in order for us to hear from the Lord we need to seek Him.

The classic Scripture that is often quoted in reference to this is Jeremiah 29:13, “‘You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart. I will be found by you,’ declares the Lord….”

This was said in the context of a prophecy to the exiles about what they were to do while they were in Babylon and coupled with a promise that the Lord would bring them back to Israel (Jer 29:1, 4-9, 10-14). After the Lord had made known His plans to the exiles He then told them to “seek me.”

This whole scenario begs a question: why seek the Lord when He has already made His plans known to the exiles? It’s like knocking on your boss’s door when he had just told you what he wants you to do. If you did that you’d probably get an earful!

In the context of Jeremiah 29:13, obviously seeking God is not simply about hearing what the Lord has to say—they had just heard from Him. Seeking God in this case was about the exiles aligning themselves to Him and His purpose. It is one thing to know what the Lord wants—it is another thing to align ourselves to what He says.

 

Israel’s problem was not that they didn’t know what the Lord wanted. He had sent numerous prophets to bring them the “word of the Lord.” Israel’s problem was that she did not heed the word, and that was the reason for Jerusalem’s destruction and the Israelites taken into exile. The people were rebellious—they did not seek the Lord and align themselves to God and His purpose.

Patrick Morley (Man in the Mirror) says, “The turning point in our lives is when we stop seeking the god we want and start seeking the God who is.” An idol is precisely just that—a god we want, a god of our own making. And the Lord will not have us fashion Him after our own image.

“Seek Me” is still the word of the Spirit today no matter where you are in your spiritual journey. Whether you are a young believer or a mature Christian of many years. The same call also goes out to the corporate church—we must continually seek God so that we may not only hear what He has to say to us, but also that we may align ourselves to Him and His purpose.

Lim Soon Hock Empowering Churches

(For Part 3 click here)

Seeking God (Part 1): First Thing

Soon-Hock Lim 1 Comment

It was my first Sunday at the new church; my first message to the congregation. What would I say? I think most pastors struggle. I did. Not that I don’t have anything to say. If you are a fairly seasoned pastor, you have, in fact, too many things to say; so many issues to address; so many things to do. But what should be the first thing on the agenda?

As I spoke, I said to the church, “I don’t know what your expectations are. But, then again, maybe I do. In a crowd like this the expectations are many and varied. You may have gone along on the same journey, but perceptions are different, interpretation of events are different, internalisation of the experiences are different. And depending on what you feel is important you will also expect those things to be addressed as quickly as possible. They are all valid and good. We are all good Christians who want no less than the good of the church. But good must give way to…?”

I stopped for a dramatic pause.  Not expecting any kind of verbal response from this fairly conservative middle class medium-size congregation. But an extrovert shot out, “Better!” I hesitated. Seeing that was not quite what I was looking for, she shouted out again, “Best! Good must give way to best!”

I said, “That’s good, but it’s not good enough. Good must give way to?… God! And it’s more than just dropping an “o”. There is a huge gap between good and God. It is God we want, not just good. It is God that we want to glorify, not to showcase how good our church is. That means, we must want to do the God-thing, not just good things.”

In order for us to do the God-thing, we need to hear from the Lord—to hear what His agenda is for the church or our ministry, our life and our vocation. Sometimes we run ahead of God, doing things He never meant for us to do. More often than not, we lag way behind, failing to do what He says we are to do. However, I think, the reality is that we haven’t a clue what God is up to, because we have not been listening to what He’s been saying. To do the God-thing, it is imperative that we hear from the Lord. And in order to hear from the Lord, we need to seek Him. That’s the first thing on our agenda—to seek God for His agenda, whether it’s for our life or for the church.

Lim Soon Hock Empowering Churches

(For Part 2 click here)

Rooting for the Small Church!

Soon-Hock Lim 6 Comments

What is the place of the small church? Should we hypothesise that all churches are meant to grow, and therefore, we must do all we can to breakthrough the barriers that keep a small church from growing?

Or, should we say that the small church has its place and accept that, “My church is, and shall remain, a small church”?

Or, after having evaluated our church we come to the conclusion, “Although we may be a small church, we are nonetheless effective.” Now, (and please do not think that I am being insensitive or negative) if we are effective why then are we not growing? Are there valid and happy reasons?

I don’t have the statistics, but from my observation most of the churches in Malaysia are small. (I wish our national and denominational bodies will do more statistical studies so that we can have a better picture of the state of the Church in Malaysia). By definition a small church is numerically under 200 people; from babies to senior citizens (or as someone once said to me, “We count everything that moves!”). Using this metric, depending on who you quote, 80-90% of the churches in the US are small churches. My guess is that, it is probably the same in Malaysia. If we were to add all the churches in the small towns and villages in both Peninsula and East Malaysia they will certainly make up a very large  percentage of churches in the country. Even in the urban centres most of the churches are small.

There is no shame in being small.

All churches started small! Unless a large church decided to send out more than 200 people to start a new church plant; which has been done before, but it is not the norm. Hence, we are not to despise humble beginnings. However, note that it was never the intention of the parent church or the new church plant for it to remain small. It was planted to win more people to the Lord and to add them to the church. Churches that have lost its passion need to recapture the spirit and vision of those early pioneering days.

There is a huge difference between a small dynamic church that is making impact in its community and even beyond, and a small inward-looking church whose main focus are the needs of the members and trying to survive till Jesus returns.

There are good reasons why a church should remain small, and there are wrong reasons for a church to remain small. Below are some valid reasons:

  1. The community where the church is located, serves and is trying to reach with the Gospel is small; such as a small town or village. Even if the church is located in a large urban centre, the particular ethnic group that it is attempting to reach may be small; such as a migrant community.
  1. The church leaders believe that a small church is stronger relationally, can attain a higher level of member-participation, and achieve greater effectiveness in outreach. In other words, remaining small is a philosophy of ministry where growth is an objective. An outcome of such a philosophy would be church planting. Instead of growing into a large church, the parent church keeps on training and sending its members out to plant new churches. This is called extension growth. Or, the main church starts new ethnic-language congregations. This has been termed bridging growth. An example is when a Malaysian English-speaking church spawns a Tamil- or a Myanmarese-speaking congregation.
  1. Most pastors (and church leaders) are not large church leaders. Fewer still are megachurch pastors. If that is the case then, it is better to have many small churches that have pastors who are able to lead with vision and passion for growth and multiplication, than to load them with guilt that they are not growing their church into a large church.
  1. Small churches are easier to manage and lead. And if most pastors don’t have the capacity to lead large churches, it is best to accept our God-given abilities and work with small churches. Some people think that pastoring a mega church has built-in advantages because it has mega resources. But as I once heard Daniel Ho (former Senior Pastor of DUMC) say, “…we also have mega problems!” And not every (read, “most”) pastors (or lay leaders) are able to handle mega challenges.
  1. Some people don’t want to go to a large church. They prefer the I-know-everyone-in-the-church kind of atmosphere and where the pastor is everyone’s personal shepherd. Should the church grow too big for them, they move out to a smaller church.

Small churches are here to stay—and for good reasons. The thing is, we need to ensure that our church is small for the right reasons, and never at the expense of fulfilling the Great Commission of Jesus Christ.

Clarity

Soon-Hock Lim 4 Comments

Short-sightedness, astigmatism, floaters, and cataracts are eye conditions. When we have them they blur our vision—we can’t see things clearly. We consult an optometrist or an ophthalmologist, depending on the problem, to make a pair of eye glasses (or contact lenses) or to have laser eye surgery done. We do this because we want visual clarity—to see, to read, to drive, to enjoy the beauty around us.

The need for clarity is not just limited to our physical sight. We also need mental and spiritual clarity; not only for the individual, but also for a corporate entity like the church. Without clarity, the people perish, may not be quite what the Bible says, but it is the truth! And I am afraid this happens all too often in the church, to the detriment of relationships and the church’s effectiveness.

Without Clarity

Without clarity there is confusion. The Senior Pastor makes decisions on matters like this? I thought it was the Chairman of the Board who makes the call.

Without clarity there is misalignment. My CG is studying the book of Jonah. I didn’t know that it was mandatory for all CGs to do the study on “Unity” this month.

Without clarity there can be no efficiency. I’ve been walking around in the church building for the last 10 minutes because the signages are so poor. I can’t figure out where I’m supposed to be heading.

Without clarity there can be no teamwork. Chong Beng, you were supposed to bring the pizza. Joe was to bring the drinks. Now we have too much coke and no pizza for our Youth leaders’ meeting!

This is by no means exhaustive, and I am sure you can think of a few more nasty consequences that come from a lack of clarity in the church. Often it has to do with communication; that is, poor and ineffective means of communication. However, a more serious problem is the lack of clarity at the source; that is, the people who are giving the instructions, making the decisions, leading the direction—they are not clear themselves. Inevitably, they will not be able to provide clarity for others.

Areas That Need Clarity

Some of the areas that a church needs corporate clarity includes:

Clarity of purpose. Some churches don’t have a clear purpose about what they are doing or where they are heading. Those that do often just hang up their vision statement on the wall or emblazon it on their website’s homepage. But the leaders don’t talk about it or rally the people to pursue it. Fewer still have achievable and measurable goals to lead the members to fulfil what they like to do (or what they think the Lord wants them to do).

Clarity of Values. By values I don’t mean the church’s doctrinal beliefs. These are important, and no church should be without absolute clarity about their theological beliefs. However, the values I am referring to here are about a church’s organisational beliefs as a corporate body or group of people who have banded together to serve the Lord and His purpose. People will only stick together and work with one another to the extent that they share the same values. If they don’t, they won’t. Confusion in this area leads to uncertainty and disillusionment. Clarity and acceptance of the shared values is the glue that holds the team together.

Clarity of Philosophy of Ministry. Conflicts in the church today have very much less to do with doctrinal issues. Sometimes it is over values. But really, most times it is over the philosophy of ministry—the way things are done. Hence, if it is unclear it is a cause for misunderstandings and dragging-of-the-feet which can escalate into outright conflicts. Worship-wars is in part due to a conflict of philosophies of ministry. So is the multiplication of cell groups, the number of paid staff the church may engage, and the amount of money the church should save as against giving it away to support missions. Every church needs a clear philosophy of ministry for all the critical areas of church life and organisation. (Read my earlier blogpost on Philosophy of Ministry here.)

Clarity in the Lines of Authority. This an obvious biggie! Who’s in-charge? Who’s responsible? Where does the buck stop? Who’s got the final say? Every church needs to get it right and make it absolutely clear to everyone.

Again, the above list is not exhaustive. But I hope it is plain enough that your church needs clarity! Here’s a point of application for you. What is one area in your church that lacks clarity? Work on it today. What’s unclear that needs clarity? Who are the stakeholders that should be consulted? Write three to five statements to provide clarity and get all the stakeholders to agree on them. Communicate it to the church clearly, repeatedly, creatively, and in as many ways as possible. Then repeat the process in another area. It will get you clarity and save you a lot of headaches and heartaches.

 

Team Management Model

Soon-Hock Lim 1 Comment

The following is taken from Feeding & Leading by Kenneth O. Gangel, Victor Books, Wheaton, IL, 1989 (Chapter 1: Understanding Administrative Process, pp25-27). The diagrammatical presentation that he titled as “Team Management Model” shows what might be the best approach to the administrative-management-leadership when we take into consideration both “concern for people” (people-oriented) and “concern for production” (task-oriented).

Starting with the left bottom segment, Gangel wrote, “…1,1 or low-low with impoverished management. Here the administrative leader carries out only the minimal effort to do what is absolutely essential to keep the ministry going. He is low in both concern for people…and concern for production….

“Moving along the line to 1,9 the autocratic leader is heavy on authority-obedience. A pastor concerns himself only with what people can give to the church and insists they be there ever time the doors are open. He tends to be legalistic and demanding.

“His counterpart is 9,1, called by the creators of this chart country club management. Picture a pastor who lovingly relates to everyone while forgetting appointments, never preparing for business meetings, and failing to develop lay leadership. People may put up with him because they love him but they understand the church’s goals are not being achieved.

“On this model we don’t want to aim for the middle. To do so is to choose mediocrity. The 5,5 organization man management is probably a step ahead of the other three…but has not achieved the highest point on this chart which is 9,9—team management. Team leadership is the genius of the New Testament. Exemplified first in Jesus and the disciples, it continues in the ministry of the apostles both in the early church and all of the missionary journeys. It creates what Lyle Schaller calls “ownership” in the organization.

(For a brief biography and contributions of Kenneth O Gangel (1935-2009) you can go to the link here.)

Complementary Leadership Style Model

Soon-Hock Lim 1 Comment

The following is taken from Feeding & Leading by Kenneth O. Gangel, Victor Books, Wheaton, IL, 1989 (Chapter 1: Understanding Administrative Process, pp23-25). The diagrammatical presentation he gives (below) is a great help in understanding various administrative/leadership styles. And how, with understanding, we can pull them together to provide a more balanced and complementary practise of leadership.

Gangel wrote, “Beginning with the lower left quadrant we see the amiable administrative style. Essentially giving a free rein in leadership, the amiable administrator tends to sit back, talk about people and feelings, and openly show reactions and emotions everyone can see. He is warm, approachable, and likeable, but a bit slow to act and undisciplined in time and procedures.

“Moving counterclockwise we find the expressive administrator whose heavy sentiment and empathy make him a feeling personality. He speaks quickly and easily to and about people, generally wants his opinions to be accepted, and appears generally impulsive, approachable, and warm. His major abilities lie in teaching, persuading, arousing enthusiasm, and communicating new ideas.

“The driving style administrator is the intuitive type we often associate with strong, natural leadership. Action-oriented, cool, competitive, and decisive, he wants to give the impression of being in charge an eager to led group process. As the visionary possibility-thinker of the organization, he looks ahead, nudges the group toward things which seem impossible, and furnishes the organization with new ideas.

“Finally we have the analytical or logical administrative style. He speaks slowly, cautiously, and often seems wrapped up in his own logic and argument. He’s interested in research and rarely like to act without a strong supply of facts and data within reach. He helps us to find flaws in group thinking, like to organize and reorganize, holds consistently to the policy handbook, and though no Christian leaders likes to do it, is the most adept t firing people when necessary.

“…Which one is the best? For the participation-oriented Christian leader, a constant pushing from an extreme toward the middle…the balanced middle brings together the best qualities of each style….

“But even more importantly the model shows us how administrative and leadership styles complement one another.”

(For a brief biography and contributions of Kenneth O Gangel (1935-2009) you can go to the link here.)

 

The Organised Church (Part 2): Critical Components of Church Organisation

Soon-Hock Lim 1 Comment

In Part 1 I wrote about the need for pastors and church leaders to seriously look into the organisational aspect of the church. It is my observation that churches that fail to organise themselves well, despite the fact that they may be solidly founded on sound theology and/or pray a lot, disadvantage themselves,

The New Testament-mention of the spiritual gift of administration (1 Cor 12:28) underscores the importance for good organisation in the church. What’s the point of the gift if the Lord did not think that effective administration (organisation) of the church is necessary and important? The meaning of the root word in Greek for the gift of administration is connected to the work of a shipmaster or captain. The job then, of the person with this gift is to help steer or lead the church (or a ministry). If he is not the leader of the church, then his job is to assist the leader to develop strategies, organise the people and implement the process.

Broadly speaking, there are three critical components in the organisation of a church: structures, systems and processes.

  1. Structures

These refer to the organisational structures of the church, such as the leadership, departments, ministries, small groups and communications. (This list is not meant to be exhaustive. Similarly for the lists in “Systems” and “Processes” below.)

Let me flesh out a couple of examples to help you understand what I mean.

The leadership structure concerns matters like the lines of authority and communication; which is often presented in the form of an organisational chart. It also asks questions like: Who leads the leadership team? What is the role of the pastor and the chairman respectively? How is the pastor accountable to the church board? Is the church effectively led by one person or by a team?

In the broader context of the church it asks: What is the role of the congregation in making decisions? What kind of decisions does the congregation make?

With regards to the small groups structure: How is the ministry structured? Are the group leaders accountable to the pastor or to a small group ministry head? If there are a large number of small groups does the church divide them into areas (or zones)? Within each small group, are mature Christians assigned to care for younger believers?

  1. Systems

These refer to the working systems of the church, such as the financial, leadership, small group, worship service and assimilation of new people .

The first thing you probably noticed is that I have included leadership and small group here, even though I had already mentioned them under “structures”. That is because they (and others) are systems in the body of the church that must be properly structured.

Under “systems”, however, we ask a different set of questions. For the small group ministry the focus here is on the workings of the system. We want to know: What level of importance does the church place on the small group ministry? (Is everyone expected to be part of a small group? Is participation in a small group a pre-requisite for membership in the church?) Is the nature, purpose and programme of the small groups standardised or does each group have autonomy? Is attendance monitored? Are small group leaders expected to send in monthly or quarterly reports? Are small groups expected to multiply within a certain period? What is the church’s philosophy of small group ministry?

With regards to finances we are concerned about the efficient and effective collection of the members’ tithes and offering, proper recording of the collection, accounting of income and expenditure, and not just the proper use of church funds but their purposeful use to advance the Kingdom.

We ask the questions: How is the money apportioned? Does the church have a budget? What’s the financial and accounting policy of the church? How is the money collected (physically at worship services and/or bank transfers and/or credit card payments)? What is the procedure to count and record the collection?  Who can authorise a payment and what is the quantum? What policies are in place to ensure the purposeful use of church funds?

  1. Processes

These refer to the steps taken to accomplish an objective, such as the assimilation of new people, discipleship, and ministry and leadership development.

For example, pastors tell me that they want to make disciples, but when I ask them how they are making disciples, they cannot articulate it—either they don’t have a process in place or it’s so vague they cannot tell you. Every church needs to have a discipleship process. If you don’t have one you may start with Rick Warren’s “baseball diamond” found in his book, The Purpose Driven Church.

Disciple making, leadership development (read, raising up next generation leaders for succession planning) cannot be left ad hoc! Neither can we leave the assimilation of new people to chance. That’s the reason many would-be-additions to the church fall through the cracks. Every church needs well thought-out and workable processes for things like these.

Every church needs to be well organised. This will happen when pastors and church leaders do what is necessary to ensure that their church’s structures, systems and processes are efficient and effective. There is no one size-fits all because of the differences in the make-up of our churches. Start with the Bible. Study your own church. Learn from other churches. Get the leadership team to read and discuss one or more relevant books on the matter, and implement what is helpful. This is the road to the administrative health of your church.

The Organised Church (Part 1)

Soon-Hock Lim Leave a comment

There are three major areas that need attention for any church to be healthy: Doctrine, Spirituality and Organisation. The first two have traditionally been the focus. The New Testament letters deal primarily with these areas, for obvious reasons:

  1. At that time, the church was in its infancy and it was imperative that it got its doctrinal foundation right.
  2. Jesus’ teaching passed on by the apostles was being attacked and undermined by false teachings such as legalism and Gnosticism. The apostles had to correct them and defend the Gospel.
  3. The churches in the first century were generally small, and there were not many organisational issues to deal with (I will qualify this later).

Bible schools, since their inception, have also traditionally focussed on Bible knowledge. The main goal was to ensure that the students graduate with sound theology. That is perfectly valid, as they will be the primary teachers of the Word to their congregations. Hence, they should be empowered to espouse Scriptural truths accurately. But the intense focus on this has left training in spirituality and organisational skills on the back burner. I am happy to observe that training in spirituality has made a comeback in many seminaries. However, the same cannot be said for their training in understanding the church organisationally; its structure, values, culture, vision casting, and so on. This has to be corrected so that Bible seminaries don’t produce pastors who only know theology but do not know how to lead a corporate body.

It is incorrect to say that the New Testament letters do not deal with organisational issues at all. Among the first problems that the early church encountered concerned the care of widows (Acts 6). The Grecian-Jews complained against the Hebraic-Jews that their widows were being overlooked in the food distribution. Besides being a spirituality-social issue it was also a community-organisational issue.  And the solution was to appoint six Grecian-Jews to oversee the ministry so that no one was missed out, especially the widows among this group.

In some of his letters, Paul wrote about the leadership of the church. He instructed Titus to appoint elders for the church in Crete (Tit 1:5). He gave Timothy a list of criteria for those who may qualify as elders and deacons (1 Tim 3:1-13). This was necessary for two reasons. One, to provide pastoral care for the members, and two, to provide a leadership structure for the corporate body organisationally.

In the Old Testament, the often-quoted event that saw a paradigm shift in organisational structure concerned Moses’ leadership (Exo 18). Fortunately it happened in the early days of the Exodus, rather than later; or else, Moses would have died from overwork. He was personally handling every problem of this massive group of people until, Jethro, his father-in-law, gave wise counsel. He told Moses to appoint leaders over groups of thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens; in a pyramidal-like structure. In that way Moses was able to delegate his work to these sub-section leaders. He only needed to handle those cases that they could not manage.

Likewise, pastors and church leaders need to learn how to organise their church so that it is healthy and effective. It is not about copying the world or trying to be a sleek organisation. It’s about enhancing the life, ministry and missions of the Church of Jesus Christ.

The present-day church is much more complex than the church in the days of the apostles, or even just 60 years ago. The churches then were generally small and there were not a great deal of organisational issues to be concerned about. But not so today. And the truth is that it will get increasingly more complex. Because of this reality there is a serious need to look into the organisational health of the church, without neglecting the doctrinal and spirituality concerns.

What are the critical needs in your church to bring it to health or better health? How will you address them? Who do you have to walk with you as you think, pray, study your church, find solutions, implement them and evaluate their effectiveness?

(Taken from my booklet, Before ER: A Call for Church Health.)

Go to Part 2: Critical Components of Church Organisation

Staff Retreat (Part 3): Envisioning

Soon-Hock Lim Leave a comment

In Parts 1 & 2 I wrote about two of the three priorities for a Staff Retreat; namely, Prayer and Team Building. (If you have not read them yet, go to links here for Part 1 and Part 2). This final part focuses on the primary purpose of the retreat where the pastoral staff huddle down together to look at what needs to be done to strengthen the church to be healthier and to do better.

This may include planning, but the retreat is more than just about planning programmes for the coming year. It is more about the big-picture; where the church is at, where it is going and what needs to be done to get there. It involves looking at everything and anything that will help the pastoral team accomplish that. I will simply call it Envisioning.

I am using the term rather loosely here. It is not limited to crafting a vision statement. Of course, if a church does not have one, then this is among the very first things the pastoral team should pray and work on. If it already has a vision but requires a serious relook or just a bit tweaking, then an appropriate amount of time should be given to do what is needed at the Retreat.

Areas of Focus

The area of focus at each retreat will understandably be different. It depends on what the Senior Pastor discerns to be the need of the church during this season of its journey. Below are examples of what some of these needs might be:

  1. Drafting Vision and/or Mission Statements
  2. Determining Core Values
  3. Setting 5-year Goals
  4. Establishing Discipleship and Leadership Development Processes
  5. How to Retain Visitors and Close the Back Door
  6. Removing Growth Obstacles and Establishing Growth Strategies
  7. Developing Church Health
  8. Developing Church Culture
  9. Carrying Out Change

From my experience there is time for the team to deal with only one or two areas at any one retreat. This is because we want to be thorough, and secondly, because of the method employed for this kind of an exercise.

Methodology

The SP is expected to lead in the sessions, but the outcome should be a team effort. That means, the sessions are to be conducted in a way that allows for every team member to participate. A lot of time is to be given to collective brainstorming, discussion and sharing of opinions.

Putting up the ideas and insights coming from the different members with the use of “post it”, white board, flip chart and/or LCD projection is indispensable to aid clarity and to avoid misunderstanding.

In order to maximise the time at the retreat the SP should clue-in the team with the agenda. Some of the staff may be assigned to do some pre-retreat research and questions may be given to the team to guide their personal pre-retreat reflection. This will give everyone time to think, be better prepared and have more useful contributions to make at the Retreat.

Action Steps

The last thing any pastoral team would want is to go away from a retreat not really knowing what they have done or accomplished.

The Staff Retreat must end with clear conclusions, deliberate action steps for those areas where there is agreement, and outstanding matters noted for further discussion back in the office (perhaps, at the weekly pastoral staff meeting).

Summary Report

Within a week, preferably before the next pastoral staff meeting, the SP should have sent out a summary report of the Staff Retreat encapsulating the conclusions, action steps and outstanding matters. This document is to be the basis for further deliberations at both the pastoral and church leadership (eg. Church Board) levels until agreement is achieved. Following this the decisions and strategies are then cascaded to the members of the church for united action.

(If your church does not a team of pastoral staff, my recommendations for a Staff Retreat may be applied for a Church Leaders Retreat such as the Eldership team or Church Board.)

Staff Retreat (Part 2): Team Building

Soon-Hock Lim 2 Comments

In Part 1 I wrote about the need of having an annual pastoral staff retreat, with envisioning, prayer and team building as priority on the agenda. If you missed this and my pointers on prayer you can read my post here.  

The second objective of a staff retreat is Team Building.

All pastoral staff are usually given a specific ministry for which he (or she) is personally responsible. While he may be the man in-charge of that ministry he is not, however, to function in a silo. It is very unfortunate that the latter is a common problem in many churches. This is true of both paid staff and unpaid volunteers. Too many church workers are focussed only on their ministry, they fight for the church’s resources for their ministry, they even pray just for their ministry—oblivious of the bigger picture.

It is critical that everyone works as a team, including the leaders across the various ministries of the church (and, leaders need to lead the way and show the way). The greater the unity the greater the effectiveness. The greater the bond between the workers the greater the unity. The better the understanding of one another’s ministry and how each adds to the health of the church the stronger the shared vision to advance the church.

The pastoral staff retreat is a wonderful opportunity to foster this very much needed team spirit. They set the tone and the example for the rest of the church.

How is this done?

Informal Chats

At a staff retreat bonding between staff can happen informally over meals or over a cup of tea during the “free hours”. In such an atmosphere it is natural to catch up on family, share about personal aspirations or even air personal ministry struggles. At a right moment with the right person, colleagues often easily open up to one another on deeper personal issues, which might otherwise be hidden away.

Programmed Exercises

While connections between staff members may happen spontaneously in the conducive atmosphere of a retreat, still, it is extremely helpful to schedule into the programme exercises for team building. The lead pastor or someone in the group may facilitate the exercises, but that may mean that that person will not be able to participate. At one retreat we invited a professional team builder to join us, and it proved to be very useful as all the staff could participate in the exercises.

In some of the staff retreats I had led, I had some time carved out in the programme to evaluate how we had done as a team. We asked questions like, What have we accomplished as a team? How would we rate the support we received from each other? How much do we know of each other’s personal and ministry challenges? What are some things we can do to strengthen our team spirit? The sharing helped us to understand and appreciate one another more.

Forging Together

The ultimate purpose of building team spirit among a group of colleagues is to enable them to work together effectively. Hence, it isn’t enough just to have social camaraderie over a cup of coffee or to bond during team building exercises. As the saying goes, “The proof of the pudding is in the eating,”—so, the test of the team is during those times when the team members work together.

The Staff Retreat is one such platform when this happens. This “planning” time calls for as much team work as when the team is carrying out a project for the church. Regardless of what’s up for discussion, each is to bring his (or her) contribution to the table, and together the team forge a united way forward for the common good of the church. This is part of the envisioning process which I hope to write about in Part 3 next week.