Succession

I think it is a reflection of our institutional program driven ministries that we should talk of developing leaders as something you should think about doing.

The church exists to disciple and support people. We should be intentionally developing people in their areas of gifting including those with leadership gifts. So if that's all we do, how will we not have enough leaders, pastors, evangelists etc.

One problem is the skill set bar is set very high by our program driven, large group approaches. There are many more people who could lead 10 people, than those capable of leading 200.

Lets find bite size, leadership opportunities and simple discipleship structures that almost anyone could learn. Remember one of the world's most successful companies (Macdonalds) is basically run by 17 year olds.

Good comments David. McDonalds is an excellent example [although I don't think it is run by 17 year olds]. 17 year olds start by flipping burgers and some are given opportunities to learn management and then eventually become store managers and progress onwards. For most it's a mcjob to bring in money to pay the mobile phone bill and buy more iTune downloads.
However, the point being that for those who want to turn it into more than a mcjob, a pathway of leadership development is provided.
McDonalds has done a brilliant job of ensuring that each new generation of managers perpetuates the key values and practises of the organisation.

Many churches [or denominations for that matter] do not place very much value on leadership development. How many resources over the last 10 years can you recall being provided for church leadership teams to learn good leadership [including the principles of succession planning and how to achieve it]?

As I said on a previous thread the larger churches are recruiting from within and they do leadership succession very well. The problem is that most churches are much smaller and cannot always recruit from within. Many churches don’t have defined and clear set of purposes that exist beyond the filing cabinet.

Thus the direction of many churches is determined by the idiosyncrasies of the incoming pastor. Whilst I cannot participate necessarily in the succession planning for beyond myself I can help the church orient itself on clear biblical principles and purposes which can exist regardless of who the incoming pastor is.

Getting back to the Maccas analogy, even if I can’t determine who the next manager ought to be, I can build succession into ‘burger flippers’ by giving them a vision of something beyond that which God

I totally agree. MacDonalds isn't 'run' by 17 year olds but I would wager that the average age of store managers is a lot lower than the average age of senior pastors in churches.

And I would also wager that the task of leading a church is way harder than running a MacDonalds franchise. But that is part of my point. Why is it so hard?

Why does it take such a super leader to run a successful suburban church ?

Why have we evolved structures that are so hard to maintain...and in general so ineffective at achieving anything we say we want to do.

DD

Managers at Maccas are a lot younger but all they need to do is sell burgers and keep the junkfood rolling. I submit that it is hard to lead a church because it is essentially a volunteer organisation. SOP's work in a fast food outlet but SOP's were not programmed into the unique individuals who make up the body of Christ.

Diversity is another complicating factor for us. A Big Mac is the same everywhere. I've had a Big Mac in Moscow, London, Sydney, Cape Town. They all taste the same. As long as the global franchise SOP's are followed it works.

Churches are unique, made up of uniquely made people. Paul's frequent entreaties to the churches to 'get it together' show that complexity was the order of the day back then as well.

I could simplify things a lot at the church where I minister, but by doing that I will reduce our interface with a needy world. Caring for the world around you costs. I'm happy to bear that burden. It's the unecessary complications that supposedly mature believers throw at you that drives me to the edge!

Hi guys,

great discussion. In terms of succession planning the answer is yes - we need to do it. I think what dave is saying is that those leaders will need to run the style of church we currently have and so if we run a complex, time and cost intensive church then we will need to find good, organizational style leaders. If you look around churches in queensland at the moment the reality is they are hard to find.
I believe in a simpler approach because I beleive Jesus chose to work with those that were closer to the lowest common denominator than the highest. I do feel like we need to find christian leaders who can establish churches that are easy to run in terms of their organization so that they can spend their time on the demands and complexities of dealing with people. I understand that Paul and others were brilliant people in themselves but my question is what do they spend their time doing? Are the managing budgets, leading meetings and doing organizational functions or do they serve as relational leaders primarily?
As far as interfacing with the community, my experience tells me that keeping Christians busy at the church building can serve to significantly decrease the amount of real world effect that we have on a hurting and needy community.

Keep up the discussion.

SB

Thanks for joining SB. I can understand what you are getting at when you talk of the 'complex, time and cost intensive church'. I would submit that at at any level this will be the case. The more you work with people, the more complexities you will encounter. The more you try and help them, the more time intensive it becomes.

Whilst some churches grow large for the sake of it, in my experience many grow large simply due to the intent they have to tell the Good News and bring about meaningful change in their local community. The economy of scale thus enables more people to have their lives impacted by the critical difference the church makes. I would much rather harness the power of a congregation of 300, [with many active quality small groups] than a small group of 12.

As maligned as they are by the emerging debate, the typical Baptist church is very well positioned to impact their local communities in a way that a small group of 12 cannot.

A well led church [even very large ones] shouldn't need a pastor to be managing budgets etc. One such large church near me is run extremely well by a well thought out leadership structure [not a typically Baptist system], and a lead pastor who spends a lot of time mentoring other leaders. I expect that this church will benefit from sound leadership for generations to come due to good leadership and good succession planning.

Some years ago I proposed a leadership development programme similar to Arrow Leadership, whereby emerging leaders [in our churches] from around the State are exposed to our denominations best leaders in a range of disciplines. As an Arrow 'graduate' I have gained much from the people I was exposed to [leaders in many disciplines] and the networking.

I get tremendous value just from hanging out with many of my contemporaries in ministry who have so much to teach me, and so much experience I can gain from. Retired ministers [I have a few in my congregation] are pure gold!

Hi Stan,

Nice comments. I think we are on the same page really. Of course having 300 committed disciples is better than 12. But you are implying that if you run a more simple system of church that you will only ever have 12. Would you rather have a church of 300 all reporting to a central leadership system (which by the way costs the kingdom and awful amount of money) or 10 groups of 30 which are equally as capable of growing and impacting their communities but where the same $200, 000 per year can be turned into meeting the real and tangible needs of our neighbours both here and abroad.

I am not against big churches. I have worked at one and my friends work in lots of them. I am simply challenging the idea through the eyes of a 'cost to benefit' ratio. Keeping the church controlled by insisting it come under one banner all the time costs a lot of time, money and energy. I think we could explore some other ways to deliver the same results without using the same methods.

It is interesting to note that in the chinese church, the average church planter is an 18 year old chinese, girl. These courageous women are not organizational leaders because they dont have to be. I know there are some cultural differences however i would argue that we only need to train organizational leaders because we insist that the church operates as an organization. To that extent our form is actually dictating our methods.

Rick Warren is perhaps the most well known and successful Western mega church leader and it was he who said in his book, Purpose Driven Church that "it is not the leaderships job to control the church, that is the role of the Holy Spirit." I suspect that it is possible to do this in a traditional church but it is also possible to do in a grassroots, less organized, invisible church.

Let me summarize these scattered thoughts by saying this. We need to have many approaches to church in order to meet the myriad of people in our society. The fact is that the avenues for exploring faith in Christ are still extremely limited in terms of the form and organization of churches. Lets free up those who think differently to try other things. Our current environment is not one where we should be bunkering down to defend our methods for future generations.

Enjoying the conversation SB

Another good post SB.
I minister within a Baptist context, and I would like to think the decentralised set up with autonomous churches belonging voluntarily cuts out a lot of expenses. We appreciate our union structure particularly for the benefits of bank accounts, insurance, theological training etc. The capacity of our union [Queensland Baptist Care] to provide such valuable social services for those at risk is also an important outcome of our ‘union’ of churches.

Getting down to the local church in my experience it is something which allows diverse ministries both close and far away from the church building, and also without strict central control. Small groups are the best example as it is within their structure that most of the organics of caring and sharing happens.

Loosely connected small eclectic groups [emergent nirvana] cannot coordinate enough to provide the excellent outcomes that groups with larger economies of scale can. The Baptist leadership system also allows multiple entry points, in that the pastors are accountable to the eldership, the eldership to the church.

I sometimes would love to chuck in the complexities of life as a pastor and establish a small organic community, specifically in my own interest areas. There is a church on the Northside referred to as the Water Ski Church [not sure what they are called]. Bummer if [like most people in Pine Rivers] you don’t have - can’t afford a jetski or ski-boat.

As a runner I can imagine a church for runners. Each weekend we can set up our tent at whatever event we are at, get smashed on the run then enjoy a lunch together with each other and do ‘church without walls’. Only problem for me is that my wife would not be interested, impressed or approving. My kids would find it boring as well. When it comes to other forms of community transformation we may want to think of we couldn’t really go there [there’s only so much you can do armed with tiny pair of shorts and pair of Asics!].

After considering my options I always come back to an appreciation of our church with all its diversity and its capacity to make its presence felt in so many places in our community and in so many diverse ways.

As a society the concept of organisation and facility is central to how we live, are educated and work. Apply the same rationale emergent thinkers do to the notion of ‘institution’ to education and you begin to see where the argument breaks down. Applying the same philosophy we should shun schools any larger than about 20 students. Instead of large costly ‘educational institutions’ we should have much smaller more organic expressions of schools so that students can learn to be creative and express themselves.

Take that further to universities: why should we have large cumbersome institutions, why can’t we have a myriad of small boutique centres of learning that are more customised to where people live and how they learn?

Size isn’t necessarily the issue for me [except in huge churches which most of us will never be], it is the quality of community that you find within each church.