4. Church Leadership: Some Challenges Of Church Leadership

In this article in our series on leadership, I will deal with just five challenges in church leadership...

1. Delegation

2.Training and mentoring new leaders.

3. Leading leaders.

4. Maintaining healthy leadership relationships among pastoral staff.

5. Formulating a philosophy of decision-making.

There are certainly many more leadership challenges than these, but this article will be limited to these five. Wherever possible I will try to provide biblical support but, due to the nature of these issues, this is not always possible since many of the comments in this article come from my own leadership experience.

I. Delegation.

As with any other form of leadership, one person cannot usually do it alone. Ministry is a team effort. If you don’t delegate some leadership functions and responsibilities to others you run the risk of burning yourself out from overload.

Delegation is a biblical principle for leadership, for example…

Moses. Moses’ problem was workload. Managing an organization of possibly several million people single-handedly must have been tough to say the least! He was running the risk of burning himself out. The solution provided by his wise and experienced father-in-law, Jethro, was to divide the company into smaller units, each with its own leader (Ex. 18:1-27). Each leader was authorized to deal with minor issues themselves and to only bring major issues to Moses.

Jesus enlisted followers to work with him and for him. He seems to have had three circles of delegates: an inner group of three (Peter, James, and John – e.g. Luke 5:4-11, 9:28-36, Matthew 26:36-48), a larger group of twelve (Luke 6:12-16; Mk. 3:13-19), and an even larger group of seventy-two (Luke 10:1-20). He trained them, guided them, modelled to them how his work should be done, gave them orders (get this, do that, buy food, get a donkey, prepare the upper room etc.), encouraged them, rebuked them (Luke 9:55), empowered them (Mark 6:13), and sent them out to perform their duties as his representatives (Matthew 28:18-20). They went out and did what he had trained and commissioned them to do (Mark 6:7-12) and they reported back to him on their experiences (Luke 10:17).

The Apostles in the Jerusalem Church. Their issue was priorities. In order to keep their focus on the main things, the apostles delegated certain functions to men chosen by the larger body of disciples and approved by them (Acts 6:1-7).

The Apostle Paul certainly delegated responsibility and authority to Titus (Titus 1:5), Timothy (1 Timothy 1:3), Epaphroditus (Philippians 2:25), Tychicus (2 Timothy 6:12) and others. As his delegates they were responsible to him and they served him (e.g. 2 Timothy 4:11, 13). Some of them did not remain faithful to him and renounced their delegated position (e.g. Demas, 2 Timothy 4:10).

Nehemiah. Upon Nehemiah’s return to Jerusalem to rebuild the city wall, he selected “a few men” to accompany him on his inspection of the wall (Nehemiah 2:12-13). Subsequently many others joined in the reconstruction task (3:1-32), all under Nehemiah’s leadership. Such an enormous task could never have been accomplished by one man alone.

Similarly, church leaders need others to work with them and for them in the ministry. The biblical pattern for a church leadership team (pastors, elders, and deacons) has a built-in delegation structure. By delegating, the leader is better able to establish and maintain priorities and stamina (physical and emotional).

The responsibilities of pastors and elders is quite clear in Scripture but that is not the case for deacons whose duties are not clearly spelled out. We often think of deacons’ responsibilities in terms of the practical aspects of church life (the building, the finances etc.), but there is no indication that there is this limitation. It seems to me that deacons / deaconesses are assistants to the pastors / elders in whatever capacity they want and need them, provided, of course, that the elders do not abrogate their responsibility for the overall management and welfare of the church, both spiritual and practical.

II. Training And Mentoring New Leaders.

The best training you can give to those who report to you is to inculcate in them your own values, principles, and methods of leadership (cf. Ex. 18:20). This is how most training and mentoring takes place – by modelling on the part of the trainer, and observation and imitation on the part of the followers. I am not implying that your followers should not think for themselves. Indeed, that is not what you want. In fact, that should be one of the principles that you teach them, to not blindly follow others but think issues through for themselves. Rather, what I am suggesting is that they learn from you and internalize the principles of your leadership style and methods to make them their own.

This process of modelling and imitation (mentoring) was the training method that Jesus and the apostles used (cf. Jn. 13:15; 1 Cor. 11:1; Phil. 3:17; 2 Tim. 2:2). If you truly believe that your experience and knowledge are soundly based and suitable for others to adopt, then that is what you want to imbibe into others. This form of training is far more effective than any classroom training. That’s why it is important for those of you who are going into first-time ministry leadership positions, that you work under someone more experienced and wiser than you. That’s how you will learn the quickest and the best.

Obviously, for this style of training and mentoring to take place and be successful…

a) Your own principles and practices must be biblical, logical, experiential, and commendable in order for others to want to adopt them and for you to expect others to follow them. In fact, if your followers do not imitate you, perhaps you should look at yourself to find out what they do not like or what is not commendable to them.

b) Your people must be teachable.

c) Your people must be similar to you in outlook, worldview, thought processes, standards, values, and theology. If you have someone working for you who is not teachable, or who holds totally different values, methods, and biblical interpretations from you, your team will not jell nor will it be fruitful or happy.

So, there is this fine line between wanting people who think for themselves, who have opinions, yet at the same time are compatible with you. So, give your people the benefit of...

a) Learning from you. That’s part of servant leadership.

b) Putting what they learn into practice, bearing in mind that they will do it their way with their personality and individuality stamped on it.

c) Growing so that everyone in turn learns from them, including even yourself.

d) Opportunities to test their wings and fly. Provide outside resources for them to learn from (courses, seminars, books etc.) that are compatible with your leadership model. Hold them accountable for what they believe, teach, and do. This will make sure they think for themselves and that they remain teachable.

e) Knowing what their scope of authority is. Responsibility must be accompanied by appropriate authority, otherwise you end up with puppets who have to keep coming back to you for permission and advice. You do not want puppets and “yes- men.” Men-pleasers are not good employees and will not make good leaders (cf. Eph. 6:6; Col. 3:22).

III. Leading Leaders.

While a plurality of leadership seems to have been the practice in the early church, among that plurality of leadership you will find a “leader-among-leaders.” This has always been God’s structure and yet there seems to be a resistance in some churches to conferring to the pastor the authority and role of leading the leaders. There seems to be this inherent fear that he might become too powerful, or the members will lose control (in the case of congregational government), or the other influential persons in the church will lose influence and power.

While the fear of the leader-among-leaders becoming a dictator is not without grounds, nonetheless, that fear should not prevent biblical and practical principles and procedures from being followed. The fear of the leader misusing his authority can be dealt with by putting in place proper accountability safeguards (as any organization does with their senior management), not by insisting on “leadership-by-committee.”

Some churches separate pastoral ministry (led by the lead pastor who is accountable to the elders) from management (led by an administrative / executive pastor). Regardless of how each church chooses to define the leadership structure of the church (lines of responsibility and accountability), the lead pastor at a day-to-day operational level is the leader-among-leaders in the church. That aspect of his role should be addressed carefully when the church calls him by inquiring carefully about his leadership style, philosophy, and theology, and by defining a well-documented scope of his authority and lines of accountability. I think a lot of the fear surrounding the power of church leaders is not because the leader himself is autocratic, but because the church doesn’t take the time to think through and institute the proper guidelines.

There was clearly a hierarchy in the early church. James was evidently the leader-among-leaders at Jerusalem. You see this in Acts 15: 13-21, where James sums up, affirms, and articulates the consensus of the other leaders. Further, biblical passages that speak, for example, of “elders who are good leaders… especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching” (1 Timothy 5:17), seem to reflect a seniority system. The delegation principle supports a seniority system. Without a leader-among-leaders any organization will have chaos, gridlock, and inefficiency, resulting in the job not getting done. That is precisely what we see in the leadership of many churches. So, from the congregation’s side, there needs to be clear, written guidelines concerning the scope and level of authority for those in leadership, and from the leader-among-leader’s side, he needs to gain the congregation’s trust by practicing servant leadership, by being a shepherd in his nature, conviction, and practice.

The pastor is the obvious leader-among-leaders in the church, at least as far as the church ministry is concerned. If he is not afforded this role, he cannot be effective in his position of leadership to which the church has called him. It’s funny how, when churches call a pastor, they use words like, “You’re the man God has chosen to lead this church.” But, often, as soon as he arrives, they want to limit his ability to lead. How can a pastor effectively take responsibility for the spiritual oversight of the church if he doesn’t have the authority to carry it out? So many churches want their pastor to preach, teach, marry, bury, establish vision, and generally make sure the ministry gets done, but they don’t want him to be their true leader!

IV. Maintaining Healthy Leadership Relationships.

Healthy leadership relationships among the pastoral staff team are based on the following…

1. Trust and dependability. This is the foundational principle of healthy relationships. For a leadership team to be healthy, each member must be fully trustworthy in all respects and fully trusting of the others in the group. Trust is comprised of dependability and honesty. You must be able to depend on your people, that they will be there for you and the organization, that they will show up on time, get their jobs done in a timely manner, represent the organization in an appropriate and accurate way, respond to the needs of others as you would expect them to, not act out of character. And you must be able to trust your people to act uprightly, maturely, and honestly.

2. Integrity. If you don’t practice honesty with each other you will not have a healthy leadership team. Dishonesty is not healthy, either spiritually or practically. You never know where you stand with dishonest people. I’m not talking about outright lying (that would disqualify the person from being part of the team), but I’m talking about transparency, vulnerability, forthrightness, openness, accuracy, always doing what’s right regardless of the results.

3. Mutual respect and love. Mutual respect means that the leader must respect his people to the same degree and in the same way that he expects them to respect him. This respect is shown in how you speak to one another. Never allow familiarity with associates and staff - it breeds disrespect. This means that there is always a certain distance between you and your staff, not an impersonal distance but a healthy distance.

It could probably be best described as the same relationship as a child with his / her father – love and respect, but a healthy distance, no familiarity. Each member of a leadership team must know that they are loved and esteemed unconditionally. This helps prevent people taking things personally that weren’t meant that way. It breeds a healthy environment, similar to a family unit. When you know you are loved, you can deal with issues between members of the team much more easily and openly.

4. Fairness and impartiality. You know what favoritism did to Isaac’s family (Isaac favored Esau and Rebekah favored Jacob; Jacob favored Rachel over Leah and Joseph over the other brothers). Favoritism didn’t work in that family and it doesn’t work in team relationships either. It breeds disunity and disloyalty.

5. Collegiality. Those who compose the leadership team must subscribe to the principle that “we are in this together.” The relationship amongst a leadership team must be that “I need you and you need me. I am not holding myself out to be better than you nor you better than me. Let’s learn from each other. We’ll get the job done as a team. Sometimes you will be right, sometimes I will be – it doesn’t matter. In the church, there is no room for prima donnas or for race horses which compete with each other. We are work horses, pulling together day after day.” That’s collegiality.

V. Formulating A Philosophy Of Decision-Making.

There are various approaches to decision-making, such as…

1. Unilateralism. This approach only takes into account the leader’s opinion. This is the macho image of the fearless decision-maker, leading his troops.

2.  Consensus. The consensus approach seeks mutual agreement, harmony among everyone, collaboration (mutual effort).

3.  Consultation. The consultation approach is based on input received from others, which is weighed and analyzed before arriving at a decision. The consultation approach to decision-making allows everyone to participate in the process, but, failing consensus, the leader makes the best decision he can with the information received.

Most decisions probably involve certain aspects of all these approaches in one way or another. Unilateral decision-making is sometimes required (e.g. in emergencies), but is generally not advisable or wise.

It is preferable if you can achieve consensus. Then no one can complain, everyone is united and it gives credence to the final decision. But if you adopt this approach as a methodology you will drive yourself crazy, because then you are committed to this approach and you can’t deviate. While in my experience most management decisions are made by consensus because everyone is going in the same direction, working for the same goal, with similar perspectives, desires, and attitudes, nonetheless you would be well advised not to make this your only approach to decision-making.

You can easily and quickly get bogged down in the process of working for consensus.  And you can torment yourself and the organization (not to mention the people who work for you) when decisions are tied up in this process, gridlocked. When the process gets bogged down, indecision results. Therefore, I would recommend that at all times you seek consensus but don’t be held captive by it. When consensus does not appear possible (within a reasonable time period), then fall back to consultative decision-making. This is the basic approach I adopt.

Whether I get consensus or not, I am committed to the principle of consulting all who are involved in the decision-making process and particularly those whose area of responsibility is directly affected. Consultation is necessary if you want to build trust, generate open dialogue (i.e. allow conflicting opinions to be expressed in a safe environment), and solicit buy-in (i.e. commitment). Participative / consultative decision-making is often and usually the way decisions are arrived at.

By practicing a consultative method of decision-making…

a) You make sure that everyone has had input to and participation in the decision-making process through open dialogue. You are acting as a team leader, not a dictator. The final decision may not be what everyone wants or likes, but one to which everyone has contributed. They can never say, “I wasn’t heard. No one ever listens to me.”  By collecting input from everyone, you are acknowledging that you are not the sole authority, that you do not know everything there is to know, and that you work within the parameters of a team, even though the end decision may come from you alone.

b) You make sure that you don’t fall down by not having all the information you need to make a good decision.

c) You make sure that the system doesn’t become embroiled in a personal agenda or battle for power. In other words, no one can hijack the system by unduly holding it up or pushing for their own preferences over everyone else’s.

d) If a decision is not reached by mutual agreement, the consultative process allows the senior leader to determine what the decision will be.

Decisions based on genuine consensus or consultation generate accountability and trust. Trust generates an environment of respect, openness, and commitment. When there is commitment, the people make themselves accountable to achieve the goals of the decision. Everyone becomes accountable to the group’s decisions. Once a decision is made, everyone holds everyone else accountable to honor that decision (as though it were their own) and achieve the team’s goals.

Leadership is primarily about two things: (1) vision (“Where are we going?”) and (2) decisions (“How are we going to get there?”). Just as a good leader is the champion of the organization’s vision, so he or she is the ultimate decision-maker. If you are afraid to make decisions, don’t get yourself into a leadership position.

In order to make good decisions, you must be a leader who practices team work and yet who at the same time is willing to let the chips fall where they may when push comes to shove. In other words, if you are worried about popularity, if you want to be liked, and to be the “nice guy,” don’t take a leadership position. You want your people to respect you and perhaps even like you, but don’t expect or try to be “Mr. Popular.” I will guarantee you that leadership will at some point bring you face to face with the reality of unpopularity, loneliness, and worry (e.g. that you have made the right decision). You may even make decisions that people quit over. Those are the times when you had better be very sure of the decision you have made and be very confident in your criteria and in yourself.

For sure you will make decisions that people will challenge, sometimes hotly. In those situations, you need to have your ducks in a row, know why you made the decision you did and be able to show that it is in the best interest of the organization and the people.

With leadership, therefore, comes a high price tag – namely, making decisions that are unpopular and, frankly, making decisions that might be wrong or bad. Someone once said that any manager who makes 75% correct decisions is a genius. If you make 50% correct,  good decisions, you are normal, average. So, be prepared to make wrong and bad decisions, and then be prepared to acknowledge it and, if necessary or appropriate, apologize for it and correct it.