Recently, I received an email from a member of our Advanced Leadership forum asking an excellent question that many pastors ask. Here it is.
“I just received George Barna’s latest e-news where he has an article ‘30 Respected Leaders Weigh in on What It Takes to be a Master Leader.’ I want to shift the focus from the individual to the whole community/congregation/organization and ask ‘What does it take for a community/congregation/organization to master the shared gift of leadership in a community/etc?’”
Here’s my response:
I’ve never seen what you’re asking for. One of the tenets of biblical leadership is that it always comes through a person, never a group. It might be a team like Moses and Jethro, but still Moses was clearly the dominant figure. The same would be true with teams like Paul and Barnabas.
I know it is fashionable and honorable to think about the congregation being the leader but that just doesn’t work and when it is tried the organization itself fails or it dwindles down to nothing. God just doesn’t work through groups. If you can find a place God did, let me know.
One recent attempt at a team based leadership where everyone was equal was at Bible Fellowship in Little Rock, a church that is now several thousand in several locations. Three guys started the church and their goal was them collectively to lead the church. But over time one of them clearly came to the front as THE leader. They became clear that in order to continue to grow one of them had to be seen as the leader.
Price Waterhouse did a study on team based leadership more than a decade ago and their conclusion was it was the quality of the leader that determined the quality of the team. Put a great leader in the team and the team became great. Put a mediocre leader in the same team and the team became mediocre.
When it comes to succession of leadership, again it is the leader who has to make this happen by spending time over several years or decades forming a leadership pipeline that will result in not only his or her successor but also other leaders throughout the congregation.
I know this doesn’t answer your question but I hope it deters you from seeking your goal. All it will do is keep your church small or if it isn’t small now, grow it down to a small size. This is clearly one of the reasons why very few large congregations have congregational meetings to vote of major issues.
Now the question I think you should be asking is “How do I empower the congregation to share in the mission of the church? That is a totally different question, one that will grow healthy, thriving congregations that have the potential to reproduce themselves.”
How does a leader to that? To offer a quick, simple answer-
1. Set out a clearly defined mission.
2. Set out clearly defined, realistic, stretch goals.
3. Discuss how to reach those goals.
4. Provide the resources and coaching to reach those goals.
5. Continual follow-up on how the mission and goals are progressing.
6. Hold people accountable to the goals.
7. Reward those who get it and make it happen (this is more of a staff issue)
October 5th, 2009 on 10:01 am
Bill – In a congregation (LCMS) that is clearly autonomous, but Voter Assembly driven, where to begin? Should I start a new mission site, replant in the same location, or start the long, slow process of trying to get key leaders to work toward the 6 points you’ve laid out?
October 5th, 2009 on 10:56 am
I’ve long thought the same thing. As a presbyterian pastor I do believed in shared responsibilities but there has to be someone that is the holder of the vision, who speaks it over and over again, and guides everyone into that pursuit, someone chosen by God to lead. Otherwise it is rule by the loudest most strident voices regardless of their adherance (or lack thereof) to the vision (in our case the Kingdom vision of Christ).
October 5th, 2009 on 11:27 am
Christopher, You’ve asked the 64,000 dollar question. I suspose the answer lies in your age and how much pain you can endure. Your denomination has a polity that has hampered it and will hamper it much more into the future. Some of your leaders have figured out how to get around the congregational vote but most havent.
The younger a person is and the more entrepnuerial they are the more I encourage them to go independent and start a new church. However, I stayed in a congregational style denom. and worked around the system. I figure it costs me 8 years of the 24 years to get things done that it would have taken less and a month to accomplish in a staff driven church.
So it depends on your makeup. But before you jump ship and set sail in new direction make sure you have what it takes to go it alone. one way to answer this question is to ask, “Can I raise 50,000 to 100,000 on my own to plant and can I find a sponsor who will match the 50,000. In other words parachut drops dont work well today.
hope this helps.
bill
October 5th, 2009 on 12:13 pm
While I sincerely respect your considerable experience, I respectfully disagree with your opinion on this issue, Bill. I don’t think that leadership through one person is any more “the” biblical model for all time than leadership by a male or within a monarchy is “the” model for all time. Various forms of hierarchical, authoritarian, charisma-based leadership and governance structures dominated biblical cultures. That God would work within those structures to bring about God’s purposes suggests that God may be able to do the same regardless of the structure and leadership paradigm of a group or nation. Rather than deterring exploration of shared leadership – especially if a group is expressing a desire to explore it – I suggest that serious work be done to consider where and how shared leadership has worked in other cultures and contexts, and then preparing people for what would be required to bring about effective shared leadership.
Nor should shared leadership be equated to the style of democracy currently practised in America or Canada. If one wishes to use democratic governance models for shared leadership structures, a better example would be the participative democratic structures now in place in several countries in Latin America and to some extent in some European nations.
No single leadership approach, philosophy, or structure is “the” definitive model for all times for all people. God will not be limited by one person, one group, or one philosophy. Shared leadership may be the best way for some groups to worship, witness and work.
October 5th, 2009 on 12:21 pm
Tim, thanks for the comment. Thats the beauty of the internet. I would make two comments:
1. it doenst matter how things are done in other parts of the world. What matters is what works within your context.
2. If you have some examples of where congregational leadership has worked in the West, I would love to know about them because I’m always trying to learn. I just havnet seen any examples.
October 5th, 2009 on 12:25 pm
Hi, Bill. I submit the Anabaptist denominations of the US and Canada. They have also seen strong growth in Latin America and Africa. I think shared leadership is an approach worthy of strong consideration as our own democracies are finding a way forward, and the highly participative Internet culture may resonate with it into the future.
October 5th, 2009 on 12:27 pm
Sorry… I would suggest, too, that it really does matter what works in other parts of the world, particularly in a more globalized context, and one where immigration patters mean that the world is literally our neighbour. different leadership models may one key to identification with a broader demographic.
October 5th, 2009 on 12:29 pm
Tim, thanks for the heads up. But as far as I can tell there isnt any significant growth among there here in the West. Latin American really inst the West. And those who are healthy are so small they dont make a dent in the culture. Im aware that congregational leadership will grow a church but just so far and then it gets in the way. I’m not a fan of small churches because i have seen how ingrown they become.
October 5th, 2009 on 12:33 pm
Tim, we just disagree on this issue. Im working with several groups in Africa and in each case those who are growing large strong congregations there is a key leader out in front. I doubt if we will see eye to eye on this one until I see a mega church led by the congregation. Then I might change my mind.
October 5th, 2009 on 8:45 pm
Bill, how is the “shared leadership” different from the “permission-giving church” that I believe you and Tom Bandy wrote about? I realize that was a while ago, and ideas can change over time. I have found that, in a smaller-size church (AWA 93), in a smaller size town (so no megachurches possible) things only relaly get done when the laity really claim them and take the lead. If I’m the only one out there leading, the congregation will LET me be out there leading, but that’s about it.
October 6th, 2009 on 9:47 am
John, shared leadership and permission giving arent the same and arent contradictory. Shared leadership means the congregation has a say in every day to day ministry decision like when and where to do worship. That keeps a church small because groups usually take the path of least resistance.
Permission giving is on the other end. It has nothing to do with day to day decisions of running the church. Permission giving is about ministry and the freedom to find one’s place in Gods world and use thier gifts as long as it is within the agreed upon boundaries of the church. Permission giving has nothing to do with where the buck stops.
This doesnt mean the laity arent involved in ministry. It means they do most of the ministry. They follow the leadership of the pastor who understands the best way for people to mature in Christ is not to sit on committees and make decisions but to be in hands on ministry with others.
Your definition of leadership is different than mine. When I say “leading” i mean developing a culture in which everyone blossoms according to thier gifts. The best leader feels successful based on what others achieve as a result of their leader. But this has nothing to do with who makes the decisions on the day to day major ministries of the church.
By leader i dont mean someone who is out in front all by themself. I mean a leader who encourages others to be all they can be. The laity claim them because they see what is happening in the lives of those around them.
I hope this helps.
October 7th, 2009 on 9:16 am
Thanks for clarifying the difference between “shared leadership” and “permission-giving leadership,” Bill. I would term them a bit different. What you described as “shared leadership,” I would call micromanagement. The leader only needs congregational input on these matters when she/he wants advice on a matter he/she doesn’t know how to handle, either because the leader self-identifies it or competent members of the congregation identify it. The wise leader seeks the best counsel, not necessarily the loudest or most frequent, before deciding.
What you call “permission-giving” leadership sounds more like what I think of as visionary team-building leadership. “Permission-giving” sounds so top down patriarchal to me. The best church leaders that I see are those who seek, hear and proclaim God’s word and will, then are affirmed by a group of people who offer their gifts for the good of the that vision, as you described masterfully in your 9:47 a.m. message. Call it semantic if you will, but it’s important to me that while leaders are chosen by God, it is the laity who give leaders permission to lead them, not the other way around.
What you call “permission-giving,” I would call affirming, equipping, organizing and inspiring. I’m not arguing with the style of leadership you’re advocating, just looking for a name that better reflects it, acknowledging that I haven’t found that name just yet.
October 7th, 2009 on 9:45 am
Larry, thanks for your comments. Your church context might be a bit different from the one that parcipitated this conversation. In that context shared congregational leadership meant that the entire congregation would be in on all major decisions. It went way beyond micromanaging and is part of that tribes polity.
Permission-giving is a term I coined in Sacred Cows Make Gourmet Burgers in 1995. it referred not so much to the leader but to the culture of the church. It meant that the culture encouraged people to start new ministries without interference from the Board or staff as long as the new ministry fit the DNA of the church. So it wasnt anything like top-down, it was more center-out.
October 7th, 2009 on 10:30 pm
Hi Bill–
It does seem that it’s important (and Biblical) to have a single leader. But I neither the Bible nor experience says that the leader’s job is to provide a mission and goals. The Holy Spirit speaks to the church, not the leader of the church, and so the mission needs to be drawn from the church, not from one leader. And goals are Biblically irrelevant: some of the most powerful ministries (Isaiah’s, for example) were failures by any goal-oriented standard. It seems to me that the leader is there to keep the people together as they collectively work toward a goal, and to help the people clarify their discernment. The single leader clarifies and strengthens the vision and mission of the community rather than imposing it from the top down.
October 7th, 2009 on 11:03 pm
That makes a lot more sense to me, Bill. Thanks for clarifying and contextualizing.
October 8th, 2009 on 10:07 am
Alan, we have different views of leadership and interpretation of the Scriptures. I’ve seldom seen mission direction ever coming out of a congregation and I cant find any evidence of it in the Scriptures. What I’ve found is that what you describe usually results in a small congregation that is turned inward.
October 8th, 2009 on 11:25 am
Alan, I think the hardest thing about congregational leadership is that most congregations (if not all of them) are peppered with “Tares”…those who profess Christ with their mouths, have been baptized, and are in leadership positions within the church, but don’t have a true relationship with Jesus Christ, so it becomes impossible for them to know what the Holy Spirit wants them to do. We also have a majority of church members in our evangelical churches who are living lives outside the will of God, or are so wrapped up in the world that they can’t hear the Holy Spirit’s voice. So, that leaves us with a congregation made up mostly of lost people and carnal Christians who are trying to make Holy Spirit led decisions. It just doesn’t work…and that’s why the Bible and History don’t support it.