In his comment on yesterday's post, ADR hit right on the big 'but' that must be appended to my thoughts on competence in church leadership. Basically, we want to call for competence, but we mustn't be clumsy in directly equating church growth to the abilities of the leader. There are a number of reasons for this.
First is that there are lots of competent ministers working faithfully in contexts where the ground is tough. That is, the reason for the lack of numerical growth is far more due to their contexts than any lack of competence. The fact is that not every place has groups of people equally open to receiving the gospel. Why? Often we can discern historical, cultural and sociological reasons for this. Often we have to admit to having no idea why God hasn't readied people's hearts at a particular time.
Second is that there are different seasons in ministry. As Paul says in 1 Cor 3, some will have the task of planting and some will have the task of watering and it may then be that it's others again who have the joy of harvesting. The history of missions tells us that the harvest may come generations after the planting and watering.
Third is that numbers don't tell the whole story. If it were so simple, this wouldn't even be a conversation. We would just say that growing churches have competent leaders and churches that aren't growing don't. End of story. But while building the Kingdom numerically is a key part of the role of a church leader, it's not the whole role. At different times in the life of a local church, the balance must tip towards 'tending the flock' rather than 'making disciples' and while I think it's a mistake to polarise these, there will be times when leadership needs to be directed more to pastoral care and housekeeping than to outreach.
Having said all of this though, I don't want to qualify my original thoughts so much that they can just be dismissed. Given the big 'but', I still want to say leadership competence is something that must be evaluated. We can't always assume that a lack of numerical growth is due to the situation, not the leader. That may be the case, but it may not be. If we are to be good stewards of the church, the gifts and the resources that have been entrusted to us, we must ask the question.
The challenge in all this is how to make the determination. Short of running a controlled scientific experiment with two equally resourced churches on opposite street corners, how can you possibly tell if a local church is struggling because of an incompetent minister or because it's in a tough environment? I don't have a simple answer. But that doesn't mean it isn't an important question.
A few more thoughts still to come...
Hey Tim. Along with ADR, I have some large questions about this line of thinking. I'm deeply unconvinced that 'competence' fits into any biblical category. I also question the idea of evaluation of a minister in relation to the 'flock' at all.
ReplyDeleteEvaluation of leadership certainly occurs, but from what I can see it is evaluation of character, and faithfulness to Gospel ministry (eg 1 Tim 3; 2 Tim 4, ). These are evaluations of the individual. There is also the call to sober self-evaluation of our gifts (Rom 12) and of how we exercise them (1 Cor 13). Yes, ministers can be evaluated, but should this be done in relation to their fruitfulness in ministry?
Also... What IS competence? My definition from the bible would be faithful exercise of one's gifts coupled with godliness of character. When we drag worldly notions of success and how to evaluate it into our church culture, we get... worldly competence. Worldly power. Worldly attractiveness. And I don't believe this is merely a neutral thing, but actually something that can get in the way of the gospel, which is a message which comes in weakness and hiddenness. You said in your first post that "...our culture has high expectations of quality." So did the Corinthian church.
Just a few thoughts. I have many more. Read some Tim Chester and get back to me :)
Hey Gina,
ReplyDeleteThanks for this - good thoughts.
I especially think your question, 'What is competence?' is key and hear the warning of just transposing worldly measures onto spiritual enterprises. Perhaps it would be more helpful for me to explore the question I'm poking at from the angle of gift evaluation - I want to say that it's good and right to have the right people in the right church jobs and I want to say that if they are, that will be good for the church. Maybe it's more helpful to think about matching the right gifts to the right ministries - I think that's what I'd call competence.
I agree that we need to be careful here though. The other example of where we can skew our thinking is when we talk about 'excellence'. I actually want to argue for excellence in churches - but not worldly excellence. An excellent church might be one that really welcomes and loves people who disrupt the slick Sunday service. It might be the one the prioritises its spending so that it gives more to the poor and less to employ a graphic designer - thereby looking less professional and 'excellent' to lots of people, but being more excellent in more important ways.
Hmm...
Which Tim Chester book in particular?
Got me thinking. Two more quick thoughts.
ReplyDeleteFirst is that I think that while the language of 'competence' isn't directly biblical, surely it's implied. Eg. when Peter passes on the call for elders to 'tend the flock', he's wanting for that to be done well, competently. The same could be said of any directive given to church leaders.
Second is that it may be helpful to consider it from the other side: I think we would all agree that we don't want incompetent ministers. That sounds dangerous.
So, again, I think I come back to the questions of 'what is competence?' or 'competence in what?' and the puzzle of how to measure it.
T
Matching the right gifts to the right ministries... a worthy cause. Anyone who wants to be a teacher or elder (or who is appointed one) needs to have the relevant gifting. So I guess this could be classed as a 'competence' issue. But what is the biblical picture of the gifting required for such roles? The stress on gifts seems to me pretty sparse (teaching?) whilst the stress on the character and faithfulness with which the gift/s are exercised is huge.
ReplyDeleteIf we start adding our own list of 'competencies' that a minister requires (which actually seems to be the norm now, just read any advert for a minister!) then I think we're going down the line of demanding 'super-apostles'.
Paul, when asked to defend his own competencies, actually glories in his weaknesses, his lack of competence as judged by the Corinthian culture. So I would have to say that I outright disagree with your statement in the previous post that "our generation of church leaders also need to be competent at things that are potentially as diverse as management and governance, advertising, leading teams, training, recruiting lay leaders, property development and much more too." Some of these things may need to be done in the course of tending the flock. I'd argue that this is where every-member ministry needs to come in. And also, the 'need' for many of these elements in shaping a church is itself quite open to critique!
These ideas have certainly been shaped by delving into 1 & 2 Corinthians, and also as I've read Chester's 'Good News to the Poor' (excellent book about integrating gospel proclamation and social action) and 'The Ordinary Hero' (great basic discipleship book) . I'm sure other books of his target this issue more directly.
PS. As for incompetent ministers - well, yes, we don't want incompetent ministers. But again that is going to come down to definition. I'll be barracking for godly character and faithfulness, and exercising of their gifts in a servant-hearted, body-building way. If they only have one or two 'leadership qualities' that make them fit for a oversight ministry, so be it (and bring on the every-member ministry!).
ReplyDeleteThanks for more thoughts Gina.
ReplyDeleteThe other thing I've been thinking about more lately is the diaconate. Stott has a great chapter called something like 'The Twelve and the Seven' in his (last?) book 'The Living Church'.
I suspect this is where I ultimately fall on my call for church leaders to be competent at management, governance, advertising, etc, etc. That is, there are elders / presbyters / 'priests' whose role is preaching, praying, administering the sacraments and tending the flock and then there are deacons who are set aside for waiting on tables / web-design / balancing the budget / etc. Did you read my post on Simeon? I think he was onto this. (Interestingly, the ADOM is quite good on just this sort of distinction.)
It does, however, raise the question of the difference between formally set aside 'deacons' and active lay members of the church. Has anyone thought much about that?
Also, I really want to uber-emphasise, that in talking about competence, I never, never see that as an alternative or substitute for godly character, faithfulness, integrity and servant-hearted leadership. Those character qualities are baseline essentials. If they're not present, I don't care how competent someone is, they're just not suitable for church leadership. I hope I don't ever come across as marginalising character in favour of competence.
Thanks again for the discussion!
Uber-emphasis understood!
ReplyDeleteMuch of this comes back to looking at biblical leadership, Anglican leadership categories and practice, seeing how the two overlap and where the Anglican structures could do with a biblical refresher course! When reading Chester et al (who have eschewed the formal institutions) I've found it a challenge to think about how the ideas might be applied within the Anglican context (or whether they can be... bigger questions...)
I'm quite interested in the diaconate category (distinctive deacons, in Anglican parlance, I guess). I'd also love to think more about the deaconate/lay member distinction. I actually have a book at home titled 'The Abolition of the Laity' which I think is on the topic... maybe high time I read it!
I thought that book was a proposal for making the minister's work more straightforward by emptying the pews...
ReplyDeleteNow that WOULD even out the competence playing field!
ReplyDeleteLink to a review of said book which I really must read... http://www.marketplacechristian.net/abolition.pdf