Author: Soon-Hock Lim

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

Soon-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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

The Misunderstood Ephesians 4:11-12 (Part 1)

Soon-Hock Lim 3 Comments

Ephesians 4:11-12 is about one of the most misunderstood Scripture. Misunderstanding and misapplying it do not muddy-up our doctrinal beliefs but they certainly impede our effectiveness in building the church.

“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.”

Whether there are four or five gifted-persons (I am being gender-sensitive) is not the concern of this post. Whatever your interpretation, you still have God’s gifted servants functioning as pastors and teachers; as a combo or separately.

The first misunderstanding I want to raise concerns their role. What do they do? What are they supposed to be doing according to this Scripture?

Many would say, the job of the apostle is to plant, organise and oversee churches. It includes laying a Biblical-strong foundation for these churches, and also to raise, train and appoint leaders who will eventually take leadership of these churches.

As for the prophet, his (or her) job is to bring a now word of the Lord to the church and to the world. The evangelist is to preach the Gospel and win the lost to Christ. And the pastor-teacher, is to provide spiritual nurture to the converted, which includes teaching them the Word of God.

It is simply logical to expect a particular spiritual gift to naturally lend itself to a corresponding ministry. However, to say that the above descriptions are then their jobs is to miss the point of Ephesians 4:11-12. If we asked the second question, “What are they supposed to be doing according to this Scripture?”, we will get a totally different answer.

Verse 12 states that the job of these gifted-persons are “to prepare God’s people”. To put it succinctly, in the context of your local church: The job of the pastor-teacher is to equip and empower the members. Does the pastor provide spiritual nurture and teach the Word of God? Of course, he does. But that is not his primary role. His primary role is to equip and empower the members.

To what end? “…for works of service.” The gifted-person’s primary job (or ministry) is not to do ministry but to prepare God’s people to do ministry. Unfortunately in too many churches they expect the pastor or the hired-hand to do all the work! From preaching, counselling and visitation to driving the van, printing the bulletin and being the key-man (literally).

If that is the culture of a church then what we have is just one man serving the rest of the body. Or, a bunch of paid staff serving the church. This is certainly not the body-ministry envisaged by the New Testament, where all the members of body builds up the whole body. Furthermore, 2 Timothy 2:2, “And the things you have heard me say in the presence of witnesses, entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others also”, is not going to happen. Multiplication is not going to take place.

Now, part of the problem is the gifted-persons themselves. Unfortunately, many among them also have a misunderstanding of their own role. They believe, like so many others in the church, that they are the ones to do the ministry. “That’s my job!” “I’m the one with the spiritual gift; so, I’m to do the ministry!” In fact, for many, their identity is so tied up with their ministry that they cannot give it away—by empowering others to do “their ministry”.  They can’t see themselves doing “less” by empowering others to do “more”.

The awesome truth is that the body of Christ, the church, is only going to be built up when every member does ministry. It’s the kind of ministry ethos that says, ministry is not to be left to just the specially gifted-persons, but to be expected of all. The former is to focus on empowering the members—so that the latter can do ministry. In turn, the gifted-person is freed up to from having to do a lot of hands-on service and give more time to equipping, guiding and mentoring their mentees. Hence, effectively, multiplying themselves. That’s the import and genius of Ephesians 4:11-12 which both the pastor and members must heed if we are ever to see the church built up.

We now know what these gifted-persons are to empower God’s people for. But what are they to empower them with? The answer will surprise you. That’s the other misunderstood item about Ephesians 4:11-12. Click here for Part 2. 

My Philosophy of Church Consulting (Part 2)

Soon-Hock Lim Leave a comment

Apart from what I wrote in Part 1, which would form the basic framework of my philosophy of church consulting, the following, I believe, are also necessary elements for effective consulting:

Long Term. Consulting a church may be a one-off engagement. However, a long term engagement is not only more helpful, it is, I believe, necessary.  The leaders and executors need guidance from a trained consultant to help them carry out the recommendations, which includes planning, strategizing and execution. I would make myself available to the implementation team; to provide assistance in the areas where I have the gift-set. At the very least that would include guidance vis-à-vis the big picture needs of the church.

Driver. I do not believe that any attempts to implement the recommendations will work if there isn’t a clear driver from within the church. If it is something that concerns the whole church then the driver must be from among the top leadership; better still, if it was the pastor himself. If it concerns a particular ministry then the ministry leader must be the driver. The consultant cannot be the driver; it must be someone from the church. That person must have a clear sense of ownership of the church or ministry, and the issue. He must be passionate for the Lord, the church and what needs to be done. He must also have godly wisdom and good leadership skills.

Leadership Unity. Unity among the key leaders of the church is critical to the success of the consultation process. They must agree on the issues that need to be addressed, decisions about what to do (recommendations), their priority and the steps to take to implement the solutions. If any key leader is not in agreement it is very likely that it will fail. It is not good enough for a key leader to stand passively by the side and watch. It is spiritually damning as much as it is organisationally divisive. The attempted remedy may result in something worse than the original problem!

Similar to the item on Driver it is critical to secure the commitment of the whole leadership team–that they are united in their desire to deal with the issues of their church. That commitment is to be reiterated and affirmed at each phase of the consultation.

Authority. I believe that a church consultant must at all times work under the spiritual authority of the church leadership that has invited him, and in particular to the recognised team leader, such as the pastor. Care must be taken that he does not undermine the authority of the leadership nor diminish their esteem in the eyes of the members. As the goal of church consultation is to build up the church the consultant must do everything to help realise it and not do anything that may bring a reverse consequence.

Remuneration. It is very uncommon in Malaysia for invited speakers and itinerant preachers to state their speaking fees or even ask for an honorarium. This is usually left to the inviting church.  Secondly, church consulting is a totally unknown ministry in Malaysia. However, I have observed that once I have explained what I do, people immediately identify me as a “consultant”. Eventually they get round to ask about my fees. Still, I feel that it is premature to speak about fees as church consulting is not something that people in Malaysia, leaders included, appreciate nor understand.

My philosophy is to ask the inviting church to cover all my expenses, such as: travel, meals and accommodation. As for honorarium, it is best left to the discretion of the church. To help the church gauge what might be a reasonable amount I will append in my report an explanation of the work I’ve done and the man-hours taken to do it.

My Philosophy of Church Consulting (Part 1)

Soon-Hock Lim Leave a comment

I believe that Jesus Christ, the Lord of the Church, wants all His churches to do well, and fulfil His mission, aka the Great Commission (Mt 28:18-20). However, the sad reality is that many churches are unhealthy, and hence, ineffective. I do not believe that churches should remain in this state. Something can be done and must be done. I believe church consultants can point pastors and church leaders in the right direction. This is why I am stepping into the work of church consulting; apart from, what I believe is the Lord’s calling for me in this final lap of my ministry journey.

The work of church consulting (what) is simply and primarily coming alongside pastors and leaders to help them with the development of their churches. It may involve studying the church, providing solutions and assisting the executors in the implementation of those solutions. During this time there might also be a need for the consultant to offer coaching, training and ministry to the leaders and the implementation team in particular, and to the church in general, so that they are empowered to lead the change. I call this the Empowering Process, as shown in Diagram 1 above.

When it comes to helping or consulting a church there is no one size fits all. There is no one solution that will solve the problems of all churches. Every church is different. Each one has its own particular problems that are to be identified through prayer and discernment in the Spirit, and from a studied analysis of the church.  This is then followed up with wise custom-made solutions.

If a church has not done a comprehensive church health analysis, it would be a good first step to take. Such an analysis will help to objectively identify the real issues of the church. Notwithstanding, the leadership may determine the area of consultation they require.

Diagram 2 below sets out the Empowering Analytical Process to determine the what and how of the consultation.

The flowchart also details the methodology showing how a study of a church might be done. The first step is always to gather extensive and accurate information. This is done through asking for church data, conducting surveys, audits and  interviews, and from personal on-site observations. The information is then studied and analysed, conclusions drawn, and recommendations made to help the church become healthier or, to resolve the defined issue.

(Click on the link to Part 2 below on other aspects of my philosophy of church consulting.)

Bringing Change Without Being Shown the Door!

Soon-Hock Lim Leave a comment

Recently I watched Thom Rainer’s webcast (CEO of Lifeway & a church consultant) on the reasons pastors get moved out (or made to move out) from the church they had been serving. One of the big reasons was because the pastor had led change too rapidly. Another reason, although not among Rainer’s big four, is because the pastor had led change too slowly.

It is not surprising that when too much change is made too quickly there will be resistance. If these are leaders or influential members the pastor can expect a pushback. It may even cost him his job. Change is a necessity. All churches must continually make changes if they are to progress (read my blog “Change or Plateau”, 9 Jan 2018), but pastors need to be wise on how fast and how much change to introduce without incurring pushback; and instead, get a buy-in.

I like what Rainer said about a leader: He is someone who is leading sufficiently out front, but not so far out that he is mistaken to be the enemy and gets shot in the rear!

On the other hand, if a pastor doesn’t make any changes, or ever so painfully slowly, it will, inevitably hinder the development and growth of the church. The church may even fall into decline. Members who want to see the church go on an upward advance will leave and look for another church that they can channel their passion. For others in the church, a mix of lethargy and dissatisfaction will set in. In the United States, the pastor may be asked to leave because of his poor leadership. In Malaysia, from my observation, I don’t think this often happens.

Bringing change, especially in the context of a church, is one of those things which is not going to please everyone. Whether too fast or too slow it will have its detractors. Is there such a thing as the right pace? Yes, but it is not a one-size-fits-all. For one church, a certain kind of change may be too fast, while for another church it may be too slow. Too fast, too slow or just right depends on a number of factors:

  • How much is the church used to change?
  • What is the magnitude of the change on the “Change Richter-scale” for the church?
  • How much credibility does the pastor have with the church to initiate change?
  • How much is the leadership team with the pastor and with this particular change?

On top of the above the pastor still needs to bring change wisely so that the change will not cause a fallout in the church but will bring about the desired results. In order to do this the pastor must be able to:

  • Get a buy-in from the whole leadership team and other influential people.
  • Communicate to the church early and frequently on the why, what, where, who, when & how.
  • Listen to feedback from other leaders and church members.
  • Cultivate a culture of change in the church.

I learnt all this from the school of hard-knocks. I have pastored two churches, and in both churches I introduced changes. In one I successfully brought about changes that enabled the church to move forward. In the other I wasn’t so successful, and was shown the door. The former was ready for change; the latter was not. If I had known then what I know now maybe things might have been a little different in the latter church. 🙂

Discovering Your Church’s Purpose (Part 2)

Soon-Hock Lim Leave a comment

(This is Part 2 of a 2-Part series. Go to this link for Part 1.)

Three Commands that Provides the Framework for Your Church’s Purpose

You may be wondering if this “strategy” is just as applicable to a secular organisation. Yes, it can be. Any organisation (whether religious, business or non-profit) can apply this strategy, except that we need to note a couple of very critical points.

We must never forget that discovering and fulfilling a church’s purpose is about doing God’s will. Hence, the first step must always be prayer; to seek the Lord for His leading. This was something Nehemiah did when he first heard the bad report about Jerusalem. The revelation and understanding about what he was to do came from his time of prayer. It is expected that pastors and church leaders are to do this first, and right through the whole process of determining the specific purpose of the church. (If a leader of a business or a non-profit organisation is a Christian, he or she should do the same. God did not intend that there be a dichotomy between the secular and the religious; everything is spiritual.)

Secondly, the church’s purpose must be etched out from a Biblical framework. The church’s purpose is not about making money; it’s bottom-line is not about profits. Or, even about growing bigger and faster, and having a nicer building than the other churches in town. The framework of a church’s purpose is shaped by the three Biblical commands: 1. The Great Commission, 2. The Great Commandment, and 3. The Great Mandate.

The Great Commission (Mt 28:19-20) is about making disciples. If we fail to do this, even if we might be pursuing some other noble cause and succeed at it, we have failed as the Church of Jesus Christ. The Gospel of the Kingdom is about saving lost people and transforming them into Christlikeness, and then engaging them in the mission of the Kingdom of God. Everything we do must begin and end with the Great Commission as our primary objective. That must shape a church’s purpose.

The second piece of the framework is the Great Commandment. Jesus said, “The most important one [commandment] is this: ‘…Love the Lord your God with all  your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’….” (Mk 12:29-31). The church is called to love God and people. If our purpose does not lead us to love God and people then there must be something amiss with our purpose. It cannot be God’s purpose. If making disciples is the church’s primary objective; love is the church’s primary motive in all that we do.

The third piece of the framework is the Great Mandate (or, Creation Mandate), which the Lord gave to the first man and woman. “God blessed them and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.’” (Gen 1:28). The Lord’s mandate to mankind: To take charge of His world; has not been revoked. He made us His stewards, and as stewards we are to care for the world; not just consume its resources. It is also about how we manage (govern) our society, champion in matters of social justice and care for the marginalised. How a church carries out its purpose must not violate the Great Mandate; rather it must ensure that its purpose fulfils it.

A couple of examples of what a church can do includes cleaning up the streets and side-walks, and planting trees around the community. Not only does this fulfil the Great Mandate, the concern and care for the environment is a powerful witness to people around the church about the values of the Kingdom of God.  On a larger scale, we have the efforts of a number of Singaporean churches working in concert to carry out sustainable development in every province in the nation of Timor Leste. This is an incredible testimony to the Church of Jesus Christ which in turn gives it credibility and opportunity to witness to a whole nation.

When a church thinks about its purpose it needs to ask:

  1. Does our purpose fulfil the Great Commission?
  2. Does our purpose express the Great Commandment?
  3. Does our purpose honour the Great Mandate?
  4. How is our purpose guided by these three parts of the Biblical framework?

The church is not to do something simply because the need is there or because it feels like doing it. Neither does it just do anything simply because it has the resources to do it. Why the church is doing whatever it is doing must be guided by the above Biblical framework.

Conclusion

Putting the three components and the three commandments together is one of the best ways to help your church determine a clear Biblical purpose that is specific to it. But don’t do this by simply putting on your thinking cap. Do this with much prayer and dependence on the Holy Spirit to show you the heart of the Father.

For Your Church Leaders’ Group Discussion

  1. What needs do we see in the community where our church is located?*
  2. What are we passionate about?
  3. What abilities and resources do we have?
  4. Where do the needs, our passion and our abilities align?
  5. How might we express in a statement what we believe may be the Lord’s specific purpose for our church?
  6. Does our purpose fulfil the Great Commission?
  7. Does our purpose express the Great Commandment?
  8. Does our purpose honour the Great Mandate?
  9. How is our purpose guided by these three parts of the Biblical framework?
  10. Does the purpose statement we wrote earlier need changing or refining in light of the Biblical framework? How might we express it better?

* This process may be used to determine your church’s purpose beyond your immediate community. But it’s good to begin here.

 

Discovering Your Church’s Purpose (Part 1)

Soon-Hock Lim Leave a comment

Most churches would say that their mission is guided by Jesus’ Great Commission, “All authority in heaven and earth has been given to me. Therefore, go and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I’ve commanded you.” (Mt 28:18-20).  It is impossible, however, for any one local church to make disciples of all the nations of the world. That is simply the general commission to churches everywhere by which each church is to determine its specific calling about the “where?”, the “whom?” and the “how?”; and maybe even the “when?”. 

How a church determines all that is what we want to explore in this discussion.

If a church is not clear about its specific purpose it is likely to end up doing “anything and everything”, and accomplishing “nothing”. It may even try to muster up spiritual gifts and resources it doesn’t have to meet a need that it has no real passion for; while the talents it does have are not fully utilised. Inevitably, this will result in ineffective ministries and less than fruitful missions.

On the other hand, if a church is clear about its purpose it can focus its resources and energy on it. The result is obviously going to be much greater. It has the same effect as using a magnifying glass to train the rays of the sunlight onto a specific spot on a piece of paper. Very quickly the concentrated energy of the sunlight on that one focussed point will cause the paper to catch fire. That’s the power of a clear purpose when a church has it (or, for that matter, any organisation or individual).

Three Components That Help Determine Your Church’s Purpose

How can a church know what its specific purpose is? Three important components come into play: 1. Need, 2. Passion, and 3. Ability.

What needs do you see around your church?  You can be absolutely certain that the Lord is calling your church to meet one or more of those needs. You may contend that the Great Commission points us to make disciples of all the nations of the world. That is correct. However, the fulfilment of the Great Commission worldwide begins with a ministry to the community where the Lord has established your church. That’s the principle of Acts 1:8; our witness begins with our Jerusalem and spreading further afield till it reaches the ends of the earth.

Needs alone, however, cannot define the calling of your church. For the simple reason, there are so many needs out there; even just within the community where your church is located. So, how do we determine what needs the Lord is calling us to meet?

One important guiding factor has to do with our affinity to the need. Which needs tug at your heart? Which needs do you identify with? Which needs are you passionate about? When we feel strongly for something or are convinced that this is something we have to do we will be much more enthusiastic about meeting that need.

Nonetheless, passion alone is insufficient. Passion may drive us but it cannot meet the need. Only a corresponding ability will enable us to meet that need. In the economy of God’s Kingdom, if the Lord is directing you to minister to a certain need He will also give you the ability and resources to meet that need. To quote the renown missionary of the 19th Century, Hudson Taylor, “God’s work done in God’s way will never lack God’s supply.”

Hence the three components: Need, Passion and Ability; when they align together, they give you the Purpose of your church.

Nehemiah is a great example of an individual who knew his purpose in life. After receiving the report about the sorry condition of Jerusalem he went into his prayer closet to seek the Lord. Jerusalem had to be rebuilt (Neh 1:1-4). Not only did he see the need, he also felt compelled to take personal responsibility to lead the charge (Ch 2:5, 17). The subsequent details in the story paint a picture of a man who was driven with intense passion. The condition of the city either glorified or reflected badly on the Name of the Lord. He could not allow Jerusalem to remain in its deplorable condition. Jerusalem had to be restored; beginning with the rebuilding of the walls that provided protection for the city.

Nehemiah was God’s man.  The Lord had already prepared Nehemiah by giving him a certain amount of political clout (Ch 2:1, 7) and immense leadership, administrative and organisational skills (Ch 2:7-8, 11-6, 17-18) to fulfil the calling that He had laid upon his heart.

These three components that were operating in Nehemiah’s life are also present in every church. To determine the purpose of the church the leadership needs to spend time seeking the Lord for His leading while asking themselves the following questions:

  1. What needs do we see in the community where our church is located?
  2. What are we passionate about?
  3. What abilities and resources do we have?
  4. Where do the needs, our passion and our abilities align?

After more than forty years of its establishment an English-speaking middle-class church in Penang started a work among the lower-income dialect-speaking people in the community around their church. This was because they could see that that was what the Lord was telling them to do. They were also willing and able. Today, since 16 years ago, the church has a thriving Hokkien-speaking congregation and a life-changing ministry to the needs of the people in that enclave.

(Click on the link to Part 2)

Dynamic Balance

Soon-Hock Lim Leave a comment

There is a tendency for churches to be strong in either the Word or the Spirit. Few churches are strong in both. If the Church in Malaysia is to make an impact in the lives of people (and the nation) I don’t see how this can be an option.

Jesus was clearly both strong in Word & Spirit. When He was tempted in the wilderness He quoted Scripture, “It is written….” In order to quote the right Scripture you got to know the Bible well. To wield the Sword of the Spirit effectively you need to imbibe the Word of God. The Lord obviously did.

While Jesus was teaching in a synagogue in Capernaum the people noted that He taught with authority—not like the religious teachers of the day. Then, when, in the same instance, He cast out a demon from a man His spiritual authority became even more evident (Mk 1:21-28). Clearly, the Lord was both strong in Word and Spirit.

When you study the life and ministry of the apostles and the early church you see the same thing. As a result of their strength in both Word and Spirit the early church grew phenomenally (Acts 2:42-47).

While it is not as bad as it used to be; there is, however, still a tendency for churches to emphasise on one to neglect the other. I know this may be a bit of a caricature, but generally speaking, Evangelical churches emphasise on the Word, the fruit of the Spirit and character formation; while Pentecostal and Charismatic churches emphasise on the Spirit, spiritual gifts and power ministries. It is heartening to see that more churches have begun to understand that it is not “either or” but “both and”. We need to be balanced in both Word and Spirit.

However, that is not yet the complete picture. It is not just about being balanced—it is also about being as strong as we can in both Word and Spirit. On a scale of 1 to 10, a church can be perfectly balanced when it is at level 1 for both the Word and the Spirit. But the awful truth is that it is also neither strong in both. This is not the condition any church should want to be in, or continue to be in—it must want to be balanced and dynamic in both Word and Spirit.

As illustrated in the diagram below, it means a church must keep growing and developing and pushing to the utmost levels of empowerment in both these critical aspects of its spiritual life.What is your church doing to move towards that reality? How is it praying for this? How is it equipping the members to be strong in both? How is it stepping out in faith to be effective in the ministry of the Word and in the things of the Holy Spirit? If the church in Malaysia is to recapture the power and effectiveness of the church of Acts it needs to be conscious of growing simultaneously in both Word and Spirit.

Change or Plateau

Soon-Hock Lim 6 Comments

Many churches in Malaysia [1] that had their heyday in the ’80s and ’90s have plateaued or declined over the last decade (probably longer). Each church may have its own unique reasons, but I suspect that there are common causal factors.

They may be due, in part, to a waning in critical areas such as prayer, evangelism and dependence on the Holy Spirit. I think, however, one of the biggest factors is the churches’ failure to change: to connect with the young, the new and the unchurched and to pursue a culture that enables them to adapt, be fresh and progressive. From my observation, only those that have embarked on change have been able to buck the trend.

Generally speaking, the newer churches are doing better—those that were planted in the last 20 years by younger people to reach their own generation and the next. They are more successful because, in part, they appear to be more attractive to them. And the reason for this is because they are more in sync with the younger generation. This is seen in the form of worship they have adopted, the way their sermons are preached, and even how the announcements are presented. These are just the more noticeable things because they happen at the worship service; the primary place of church attendance. As you go deeper, you will realise that its more than just about the lights and sound; it’s about culture. These newer churches have a culture that appeals to the younger generation.

It might help if I drew your attention to a similar situation a few decades ago. At that time many of the traditional and conservative churches were already experiencing a plateau. Some even lost their members to the up-and-coming newer or revived evangelical churches. Why? A large part of the reason was because the former refused to change. Their inflexibility to change their church culture prevented them from moving with the new things that the Lord was doing during that time. On the other hand, the latter, knowingly or unknowingly (as they were moved by the Spirit of God) made changes that brought freshness to the church, they became attractive, and relevant even to those who were outside the church.

It is my observation and opinion that, unfortunately, many of these evangelical churches that had their heyday in the ‘80s and ‘90s are repeating the same mistakes of the traditional and conservative churches of the past. If they don’t change—which primarily means changing their church culture—they will continue to plateau and eventually decline. And that’s sad, when you think of how they were once riding high on the wave of God.

I sincerely believe that all churches ought to prayerfully consider what they need to do, including what they need to change, so that the young, the new and the unchurched of today can relate with them much more readily.

There are a number of related matters that need addressing, and I’ll take them up in my following blog posts.

Let me end by pre-empting a question in your mind. I know that some are going to argue that the Christian faith and good news are about Jesus. It is He whom we are to faithfully lift up; and He will draw people to Himself. I will not contend with that; Jesus is the centre of it all. But the Church is never far from Him. Jesus is the Head; the Church is His Body. When people see Jesus they will also very quickly cast their eyes on the Church. More than that, it is the Church that makes Jesus known to people. And so, how a church presents and represents Jesus will colour people’s perception about Him.

This statement still rings true: The message is the same, but the method must change.

Apply this to the larger context of the whole church. Many of the methods, forms, structures and even church culture need to change if we want to be able to continually connect and reach the young, the new and the unchurched of today and tomorrow.

—————————-

[1] I’m limiting my comments to the English-speaking churches as I do not have much interaction with the vernacular churches.

The Rookie, Leadership & Culture

Soon-Hock Lim 5 Comments

Most pastors believe that when they were called by the Lord to be pastors it came with the mandate to lead the church. On the other hand, most lay leaders believe that the pastor’s role is simply to provide pastoral or spiritual care for the members. Leading the church, especially with regards to organisational matters, finance, direction of the church, policies and staff issues are supposed to be under the purview of the Board or Council. In the end, the pastor has a very limited leadership role.

One way to mitigate the clash of expectations is for both pastor and church leaders to iron them out before the pastor comes on board. Candour and honesty are indispensable elements. Terms and conditions, role and expectations, and especially the leadership role of the pastor, need to be spelt out and agreed upon; and put into writing. This is not a guarantee that there won’t be problems later. Still, it is better to have this done. If all parties are people of integrity, the agreement will be honoured. If not, the parties will know where they have erred.

Clarity and agreement are vital if the pastor, the leadership and the church are to avoid confusion and second guessing about the pastor’s role. What is his leadership mandate? Who leads the leadership team? Who sets the direction for the church? Who is the staff accountable to? Who determines how the resources of the church are to be utilised? And more.

That’s a lot of ground to cover. And most churches have not even begun to consider these things, or, think it necessary to deliberate on them. But they will still function—according to the culture of their church—the set of beliefs and values they hold in common that causes them to do things in a certain way.[1]

If culture is so critical to the life of a church, the most sensible thing to do, then, is to establish a good church culture; including a culture of leadership that honours the leadership role of the pastor.

How does this work out for a rookie pastor? It is unlikely that a church would be prepared to entrust leadership to a newbie. I can understand that. So, what should he do? For starters, a rookie pastor shouldn’t join a church where he is the only pastor. Rather, he should work under a Senior Pastor who is serving in a church that has given the latter the mandate to lead.

Following his time of apprenticeship, one of two things can happen. One day, the Senior Pastor may move on or retire. The rookie pastor has blossomed and come into his own. If he is suitable he may be asked, either by the Senior Pastor or the Church Board, to take over as the new Senior Pastor, in a church that already has a culture that understands the leadership role of the pastor.

A second option for the rookie pastor is go out and plant a new church. After having served a number of years under a Senior Pastor he is no longer a rookie. He knows how to “do” church and lead the church. It is very likely that his fellow-lay church planters will give him the mandate to be the lead man. If this happens, the culture of leadership by the pastor is already set at the beginning of the church plant.

While it is not impossible to change the culture of the church, it will, however, take a lot of hard work, patience, grace, wisdom and prayer—if we don’t want to see a church-split, people leave the church or the pastor’s services prematurely terminated. Getting it right—right at the beginning—is a far better way of tackling this problem. But it calls for Senior Pastors, rookie pastors and church leaders in these “enlightened churches” to understand and work together on this.

[1] Read my blog posting dated 29 Feb 2016 on Church Culture