Leadership

By Chris Backert; Ecclesia Director & Organizational Architect

The Changing Nature of Leadership Development in Emerging Networks

In many established associations, there have been programs put in place for leadership development among both congregations and clergy. As with several of these other practices, leadership development was carried out through the centralized office of the denomination, either at the regional or national level.  In contrast, emerging church networks will focus on leadership development as a key aspect of their agenda.

However, leadership development will be carried out through mentoring relationships and leadership-training events put together through the shared work of the network. Acts 29 has the most developed system for this ongoing equipping and leadership training of any network at the moment.

As with all the prior practices, leadership development will be distributed instead of centralized. Network leaders can work with pastors and key laity in the congregation to construct development plans that access the resources of the persons involved in the association community. For instance, in addition to providing training for leadership development, the new network will highlight particular churches that are carrying out this task effectively. Those seeking to learn and develop will be encouraged to engage in conversation with practitioners that are involved in successful ministry in a comparative context. This approach builds community and can develop a culture of generosity, reciprocity, and mutual equipping. The network can serve the churches in its community by developing lists of strengths and areas of expertise from among the leadership of the network. As will hold true in the area of resource development, the best practices for ministry in this new era will be developed from those working on the ground.

Leadership Development within the Ecclesia Network

Within Ecclesia, this continues to be an area for our growth and development.  As the regional activity of our network is bolstered, we expect that more and more of these opportunities will begin to take place.  In addition, we are looking at piloting a few learning communities over the next two years that will allow churches in a region to work together with members of their congregations toward some shared development. Also, an increasing number of congregations within Ecclesia are developing residency or apprenticeship programs.  The Renew Community outside of Philadelphia, the District Church in Washington D.C., and Imago Dei in Richmond, VA all have active residency opportunities.  Lastly, we are working at increasing the visibility of all of our congregations to one another by highlighting regular stories of their work throughout the year.  This will provide a better vantage point for network members to know who they can look toward related to their experience and expertise.  Hopefully, with greater connectivity among all members of Ecclesia, we will see signs of the natural and organic growth we are all experiencing as we are on this journey together.

By Chris Backert; Ecclesia Director & Organizational Architect

Within established church associations, the trans-local leadership has historically been viewed as experts in their particular areas of ministry. Whether it was music, Christian education, or family ministry, those who ended up in denominational (i.e. network) work were staff that had excelled in their area of ministry at the local church level and were“promoted” to coach and support other churches and leaders in those areas.

In the network philosophy and organizational pattern, should churches desire ongoing coaching for their overall congregation and for their mission in a particular area, the post-denominational network will facilitate this relationship between the desiring church and a church or leader who is successful in the area in which they are seeking guidance. As with church planters, these relationships will largely be between functioning leaders in other congregations. In this manner, coaching most ideally comes from the vantage point of a fellow practitioner on the ministry journey. In the rapidly changing world that new churches exist within, this co-laboring philosophy is crucial to dealing with the ground level realities of ministry. Converge Worldwide is one of the best examples of this collaborative coaching at work within a church planting network.2 However, few have moved this coaching beyond church planting

In addition to coordinating these relationships, the network could also establish a database of qualified and approved coaches and list the various topics and specialties that those individuals have. They could also sponsor training and equipping events for coaches and potential coaches so that they may improve and hone their skills.

Within Ecclesia, over the last two years we have made continual efforts to strengthen this aspect of our life and work together. For the last two years we have equipped a handful of coaches with the needed skills to provide coaching to other people. Some have even taken these skills and have turned them into a bi-vocational job opportunity. We have continued to match interested individuals on the church planting journey with coaches to guide them in their early days. We are continuing to move in this direction even more fully now, with a requirement that all churches started connected to Ecclesia will having an ongoing coaching relationship when they are in the foundational stages of cultivating a new community. We are also aligning the expectations of those coaching others within Ecclesia so that there is a base norm and fairness across the network.

In the future, our hope is that more organic coaches “circles” and relationships will continue to develop in an ongoing manner for all congregations and leaders part of Ecclesia. While we believe that coaching for new congregation be best done in a “one-one” context, we believe that these peer coaching circles will help our pastors and leaders be refreshed, challenged, and supported along the journey as they are actually “co-laboring” in this way with each other.

by Geoff Holsclaw / Read Geoff’s blog / Follow Geoff on Twitter

In these postmodern times we are used to hearing of the death of the author, the death of the text, and even the death of the book (unless you have a Kindle).  Well, today, it is the death of leadership, for Christ our leader is the Crucified One, and what servant is greater that his master?  But many have not heard of this death.  It has been drowned out by the dearth of leadership books, even Christian leadership books, and I’m sure many of us, and myself included, have read them.  But while these leadership books, and conferences, and seminars tell of many helpful things, but they do not know of the Crucified Christ.  And this makes all the difference.  They lack a leadership that lives through the cross.  According to the pattern of the Crucified Christ I believe missional leadership must nurture new structures, new processes, and new people who will lead through living and dying in Christ.

Philippians Hymn

Few turn to the hymn of Philippians 2 as a leadership model, so hopefully we are on the verge of something indeed.  Here we find a pattern, or model of Christian leadership and community.  It is the narrative of Christ, of the incarnation, of the gospel.  And if leaders do not practice it, then the community will not follow it, and then the lost will not see it, and they will not get it even when they hear it.

Philippians 2:5-11

⁵ In your relationships with one another, have the same attitude of mind Christ Jesus had:

⁶ Who, although being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; ⁷ rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. ⁸ And being found in appearance as a human being, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death—even death on a cross! ⁹ Therefore God exalted him to the highest placeand gave him the name that is above every name,¹⁰ that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,in heaven and on earth and under the earth,¹¹ and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

There is a three part pattern to this passage.  It is the pattern of although—did not—but. Although. Christ has the very status, or being, of God, he did not take advantage of his status and use it selfishly.  But rather humbled himself in his incarnation (“being made in human likeness”) and crucifixion (“by becoming obedient to death–even death on a cross”).  And the result is that God works, God exalts, God saves in Christ.  This hymn to Christ reveals the pattern of our lives, the pattern by which we related with one another.  It is the pattern by which we learn the death of leadership.

Indeed, the apostle Paul who uses this hymn to exhort the Philippians to Christ-likeness.  But Paul did not leave them without an example, but rather understood and practiced his own apostolic ministry according to this same narrative pattern.  In 1 Corinthians 9 Paul speaks about the rights of an apostle to receive funds for their ministries.  But Paul did not exercise this right, but worked to pay his own way.  And he also claims that while he has the right of freedom in all things, he does not exercise this right selfishly, but rather became a slave of all for the sake of the gospel.  What does that sound like?  It sounds exactly like Christ in the Philippians Hymn.  And even within the very contentious issue of slavery Paul did not lay down the apostolic hammer on Philemon so that he would release Onesimus.  But instead he acted in love toward Philemon, seeking his consent on the matter.  This, then, is the death of leadership that Paul points us toward when he speaks of Christ, a cruciform leadership that lays down it rights and its status in love and becomes a servant to all.

At Life on the Vine

Because of this pattern in Christ I believe missional leadership must nurture new structures, new processes, and new people who will lead according to Christ’s example.  At Life on the Vine we try to live this out.

For us, leadership at the highest level is structured as a co-pastorate.  There is no ‘senior’ or ‘lead’ pastor where the buck finally stops, where the decisions are finally made, where final authority resides.  While our community was planted by one person, David Fitch, he very quickly brought me on as a co-pastor.  And then later we brought on a third co-pastor to balance out the giftings among us.  We did this in order to spread out the ministry, offer opportunities for younger leaders to grow, but most importantly, as a structured model of shared leadership.  As co-pastors we had to practice the pattern of although—did not—but.  Although we were called as pastors and therefore elevated by a certain authority, we did not, we could not practice unilateral power, but mutually submitted to one another as we lead the community.  This was embedded in our pastor structure because Christ-like leadership is not merely servant leadership.  It does not function on top but then not act like it.  Rather we have given up having a ‘lead’ anything at all by creating an alternative structure.

In addition to having a structure of co-leadership, we practice various processes of communal discernment that hand leadership to the entire community, or parts of the community.  For example, according to the same pattern, although all the pastors were in complete agreement regarding how we should move forward concern the issue of women in church leadership, and we had the authority of make a decision, we did not lead from position and privilege.  But instead we submitted to a year long process where different members of the community presented biblical perspectives on the issue, culminating in a 2-month long council to discern the issue.  In another case, an issue with someone on our shepherd board, the pastors were again in complete agreement in how to proceed, but the person involved was not receiving things particularly well.  So we brought the whole issue to our shepherd for their discernment, trusting that Christ would lead through this process and that all involved would both be formed into Christ-like character and that the issue would be resolved not through the imposition of a position, but through the constant relational work of the Spirit opened by practicing the death of leadership.

And while these types of processes are bolstered by a structure of co-leadership, it really comes down practicing the death of leadership on a personal level.  This is living without having to justify yourself, without having to constantly defend yourself to others.  It means not needing everyone to always understand you.  In the midst of arguments it means just sticking to the issues without getting personal or taking things personally.  It involves actively creating spaces for other to flourish while not receiving any credit and minimal appreciation.  It means giving over tasks and responsibilities that you really enjoy to someone else so they can grow.  It means submitting to others in the little things even when you have a sense they are wrong, and then only forcing issues when it is essential for the group to move forward.  In all these ways following Christ through the death of leadership entails overcoming personal insecurity and immaturity, so that one can rest in the work of Christ in the community rather than seeking to manage and control everything that is going on.

Now, you might be thinking that every Christian leader should exhibit these characteristics, the characteristics of the fruit of the Spirit.  Of course!  But it is much easier to hide immaturity and insecurity, to mask a lack of the Spirit’s work in your life in a hierarchical leadership structure which does not demand processes of communal discernment.  When someone knows exactly who is their superior and who is under them, then they know exactly how to get whatever “ego” fix they need, whether it is seeking approval or asserting authority, even while masking it as servant leadership, even while they excelling in various ministry results.  It is for these reasons that missional leadership, under the sign of the Cross, must nurture new structures, new processes, and new people who live, lead, and die, laying down their rights and status in love and becoming a servants to all.

Missional Leadership

So, then, how is the death of leadership also missional leadership?  First, the structure of co-leadership, the processes of communal discernment, and the practice of personal cruciformity are all ways of saying the same thing, namely, that this community is marked by the gospel, by Christ-likeness.  As I said before, if leaders do not it, then the community will not do it, and then the lost will not see it, and they will not get it even when they hear it.  Second, communities marked by the death of leadership will always be marked my brokenness growing into life.  When you lead this way it is impossible to put leaders on a pedestal, which opens the door for everyone to lead out of brokenness and into life.  When everyone is emptying themselves as Christ did, it has the strange effect of raising everyone up as they are deployed in creative expressions of the gospel.  Lastly, this is missional leadership, at least for us, because God moves in mysterious ways.  It is funny.  There are people in our congregation who literally say time and again to me, “I don’t know why I stay at Life on the Vine.  I don’t fit here, I’m not even sure that I like it hear, and I don’t like they way you do things.”  But it is those exact people whom God has used to bring others to Christ, and those people feel at home with us.  Isn’t that weird?  One man told me two years ago that he was discerning leaving our community.  But he had started a letter writing friendship with a man who was in prison for breaking into our sanctuary.  He eventually received Christ and was baptized on Easter Sunday.  There are at least two other stories I could share about people who really are upset with the leaders at Life on the Vine, but God is using them to bring people to Christ and then those people are finding a place among us.  I believe it is because the leaders at Life on the Vine have embraced a missional leadership of the cross, and out of that death the Father is exalting Christ and bringing others to life.

Conclusion

Some much more could be said, but my hope is that the next big thing the church is on the verge of will be the death of leadership as an expression of the gospel, as living in Christ-likeness, as a bearing the cross, not only personally, but structurally and procedurally.

This kind of leadership is certainly not from the top-down as in a hierarchy, nor is it merely from the bottom up, as some form of leaderless organization, nor is it a leading from the front as those who have gone before, as some missional books describe it.  But it is leading from below while running forward, as if one were trying to fly a kite when there is just not enough wind.  You are down on the ground, down below, yet moving forward, for the whole purpose of the church rising up on the breath of the Spirit, roaring high.  And people don’t watch the person holding the string, they watch the kite in its glory, rising to new life and love, and at the center of its frame it bears the sign of the cross.

By Adam Gustine

Recently, I have seen a slew of blog posts and twitter updates from pastors, both high and low profile, who have said something like, “I’m down on Christians who ____”, or “I can’t stand Christians who ______.”

This isn’t the, oftentimes, intense online dialogue between church leaders who hold differing views. Passionate critique and dialogue between ministry leaders can be helpful (although we cross a lot of lines here too).

These are pastors taking aim at ordinary Christians. Presumably, people in their community. I don’t know if you have noticed this trend or not, but it seems to be jumping out at me more and more. Sometimes it is explicit condemnation, other times it is a harsh, angry tone that seems to betray the same inner feeling.

This trend of pastors criticizing ordinary Christians raises questions about the role of leadership within the Christian community. Should leaders be focused on calling out the faults of their congregants, or should they be striving to serve and uplift them? Many Christian leaders are turning to the concept of servant leadership, which emphasizes humility, empathy, and a commitment to serving the needs of others. Resources that are available at https://kurtuhlir.com/definitive-guide-to-servant-leadership/ are becoming increasingly popular among Christian leaders who want to model a more compassionate and servant-hearted approach to leadership. It will be interesting to see if this trend continues and if more Christian leaders adopt a servant leadership approach in their ministry.

From what I can tell, the Christians these leaders are ‘down on’ are the ones who simply ‘don’t get it.’ The ones who have embraced legalism instead of grace, the ones who value tradition rather than the Spirit of God at work today, the ones whose character does not reflect the fruit of the Spirit.

But I have a few questions: What does it say about our character when we are willing to publicly insult or condemn someone, particularly someone who is part of the community of faith? How does this give evidence to the fruit of the Spirit in our lives? What is it doing to our souls as pastors when we publish the fact that we are ‘down’ on fellow believers?

Now, I am the first to admit that frustration seems to be part of the pastoral vocation. People who don’t see things the way you do, or have the same vision for the church, or who aren’t open to new or fresh approaches to being the church can create a lot of disappointment.

But it seems to me that if every Christian ‘got it’ there wouldn’t be much need for pastors. If we didn’t struggle with sinful self-centeredness, there wouldn’t be much need for grace either. So should the fact that people struggle to live faithfully surprise us?

The longer I reflect on this trend, and, quite frankly, my own heart, I find myself challenged by two insights that we should always keep in front of us as pastors.

1. Community is not an ideal.

It seems to me that at the root of many of these public attacks (that is what they are, after all, subtle as they may, or may not, be) is disappointment in the unrealized ideal of Christian community. A particular pastor is passionate to see the community he/she is a leader within become more faithful, to see more people come to a deeper understanding of grace and love. This is honorable.

However, the fruit of such a passion oftentimes is not. To this end, I am reminded of the words of Dietrich Bonhoeffer from Life Together.

He who loves his dream of a community more than the Christian community itself becomes a destroyer of the latter, even though his personal intentions may be ever so honest and earnest and sacrificial. God hates visionary dreaming; it makes the dreamer proud and pretentious. The man who fashions a visionary ideal of community demands that it be realized by God, by others and by himself. He enters the community of Christians with his demands, sets up his own law, and judges the brethren and God Himself accordingly. He stands adamant, a living reproach to all others in the circle of brethren.

I think this is an accurate diagnosis of the root problem. As pastors we tend to gravitate toward, and think highly of Christians who ‘get it’ like we do. Those who don’t get it, well it would be better if they weren’t around. Those are the Christians in the crosshairs of our venom. Bonhoeffer points out, that even our judgmental pretension can come from decent intentions. But at the core it is fatally flawed.

This leads me to the second insight; this time from Eugene Peterson.

1. Our job as pastors isn’t to fix people, its to lead them to worship God.

Eugene Peterson reflects on his own experience in pastoral ministry, and the constant struggle pastors have in this regard.

I suddenly realized that I was gradually becoming more interested in dealing with my congregation…as problems to be fixed rather than as members of the household of God to be led in the worship and service of God….I was slipping into the habit of identifying and dealing with my congregation as problems, reducing them to problems that I might be able to do something about.

By reducing them to problems to be fixed, I omitted the biggest thing of all in their lives, God and their souls, and the biggest thing in my life, my vocation as pastor.

When we take to public criticism of our congregation, I think that we have reduced the people of God to problems for the fixing. Maybe the frustration that spills out into the blogsphere stems from our anger that we haven’t, as of yet, figured out how to find the solution to the ‘problem’ people in our community. Perhaps, we find the rant to be therapeutic for our fragile egos that so often feel as though we ought to be able to have an answer for everything; we ought to be able to solve every problem, and we have decided that problem is a person(s).

In doing so, we have utterly missed the point. God is wooing people to himself, we are driving them away. Unfortunate indeed.

I am struck by how often these pastor’s public statements invoke Jesus public statements against stale religion and legalistic ritual. It seems we use Jesus condemnation of the Pharisees, and pharisaical religiosity, to go after people in our church.

But, while it is true that Jesus was not a fan of ritual religiosity, isn’t it accurate to say that his public condemnation was for the religious leaders themselves; who used their expertise, authority and power to oppress the ordinary person; the leaders who had a very narrow definition of what true belief looked like in practice and used that narrow definition to control people and get them to submit to their religious agenda?

When we make public pronouncements about ordinary people and their faith and criticize them for their failures and create division by defining the people who get it and applauding them over against the people who don’t; aren’t we doing the same thing? Who is the Pharisee in this equation? I’ve come to think Jesus might have stronger words for us than for the people we are so fixated on.

There is a difference between calling people to faithfulness through the proclamation of God’s Kingdom from within a particular community…and taking potshots in the blogosphere.

I don’t speak as one who has conquered this in my own heart. The trends I’m seeing are at work in my life, the same way I’m sure that they are lurking just around the corner for most pastors. I’m sure I’ve transgressed in this area, and I’m sure I will again. In fact, the longer I have reflected on this, the more I see my need for repentance.

In times like this, I’m thankful for the reminders from men like Bonhoeffer and Peterson. I’m thankful that they saw/see it better than I do, that there are more charitable and grace-filled voices that call us into our true vocation as shepherds within the community of God.

And I’m REALLY thankful God doesn’t log every way in which I fail to ‘get it’ and write blog posts about it…

Adam Gustine is senior pastor at First EFC in Brooklyn, N.Y. You can follow Adam on Twitter here.

by Ben Sternke of Christ Church in Ft. Wayne, IN.

Over the past few years I’ve spent a lot of time looking into church planting practices, approaches, methods, etc. I’ve also been looking at the mission context we’re working in here in Fort Wayne, listening to the Spirit, and learning about how I am wired as a leader.

One of the practices I’ve come across is that of organizing a church as a network of mid-sized missional communities (MCs). MCs are “extended family”-like communities of 20-50 people with a common mission focus, usually a relational network or a neighborhood. One of the first questions I asked was “What’s the big deal with mid-sized communities? How are they different from small groups with a mission focus? Or from a house church?”

When I first asked the question, I had no idea how deep the rabbit hole went! But after a lot more reading, talking, and observing in various contexts, I have come to believe that organizing a church as a network of mid-sized missional communities holds tremendous promise in reaching post-Christian contexts.

I recently wrote a series of blog posts exploring mid-sized missional communities from a biblical, historical, and sociological perspective, highlighting how they are different from small groups, and sharing some of the specific transitions we are making this summer in our church plant that will move us in this direction.

These posts barely scratch the surface of what missional communities can be, but hopefully they will function as catalysts for you to explore them in more depth and seek to apply them, with the guidance of the Spirit, to your context.

1. What’s the Big Deal?
2. What Does It Look Like?
3. The Early Church
4. Oikos in the Bible
   
5. Sociological Matters
   
6. Being the “Right Size”
   
7. Is Structure a Dirty Word?
   
8. Making Disciples
   
9. A Culture of Discipleship
   
10. Our Path to Get There
11. Challenges of Transition

David Fitch has an excellent post on the topic of “flat” leadership on his personal blog. It’s worth reading as it is sure to stimulate some good thinking about leadership in your context.

He writes,

“Much has been made about flat leadership in the missional church. Flat leadership of course refers to non-hierarchical forms of church leadership structure. In my experiences, there are various reactions to it. Some assume flat leadership is a reaction to abusive authoritarian structures of leadership. Still others complain that flat leadership means no leadership. Some like it because, in the midst of conflict or confusion in the local church, flat leadership means we talk more or tolerate each other more. For me, all of this misses the point of flat leadership….”

Continue Reading the rest of his post here.