A leader is a dealer in hope.
Napoleon Bonaparte
There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit.… Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good.
1 Corinthians 12:4, 7
Who doesn’t look in the mirror and ask, “Am I attractive?” And what pastor doesn’t wonder about his or her church, “Are we attractive? What makes a church appealing to new people? What do the truly effective churches have that mine doesn’t?”
Few people have worked as hard as C. Peter Wagner to discover the characteristics of churches that do a good job of attracting and meeting the needs of new members. A professor of church growth at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California, Wagner explains those traits and shows us how we can make them work in our own situations.
Why lead a church?
Experienced church leaders give different answers to this question. Most of the answers are sincere, and few can really be called bad. “To glorify God” should be and usually is the preamble. But more specifically, some lead a church to promote an outstanding Christian worship experience. Some lead to develop meaningful ties among Christians. Some lead to contribute to the social welfare of the surrounding community. Some lead to teach the Bible to believers. The list could go on and on. In most cases, specific goals of leadership combine several of the above in differing proportions.
But let’s focus on yet another purpose of church leadership, namely, church growth. In a broad sense, church growth means improving the quality of the Christian life of the existing members; but it’s also concerned with a regular and sustained increase in the number of those members. I hope to clarify some ways church leadership directly relates to the quality attributed to the early church in Jerusalem, where “every day the Lord added to their group those who were being saved” (Acts 2:47, gnb).
Vital Signs of a Church
A few years ago, I wrote a book called Your Church Can Grow. I had examined as many anglo-American churches as I could that were sustaining a vigorous growth rate. Since I believe church growth (with some exceptions) is a sign of church health, I identified the growth principles they had in common, calling them “vital signs.” They are:
1. A pastor who is a possibility thinker and whose dynamic leadership has been used to catalyze the entire church into action for growth.
2. A well-mobilized laity, which has discovered, has developed, and is using all the spiritual gifts for growth.
3. A church big enough to provide the range of services that meet the expectations of its members.
4. The proper balance of the dynamic relationship between celebration, congregation, and cell.
5. A membership drawn primarily from one homogeneous unit.
6. Evangelistic methods that have been proved to make disciples.
7. Priorities arranged in biblical order.
At least three large tests have been made of the seven vital signs, the latest a computer-based survey of Baptist churches in Great Britain by Paul Beasley-Murray. The feedback has consistently confirmed and strengthened the first two vital signs, those that touch the roles of the pastor and the people in the growth of the church. If I were to write a book now, I would add some things, I would subtract some, and I would say some things differently.
Therefore, I am increasingly convinced that the two indispensible preconditions to vigorous, sustained church growth are a pastor who wants the church to grow and a congregation of people who want the church to grow — and both are willing to pay the price.
What is the price? One price the pastor must pay is a willingness to assume a strong leadership role. One price the people must pay is a willingness to follow growth leadership. How can this happen in a harmonious and dynamic way?
Pastoral Dilemmas
A pastor who conscientiously attempts to serve God in a biblical way is faced with two dilemmas: the relationship of power to humility, and the relationship of leadership to servanthood.
Romans 12:3 teaches humility: “Do not think of yourself more highly than you should.” Jesus relates that humility to power when he says, “Whoever makes himself great will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be made great” (Matt. 23:12). Notice the two active verbs and the two passive verbs. A pastor can either make an effort to be great or make an effort to be humble. If the latter, God will then make the pastor great. All God-given leadership is rooted in humility. But when the process is complete, the pastor must humbly recognize that he is great. Biblically, power and humility go together.
So do leadership and servanthood. Jesus put them together as a result of the tiff caused among the apostles when James and John requested privileged status in the kingdom. In explanation, Jesus contrasted the heathen rulers and their tyrannical style with Christian rulers who are essentially servants. “If one of you wants to be great, he must be the servant of the rest” (Mark 10:43). The Christian leader must be perceived, by those who follow, as a bona fide servant. There is no other way. Jesus washed the disciples’ feet, but while he was doing it, there was no doubt in any of their minds that he was their leader.
Thus, a pastor is a humble servant. But the more humble and the more of a servant, the more leadership and authority is granted by God. And if God grants the authority, it ought to be exercised.
Ranges of Leadership Styles
The way leadership is exercised in a given parish will depend on at least four important sets of factors. Each one of the four will impose outward limits, or ranges, on appropriate leadership styles.
1. Cultural ranges. Built into the fabric of different cultures is a certain range of leadership expectations. In many Latin American situations, for example, a caudillo (politically a “strong man”) type of leadership is well received. This kind of leadership would be highly inappropriate, however, in an African village, where the cultural decision-making pattern is total consensus. In England, the traditional monarchy seems good to the people, so the Anglican church is ruled by bishops and archbishops. Most Americans, on the other hand, prefer democratic leadership where a vote is taken and the majority opinion prevails. In every culture there is both strong and weak leadership, even though the styles may differ greatly.
2. Socio-economic ranges. In America, members of trade unions respond to a different style of leadership than do business executives and professionals. Christian blue-collar workers tend to thrive in their service to God under fairly directive leadership, while professionals are more comfortable with leadership that allows them to participate more in the decision-making process. My church (Lake Avenue Congregational Church, Pasadena, California) happens to be upper middle class socio-economically. As a result, one of our major pieces of equipment is a huge Xerox machine that collates the printed pages. We need a twelve-page report to change the draperies in the nursery! But Xeroxes and twelve-page reports are altogether superfluous in many other churches, even for such major decisions as calling new staff members.
3. Denominational ranges. Presbyterians in Scotland became fed up with bishops, so they developed an organizational system that would forever exclude that form of leadership. Ruling elders and teaching elders form a session, which leads the church. Methodists split off from the Anglicans but kept the bishops. The bishop, not the congregation, has the power to remove or assign pastors. Baptists have room for a wide range of styles, from strictly congregational governments to bishoplike pastoral authority in some churches. Each denomination has developed its own leadership traditions, which place limitations on the options of pastors who happen to be serving them.
4. Personality ranges. Each individual also has certain personality traits that limit leadership styles. Some people by nature are take-charge individuals. Strong leadership comes intuitively, and they have little patience for involving others in the decision-making process. For others, a nondirective style feels better. Church leaders need to be aware of their own personalities and temperaments in a realistic way. Moving outside those boundaries may seem to work for a while, but it will usually break down over the long haul.
Leadership and Growth Potential
What pastoral leadership roles contribute to church growth? I can best describe them using a split-image spectrum (Fig. 1).
Notice, first of all, that as we move toward the left, the pastor does most of the leading, and toward the right, the congregation does most of the leading. Research has indicated that the potential for church growth increases as the leadership role of the pastor increases and the leadership role of the congregation decreases.
Very few cultural, socio-economic, denominational, or personality restrictions will allow a pastor to move clear to the left. But a pastor toward the left end of the range will have a better growth situation than one toward the right, other things being equal.
A growing church that very nearly fits the left end of the model (none will fit it in every respect) is the Crystal Cathedral Community Church in California. For more than ten years I have been observing the growth of that church, which at the time of this writing includes over 5,000 families, or slightly over 10,000 members, with a morning attendance running around 8,000. How did this church, a member of a mainline denomination, the Reformed Church in America, sustain such a dramatic growth rate over twenty-five years?
Quite simply, its pastor, Robert Schuller, functions in the traditional, Reformed Church pastoral role as chairman of the consistory, or board, with all the leadership authority that carries with it. Several years ago, a leadership crisis came at a time when a decision had to be made to purchase the property where the church, with the new Crystal Cathedral, is now located. The two-year struggle ended up with new members of the consistory, who recognized that God had given gifts of faith and leadership to Bob Schuller, and that God’s will could best be done if Schuller functioned as a leader with authority. Although church growth is complex, and Schuller’s leadership is only one of many growth factors active in this church, it is safe to say that if a new pastor instead of a new consistory had been brought in years ago, the growth pattern would have been considerably less.
As you examine your position on the leadership spectrum, keep in mind the several pairs of labels opposite each other, check the trends, and try to formulate a reasonably accurate profile for yourself.
• The church has a higher potential for growth if the pastor is a leader more than he is an administrator. A leader, as the next pair of labels indicates, is a visionary, whereas an administrator is an implementer of someone else’s vision.
• A church growth pastor is a goal-setter; less growth potential is predicted for a pastor with the self-image of an “enabler” who encourages the lay people to set the goals.
• To use an industrial model, the pastor who tends to be more a manager type than a foreman type will enhance the growth possibilities for the church.
Some, at first glance, will object to this, especially pastors who are currently in the thirty- to forty-year age bracket. When they were in seminary in the sixties and early seventies, the “enabler” was set forth as an ideal role for pastors. But as Lyle Schaller points out in his book Effective Church Planning, this frequently turned out to be a counterproductive model. An equipper should not be equated with an enabler if an enabler, by definition, abdicates the responsibility of the top leadership position in the congregation.
Leadership in the New Testament
It seems to me that where the Bible touches on the matter of Christian leadership, it supports the strong leadership role for the pastor. Three Greek words for this role are fairly interchangeable in the New Testament: shepherd or pastor (poimen), elder (presbyteros), and bishop (episkopos). The bishop is an overseer or a guardian. The elder is respected because of the wisdom of age and is a ruler. The relationship of a shepherd to a flock of sheep is one of the biblical metaphors used to describe God-ordained Christian leadership. A pastor, by definition, is related to a flock as its leader.
More specifically, in the several passages where the New Testament deals with the matter of leadership, some highly descriptive and appropriate language is used:
1. John 10:1-5. The pastor shepherds, calls by name, leads, and walks ahead. The people hear his voice, recognize it, and follow him.
2. 1 Thessalonians 5:12-13. The pastor works hard, admonishes, and warns. The people honor, think highly of, and love the pastor.
3. Hebrews 13:17. The pastor has rule, watches over souls, and gives account. The people obey and submit.
4. 1 Peter 5:1-5. The pastor feeds the flock, takes oversight, is an example, and is not a tyrant. The people follow.
Sources of Leadership
If the leadership responsibility of the pastor is so evident in biblical perspective, it might be well to ask where leadership comes from. If a person wants to lead a church, how does this happen? Leadership in the body of Christ is acquired in three major ways:
1. Leadership is earned. The leader must be perceived by the followers as their servant, and this is not accomplished overnight. It takes years for people to develop the love and respect for their pastor necessary to open the door for growth leadership. Lyle Schaller says that the effective years of a pastorate begin between years four and six. The most obvious exception is the founding pastor of a new congregation, where the full leadership role can begin immediately.
2. Leadership is developed. Good training can increase the ability to lead in almost any person motivated to take it. Unfortunately, leadership training has not been a prominent part of ministerial courses in most seminaries and Bible schools, at least until recently. But an increasing number of management seminars are becoming available in continuing education and doctor of ministry programs to help fill this need.
3. Leadership is a gift. Although training can help, it can take a person only so far. I hesitate to mention it, because I would not want to discourage anyone from assuming strong pastoral leadership, but leadership is mentioned as one of the spiritual gifts, the charismata (Rom. 12:8). As I continue to study large, growing churches, I find there are only two of the spiritual gifts common to all superchurch pastors I know: the gifts of leadership and faith. Since faith is the goal-setting gift, they go together.
Lay Ministry Is the Key
The second vital sign of a healthy church is a well-mobilized laity. By that, however, I do not mean that the congregation should attempt to assume the leadership of the church.
I realize that in many churches, especially those with an attendance at worship of 200 and under (about 85 percent of America’s Protestant churches), the congregation, as a matter of fact, does lead the church. Some of them change their pastors so frequently that there is no way a pastor could earn the love and respect of the people as their leader, even if he or she were so inclined. Very few such churches are “adding daily to their number such as should be saved.” One of the problems is that they are led by ecclesiastical amateurs. Good-hearted people, yes; saints of God, yes; intelligent and generous and trustworthy, yes; but professional church leaders, no.
Having said this, let me reiterate that lay people need to be active and enthusiastic and wholehearted in their service to God and the church. But their activity needs to be concentrated on ministry functions rather than leadership functions. This is a crucial point, for little current writing on church leadership makes sufficient distinction between leadership roles and ministry roles. When the two are properly distinguished, strong church leadership can be maintained, avoiding at the same time the ever-present danger of clericalism.
Although Robert Schuller exercises strong, pastoral leadership functions, the people in the church in no way feel tyrannized, oppressed, unfulfilled, or limited in their service to God. In fact, I know of very few churches with a higher level of enthusiastic lay involvement. Schuller has developed a clear philosophy of ministry:
• To reach the unchurched in the area with the message of Jesus Christ.
• To equip those reached to be fully Christian in every aspect of their lives.
• To develop a caring community of believers for spiritual nurture.
• To develop the necessary lay ministry leadership to keep the cycle going.
The first, which is the most directly related to church growth, will not happen without strong programs in the other three.
To accomplish these objectives, Schuller has gathered around him a highly competent, professional staff of ministers. They have broad authority to develop their assigned spheres of ministry. The Lay Ministers Training Center has a Bible-school-level curriculum of 250 classroom hours covering biblical studies, theology, church history, pastoral care, and other courses. As of this writing, 1,280 persons are actively enrolled in this study program, and a total of 72 have graduated from it and are recognized as “credentialed lay ministers.” Few churches have such a reservoir of lay people who have taken that much formal study.
Some 2,000 members of Crystal Cathedral are engaged in active volunteer ministry. There are 700 lay ministers of pastoral care who do the basic shepherding of the believers. Twenty-five have been trained as paraprofessional psychological counselors, who can handle all but the most severe personal needs of the church members. The New Hope Counseling Center, a telephone ministry, employs 350 trained volunteers. There are lay ministers of evangelism and of hospitality, and lay ministers who are ushers, greeters, tour guides, and members of the thirty choirs. Specialized ministries have been developed for the poor, the hungry, prisoners, retarded people, convalescents, the handicapped, child-abuse victims, juvenile delinquents, and the emotionally ill. This is not the only church that has succeeded in maintaining strong pastoral leadership while avoiding clericalism. Many growing churches have done it.
The body of Christ differs in its internal design from any human institution. It is an organism with Christ as the head and every member functioning with one or more spiritual gifts — unearned gifts given by God in his grace and wisdom. “God put every part in the body just as he wanted it to be” (1 Cor. 12:18). To the degree that every member of a given congregation has discovered, developed, and is using his or her spiritual gifts, the congregation can be said to be healthy.
And healthy churches grow. The relationship between spiritual gifts and church growth is made clear in one of the major New Testament passages on the gifts: “So when each separate part works as it should, the whole body grows” (Eph. 4:16). Such growth includes, of course, both quality growth and quantity growth.
Part of the leadership function of a church growth pastor is to match people with their God-given ministry roles. This is illustrated by a split-level spectrum (Fig. 2).
Toward the left of this spectrum, the pastor is the minister. This means the pastor is expected to do just about everything that happens in the church except sit in the pews during the worship service — lead people to Christ, counsel believers who have problems, visit the sick in the hospital and at home, monitor the spiritual life of each believer, say grace at church suppers, publish the bulletin and the newsletter, pay the bills, make a pastoral call to each home every year, write letters to visitors, keep in touch with college students and armed service personnel, distribute food to the needy at Christmas time, and preach forty-eight sermons a year. Failure in any of these is likely to draw the comment, “Well, what are we paying the pastor for, anyhow?” The growth potential for a church on this side of the spectrum is very low.
Growth potential increases as the pastor becomes less of a minister and more of a leader. This takes place if the people in the congregation decide to become ministers through the use of their spiritual gifts — teaching, exhortation, service, mercy, evangelism, hospitality, healing, liberality, administration, and others — and the body becomes alive.
The pastor uses his or her gifts also in this ideal situation; but above all, the pastor leads the others. The pastor is more an equipper for ministry than a doer of ministry. (Some use the word “enabler” to mean equipping the saints for ministry.) Rather than being perceived by the congregation as their employee to do their work, the pastor is seen as a recruiter of others to do the tasks of the church. And as the church grows, particularly past that awkward range of 150-250 members, the pastor must be willing to shift from what Lyle Schaller calls a “shepherd” mode to a “rancher” mode. The rancher no longer cares for the sheep one-on-one as the shepherd does. The rancher recruits and trains a number of shepherds to provide the one-on-one care, and then he monitors the whole operation to see that it is properly done.
Thus, the pastor’s major role for growth is to lead. The congregation’s major role is to minister. Although maintaining the proper relationship between the two will not solve every growth problem for every church, it will help unlock tremendous opportunities for growth in many churches now bogged down in unwieldy pastor-congregation relationships.
Copyright ©1988 Christianity Today
