So, this is the biggy; this is the one where deeply held theological intuitions run into urgent ministry needs. This is the one where that dreadful fault – the intermittent appeal to the sovereignty of God – makes its regular appearance.
If the 2 most urgent changes needed for church life revolve around building bridges into the community through programs of care and engagement, and that will absolutely necessitate raising up and developing leaders, then the third crucial change is this: to give the gift of accountability.
Virtually none of it exists in our churches at the moment. We are utterly terrified of it. We don’t believe in it – because, we say, our job is faithfulness, not fruitfulness (although you might have an argument with Jesus about that – Jn 15.1-7, Lk 19.11-27).
There’s lots to say here, but since this is just a thought experiment, go with me for a moment. Because the necessary machinery of accountability is having a goal and having to report on that goal.
So, here’s what I’d do. Every single ministry area within the church would be coached to generate some agreed goals – both process goals (do this thing), as well as outcome goals (see this result) – and then a reporting schedule would also be developed and adhered to.
This would apply to small groups, services, growth in number of members, evangelism, ministry teams – everything! And it would utterly revolutionize our churches.
Katay – I like the idea as
1) accountability keeps the main thing the main thing.
2) accountability creates intentionality.
Just a question… how do you set the goals (and who sets them. And how do you measure the goals (and who measures them)
Important questions, John. Here’s my thoughts.
the first question actually breaks into 2 parts – who sets them? Answer: both the one holding accountable and the one being held accountable, agreeing together. And second, by what criteria do they set the goals? Answer; sanctified intuition. That is, taking a prayerful, modest, realistic guess at what is genuinely achievable, based on experience.
That’s why I think the 10% goal is so unhelpful (even as an impossible goal to get us thinking) – it doesn’t actually get us thinking, because it can’t provoke action that could achieve it. Whereas the 80% of churches growing by at least 10% per annum is a realistic goal that could evoke all sorts of creativity.
And I think the measurement needs to be included as part of the goal statement. Measurement an be done either by counting things, or by surveying people. And the final leg of the stool is reporting and review – set time frame for reporting, set meeting.
Have you seen anything like this work in a ministry context?
I’ve seen it started, but not followed through. The reason for this is a loss of focus and drive… ‘it seemed like a good idea at the time’ sort of thing. It really requires someone to keep pushing the agenda as otherwise it can get lost in the background noise of church life.
Yes, I fear that ‘someone’ has a title – it’s called being the Rector! (See my facebook status!)
I have a “yes, but” feeling about this suggestion. I’m reminded of a complaint I heard from teachers when the competency based curriculum (from what I understood perhaps the ultimate in accountability systems) came in, that the amount of time reporting actually detracted from teaching well. I also can’t help thinking that goals are included in the set of things that make good servants but lousy masters. I worry that ministry is being turned into a something which can be project-managed, so that the church is being conceived of as a machine we can operate, rather than an organism whose growth is from God.
That the growth is from God is part of the point of the “faithfulness not fruitfulness” idea, which you don’t really interact with. I’d suggest another path. Accountability as you’ve described it may be a culturally useful label for senior ministers to work with those in their care without being seen to be interfering. There is the opportunity for affirming the ministry, for listening in detail to lay people (or staff members), for coordination with other ministries, ie for healthy communication. And to pray for God to do big things. Just provided the goals don’t become a new law, which defines who is successful and who isn’t. Which is another point of the “faithfulness not fruitfulness” idea, which frankly is looking better the more I think about it. 🙂
Andrew, thanks for joining in.
The point about time taken in reporting is a good one, but not sure that I’m talking about a lot of form filling – just a few quick metrics.
More substantially is the ‘faithfulness-fruitfulness’ issue. 2 thoughts
First, yes it is God who gives the growth – always God who gives the growth – and it seems to me that the primary work to which the Apostle puts that point is that therefore ministers are nothing – great point! We tend to use it slightly differently, however – namely, that therefore we don’t give the growth. The reason i raise this is that in the next paragraph, Paul changes the metaphor to a building (“God’s building”), but has no hesitation to say that builders such as himself and others, do the building. The issue here is that they need to build carefully, and their work will be assessed and if their building is done poorly and is burnt up, they will be judged.
Underlying the ‘faithfulness – fruitfulness’ thing I fear is a dualism which is either -or; either God is building or I am building, but it can’t be both – yet Paul doesn’t seem to go down that track.
Second, the idea behind the ‘sanctified intuition’ point was the purpose of setting goals was nothing more than to trigger re-thinking – “we didn’t get we thought we’d get – is there anything we need to take notice of here?”
It seems to me that’s how to keep goals as good and faithful servants; whereas, at the moment, I wonder if goals are more like AWOL!
I agree with your point about dualism, though the judgment in 1 Cor seems to be more about process (what kinds of materials were used, aka faithfulness?) than results in the sense of a finished building. Your AWOL point is well taken, and the heart of what you’re wanting to address.
I guess I’m thinking from my experience with bureaucracy (the ultimate social machines), where goals become masters, often at odds with reality, often being an exercise in looking like we’re doing the right thing. Something, of course, the church would never do! I know that’s not what you’re intending, in fact you’re wanting to counter that. But if my unease is not just an idiosyncratic opinion it will be important to describe how the goals will be servants and benefit the process of ministry. Which you’ve made a good start of above, I think.
Andrew,
I love this blog & want to read it all but you’re making my eyes feel old. Can you up the font size? Could that be an agreed goal?
tech support reply: most browsers let you increase the font size of web pages by holding down the ‘ctrl’ button and moving your mouse’s scroll wheel
On a mac press ‘ctrl’ + +
sorry, ‘command’ ++
Mike, I wish I could, but deep down I’m incompetent, and don;’t know how, without changing the whole look of this thing – any suggestions?
Andrew, thanks for clarifying – I guess I’m coming from the other side of things, having never been in a bureaucracy, and as you say, wanting to add some rigor.
I was thinking that maybe another way to come at goals would be to say that what they really amount to is a super-clear answer to the question, ‘So what exactly is involved in being a … (small group leader, team leader for the carols by candle-light, team member for the outreach team to the men’s hostels in Ashfield etc).
When someone asks a question like that, and you start to give an answer, then not very far behind will be, ‘And what does it look like when I’ve done that well?’ etc Again, all an attempt to not have them as masters, but genuinely have them as servants.
Mike, a solution to the viewing! I’m using Safari, and it has a drop-down menu called View, which includes a command ‘apple ++’ or ‘command ++’ which makes the text size bigger!
Do you use a mac? Safari? and if not, could you tell me if this works?
Ctrl ++ works for PCs.
I’ve used a Mac since 1987 & this is the first time I’ve seen ‘View Make Text bigger’. And it works. Thank you.
(Longer term it may be worth changing for the sake of people as technically challenged as me. But now I can read it – so thanks)
In the corporate world, goals and accountability are closely related to how you are treated by the organisation. Achieve your goals and be rewarded, fail and you’re punished.
I fear that a regime of goals and objectives will lead to performance based churches (where we hear comments like “he’s good value”). A far cry from grace!
It’s really important to think through how we treat people when they achieve, or fail to achieve, goals.
Greg, thanks for joining in.
I completely agree about reward and punishment – no place for that in a community of grace.
But I don’t think the only alternative is goallessness – which is basically what we have at the moment.
I guess what I’m shooting for is gracious goal-setting, which I’m suggesting is achieved by a) making sure both the senior minister and the person are involved in setting the goals; b) setting the goals according to ‘sanctified intuition’, not outrageous goals; and c) the primary consequence of falling short of goal is to engage in a serious re-think (not punishment).
That said, if after a couple of runs around this circuit, a person just isn’t up to the job, then it seems to me in the end you’re doing them, the church and the kingdom a favour to find them a role that better suits their gifts.
In this thought experiment we really do have to think hard about punishment for inaction and incompetence in the church. I think that it is too light to say that individuals should not be punished because we are a community characterized by grace. What about the injustice of a congregation wasting money on a pay packet for incompetence and inaction?? The habit of the church is to, as you say, find a new role that suits their gifts (probably without adapting the pay packet…). If we have the kingdom at heart we should only encourage the cream of the crop into full time ministry, if we have to create new demeaning roles for people who are just not up to it instead of laying them off, then ministry will be in a sad state of affairs. 10 years down the track, as the PTC credits stack up :P, and with no advice towards getting a “regular” job a lousy individual ends up senior minister…
In my view the church can’t have it both ways, that is to expect the same financial benefits of the corporate world, yet omit the levels of accountability that come with it.
Nonetheless, there is room for grace, by providing every opportunity for success, by not pegging success to growth in numbers, by training, by coaching, by mentoring and by minimizing the workload. There has to be a point, you would think, where the corporate salary is not worth the results, and such the most gracious thing to do is to set an individual up with a new “regular” job. In time they may be called back to full time ministry, but there is a point, I don’t know where it is, but i think a life of sinfulness is not the only criteria for laying off church ministry staff.
Mike, thanks for joining in.
I would put it slightly differently, I guess, but that’s pretty much what I was trying to say by finding the person another role. Although, for what it’s worth, I don’t know many lazy ministers.
One of the keys is making sure we have a culture which is really clear that being in ‘full time ministry’ is not somehow the pinnacle of being a Christian. That makes leaving it easier.
One of the keys is making sure we have a culture which is really clear that being in ‘full time ministry’ is somehow the pinnacle of being a Christian. That makes leaving it easier.
Was this a typo?
Matt, thanks for that! Not Freudian I hope!!
I’m with you on the need to think about how to actually see some fruit, but I do have some questions which I think need thinking about before we head down the path of church KPI’s (for want of a better term):
1. I believe Willow Creek did a similar thing and ran into trouble in that the volunteer congregation members (on whom much ministry depends, particularly if you’re talking small groups) didn’t buy the “let’s all have set goals” approach to ministry. It’s one thing to set particular goals for staff, but another to get your volunteers to march to the same tune. Any thoughts on how to ensure the volunteer workers in church to come to the party?
2. Is there a plan to deal with the pastoral fallout of such an approach, ie the moving aside of failed rectors, the congregation members who are tired of nervous church leaders who “beat the sheep” in order to reach the goal etc?
3. Who does all the analysis and training? I imagine to do this for every church in the diocese would require an army of non-parish based staff. Who pays for this, and who do you recruit?
As I said, all for new ideas to see real growth, but the devil is in the detail…
Marty,
not sure about the Willow Creek case – I thought their issue was more around whether mere participation in programs lead to growth in discipleship, but you may be referring to something else.
Actually, I think this would be really well received by most lay people, for whom it’s part of their work world. It’s just giving a clear answer to the questions, ‘what is involved in this ministry / team, and what outcome is it trying to achieve?’
I suspect the truth is way down the other end – overwhelmingly, most ministry positions / teams would have nothing written and clear in answer to those 2 questions – what’s involved in being a Sunday School teacher? Oh, just teaching the kids the program!!!
And if this is core to the Senior Minister’s job, then he needs to make sure he’s good at it (I heard someone say yesterday that a professional (put Piper to one side for the moment) is someone who makes sure they can do the things they are supposed to do, and takes responsibility for their own training – you bet!). No need for any non-Parish army or analysts, is there?
Re my first question: I am talking about something different. It was in an interview with a former second chair at Willow who tried to set particular growth goals for small groups but the leaders didn’t buy in. If memory serves me correctly it was after a particular period of growth, which may mean the scenario was different to what you are talking about (ie how to get growth started). The lesson may be one of how to set successive goals in the life of the church, not necessarily the basic principle of using goals for lay leaders. Having looked over your previous posts I see that you’ve given an answer to my question anyway — it’s the senior leadership’s role to motivate the laity to come on board.
Re question 2: I’d still love to know who will look after the minister who after 15+ years in ministry (and 15 years out of any other vocation) is asked to move aside, especially if churches are spending their 90k on part-time/specialist staff. If a diocese were to head down this path, I imagine this would be a silent pastoral issue which would need adressing.
Re question 3: You speak in an earlier post of having a consultancy service which provides the analysis to the parishes. I imagine this would be no small project. Who would do this? MT&D as part of their shft of focus from assistants to presbyters?
Marty,
your question 2 is a good one. Transitioning out of one ‘career’ into another is a big ask. Not sure I’ve really broached that, although by implication, if a Senior Minister draws the conclusion that he just doesn’t have what it takes, then it will become an issue.
But the fact is that churches are not employment agencies, providing jobs for ministers who want them. THey run on people’s hard earned offertories, and I think it’s fair that church members expect high quality ministers. I don’t want to get simplistic about this – what constitutes a high quality minister is a complex thing! – but at the same time, that’s not the end of the spectrum we’re down. Rector is about the only job left with tenure!
And on question 3, I would build this into the Regional Bishop / Council role. I think it’s best done there, where there is ongoing contact with parishes, rather than with MT&D, who have no long term necessary connection.
I think you pick up on an important point, its easy enough to keep the ministry staff accountable, but keeping the leader of the flock accountable that is harder within the Sydney Anglican Warden and parish councilor structure. Is it up to the Bishops? Is it up to MT&D or is it up to the congregation?
Will you journey down the road of elders and deacons?
I think that if you are going to run the diocese you should revert back to the biblical model rather than make minor changes in the pre-existing structure…
Ah, Mike, you mean the Biblical proto-episcopacy that you find in Titus 1.5?
And if you could outline ‘the’ Biblical model – from the Bible – that would be great!
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/topicindex/71_Church_Government/1491_Rethinking_the_Governance_Structure_at_Bethlehem_Baptist_Church/
i agree with Piper’s analysis. Also there is a good discussion from Don Carson out there…
http://www.9marks.org/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID314526|CHID598014|CIID2157886,00.html
also a very important read on the issue is the writings of John Stott in the collection by Timothy dudley-smith … he writes some strong things about sydney anglicans i think all who frequent this blog should read… and hence i have typed it out for us all below…
”Anglican evangelicals may regard the historic episcopate as an acceptable biblical form of episkope (though it has by no means always conformed to the scriptural ideas of pastoral oversight). They may also value it as a symbol of continuity and a focus of unity in the church. But to acknowledge its potential value as a domestic institution is one thing; to insist upon it as a non-negotiable condition of union with all other churches is quite another. Those who do this are not only hindering the church’s advance to unity but infringing a principle which the churches’ lord laid down. They are teaching as a doctrine a precept of men. They are failing to subordinate tradition to Scripture.”pg. 288
another quote of less relevance but more stirring…
”We need to get the failures of the church on our conscience, to feel the offence to Christ and the world which these failures are, to weep over the credibility gap between the church’s talk and the church’s walk, to repent of our readiness to excuse and even condone our failures, and to determine to do something about it. I wonder if anything is more urgent today , for the honour of Christ and for the spread of the gospel, than what the church should be, and should be seen to be, what by God’s purpose and Christ’s achievement it already is- a single new humanity, a model of human community, a family of reconciled brothers and sisters who love their Father and love each other, the evident dwelling place of God by his Spirit. Only then will the world believe in Christ as Peacemaker.Only then will God receive the glory due to his name.” pg 301
Mike,
the second link doesn’t seem to work – could you check it – thanks
(I’ll say some more later on!)
Sorry but the URL has these vertical lines in it | | which aren’t recognized by wordpress as a link. Just Copy and Paste the entire thing into the address bar…
The John Stott is worthy of a read. Notice the urgency in his voice and this was written twenty years ago. Most of his concerns remain to be fixed.
It is worth reflecting deeply on the John Piper paper. This is a man who is has a deep knowledge of the word and is a great evangelical. Is it worth simply swapping the section on his baptist traditions with one for Anglican traditions and take it on??
I’m looking forward to Andrew’s response!
So, some preliminary thoughts about church governance.
1. There is no single ‘Biblical form of church governance’. The different texts do not fit together to make either a whole or a coherent picture. Run whatever you come up with over Corinth, and it won’t fit! Freedom should reign here.
2. Titus 1.5 legitimates episcopacy – that is, a person whose responsibility it is to appoint elder’s in churches. I’m not saying that Piper is therefore unbiblical in non-episcopal polity. But that he is plainly wrong in his claim in 1.7 of his ‘Rethinking the Governance Structure at Bethlehem Baptist Church’ that the local congregation should therefore call and approve – it may, but not should. All Baptist polity needs to come to terms with Titus 1.5.
3. Virtually all positions of leadership responsibility in the NT are by appointment, not a vote (maybe Acts 6.3 has a vote, but not for elders). Again, I’m not saying that voting is anti-Biblical; but I am saying that insisting on voting rather than appointing is anti-Biblical.
4. Plural eldership is not to become a fetish! There is no text which explicitly mandates it, although some assume it (but not in chaotic Corinth!)
5. Some elders teach, others don’t (1 Tim 5.17). In that sense, Anglican polity has a plural ‘eldership’, in that it requires a ‘cure of souls’ and ‘parish wardens’ who work together in the ‘rule’ (Paul’s word) of the church. Of course, any leader (of any sort) will make sure that the structure serves the body such that everyone serves according to their gifts, and “the whole body promotes the body’s growth in building itself in love” (Eph 4.16). So Shane, it’s all good!
6. Because of point 1, it’s best not to use New Testament terms for our governance. It will lead people to think that they have ‘the’ Biblical form of church government!
If that doesn’t get the fur flying, I don’t know what will!
interesting thoughts… u have kind of rejected the thinking of the three wise men though… Stott, Piper and Carson…
big move…i will respond later, exams call to be studied for.
Not so much rejected, as nuanced (to use a Carson-ism).
That is, all I reject is the rejection of episcopalianism, or the insistence on baptist or presy polity. I’m happy to live with them, and I want them to be happy to live with us!
Im back… Thanks for your initial thoughts, i’d love to hear some more because this topic cannot be surmised in only 6 points.
Some initial thoughts of my own are thus:
1. The church needs a body to manage two things – a – Theology, b – Money. At the moment the Synod manages everything – from theology to money to individual church leadership to who takes the minutes at the parish council meetings but has forgotten to obligue churches with OHS guidelines (another kettle of fish)
a- Theology. The Synod should continue to debate things like women bishops and the anglican stance on abortion etc. This will stop rogue ministers and conserve the unity of church theology. Done.
b – Money. The Synod should hold the titles to the land so that in the case of a dying church the four remaining congregation members cant sell the land and take home a million bucks each. In addition the synod should publish (Simpler and cheaper) award rates for church workers.
That is it! That should be its role and nothing more. (perhaps OH&S…)
Each church should be able to decide whether to have wardens and councilors or elders and deacons. Each church should be able to decide whether to have a congregation led structure or be pushed into a ministry team structure.
I was genuinely surprised to find so much of the individual church leadership is decided and ordained by Synod. (go to http://www.sds.asn.au to browse some…)
On John Piper and Voting. I do agree that his 1.7 argument is wrong. I don’t think he should have tried to back it up with wavering biblical evidence either.
However voting works in terms of synod decisions, election of elders and discipline.
Synod – synod is a democratic Parliament of churches where majority rules. This democracy shouldn’t be changed – you cant have the archbishop creating ordinances… they must be legislative bills.
Eldership – Within the churches, the community needs to elect those they trust with the word. Those who would appoint are the bishops and i see our bishop once a year and i doubt he knows them name of our minister… I doubt he could possibly know all the candidates let alone appoint wisely. Then there is the ordination process, where moore college grads become “acceptable” to preach the word…They are appointed in general but not to a parish. i think this can be improved. Why don’t lay ministers and elders without Moore college get ordained?
Here is an interesting point that may be a little far for this thought experiment. The church should internally elect “elders” that is anyone who teaches. That would mean that no ministry staff member would get paid unless they are voted in!
Biblical Elders are teachers in the church. Practically its your pastor, your youth minister, childrens minister, womens minister(call a deacon if u want to be petty), outreach minister,bible study leaders, respected/faithful older men in the churches, respected/faithful younger congregation members.
The church has adopted a careerism which is particularly unhelpful i think. Because of MTS, Moore college and different hierarchical levels and power in the church. There is high labor mobility and careerism. The paid ministry teams in the church are temporary and their underlying passion is to move on to a bigger office and a bigger church…(or a church plant.. whatever – the point is they see progress as leaving)
Those ministers should predominantly come from the congregation, they should not be a traded security. The church should encourage elders or other congregational members to get training and come back to their church to minister, rather than them leaving the church, getting a degree and getting a job in a different church where it takes years for them to know the congregation and minister effectively. The church is a community which needs to be led by its own members, or it will begin to foster an us and them mentality. congregation vs. paid ministry team…
Discipline – if anyone is to be thrown out of the church, the whole church needs to vote on it…
on” plural eldership is not to become a fetish”… there is no biblical example of a one pastor church. The first time that arose was in the time of Ignatius in a couple of hundred years AD. I’m only saying that i don’t think Anglican church leadership or Anglican church governance works well at all and the place i have gone to for solutions is the bible. That doesn’t mean that one is better than the other – ignatius’ (non biblical, non-apostolic )solution put Christianity back on the map and (after Diocletian’s massacre) led to Christianity being the acceptable religion to Constantine and the entire Roman empire. Nice…