So, this is one of the more important things I’ve learned recently.
Dr Paul Borden, the equivalent of a Baptist bishop, has led the turnaround of literally hundreds of churches,in different denominations, on different continents and cultures, so he is the closest thing to an authority on this point.
He says that 10% of Senior Ministers are natural leaders; 20% will never really have what it takes to lead a church into growth; and that 70% of Senior Ministers can be coached / developed into becoming significantly better leaders.
It seems to me that we often focus on the 20% (and complain about them); or the 10% (and go searching for more of them – this is especially where the whole church planting deal is focused).
Both those approaches have their place, but they are the wrong thing to concentrate on. Weeding out is not the solution; church planting is not the solution. We could do much better as a Diocese if we seriously concentrated on the 70%.
Remember, we have stalled as a Diocese in terms of growth; we’re going backwards relative to population growth. Concentrating on either the 10% (and planting a few more churches), or the 20% (and trying to shift them sideways), is not really going to change things; it’s not really going to reach tens of thousands of people.
But, if we could genuinely help the 70% of Senior Ministers who are not really sure how to effectively lead their churches into growth, and see them move into 10% growth per year, then literally thousands of people would be reached – though it would happen in lots of small ways.
How do you help the 70%? I’d partner with their churches to sponsor 10-20 per year to do a DMin in the United States. We simply do not have the same quality of leadership training available here. And it’s great to see how other places do things.
This would be the best $360K per year we would ever spend, and in 12 years we would have invested in the whole 70% – we’d have the best trained Senior Ministers, both theologically and in terms of leadership, in the world!
Andrew
does this mean 90% of churches aren’t growing 10% a year?
and before Michael J jumps in to defend MTC again (sic him Mike) can you give us a link to the Trinity D Min and/or a rough idea of what costs and time are involved.
(btw – I’ve got a post tomorrow on sydneyanglicans.net on what to do with the 20%.)
Mike,
not sure precisely about the stats, but one thing we do know – those that are growing are balanced out by those that are not growing, because our net growth is very small. So I’m guessing 10% are growing strongly (more than 10% per year for more than 3 years); maybe another 10-20% are growing a little (under 10% per annum for at least 3 years); lots are pretty stagnant, and then 10-20% are going slowly backwards, and another 10% are going rapidly downhill. But I want to do some work on it.
The Trinity Evangelical Divinity School DMin link is here.
The cost is around A$6000 per year for 6 years – $3,500 course fees, $2000 plane trip, $500 accommodation on site, food etc. The time cost is 2 weeks on site per year, and then the assignments at home – but they are directly on the church you’re serving.
I’m learning more now than at any time in my life – except when I was MTC, which I loved, and still do!
I’m looking forward to the post tomorrow – see if you generate as much of a furore as last time!
Thanks for the quick reply
As you do more work on the numbers, I’d be interested to know how you show correlation between the quality of leadership and the level of growth. If you can, then developing leadership is as significant as you say, and the $360k would be money well spent.
love the focus on the 70%, think this is one of your best.
not sure though why you propose such a radical disjuncture b/w the ‘pure theology’ training at MTC leading into ministry,
and then mostly ‘leadership’ training (TED’s D Min etc) for rectors… I agree both are necessary, and I have benefited by having them more in conversation with each other… in the crucible of ministry there is always a temptation to find a “technical” solution to what is often a “theological” problem – although the reverse can also be true!
From my experience at Fuller a decade ago, and particularly my assoication with the DePree Leadership Centre, I concur about leadership training being way, way ahead in the states, although I think the Arrow programme, though I’ve not been personally involved, seems to be bridging some of the gap.
This would be the best $360K per year we would ever spend…
Would it make more sense to use this money to beef up local post grad training?
— Would it make more sense to use this money to beef up local post grad training? —
My off-the-cuff guess is that’d involve way more paperwork.
Another very interesting and thought provoking post!
Are there ways that Moore College could be improved to better train and/or filter out the people who will never be good leaders? Should it widen it’s training to include a focus on the leadership subjects you are studying now? Or should this be reserved for post-Moore study at another college?
Ok, here I go…
Actually, I agree here. We at Moore are not set up to provide the kind of training Andrew is after – and we are a long way from being able to do so. We don’t have people qualified to teach to the kind of level that is required in these fields.
Steve – we don’t actually act as the filter, either: MT&D does that pretty much. We serve as their eyes and ears as far as possible, but it is their responsibility to say yea or nay.
We have a cultural antipathy to outside ideas which is actually quite immature – and which is an obstacle to Andrew’s plan gaining acceptance. We still think ‘if we didn’t think of it, it probably isn’t very good’. I don’t know how we can change this. It is a reaction to the time, not so very long ago, when we assumed that if it was local it was crap, and looked to Britain for all the leadership. Remember, it was the 60s before we had our first Aussie Archbishop!
Geoff is close to articulating what I want to keep saying about the inadvisability of quarantining theology from practice… can it be done? At least TEDS is a trusted place I guess.
10 per year over 6 years @ 6k means
year 1 60K
year 2 60K + 60
year 3 60 + 60 + 60
year 4 60 + 60 + 60 + 60
year 5 60 + 60 + 60 + 60 + 60
year 6 60 + 60 + 60 + 60 + 60 + 60
its not a big start up cost, and its not until yr 6 that you are forking out $360K
by which stage you have 60 leaders in a Dmin!
the cost at yr 6 is 1.26 mil. (and TEDS is loving Sydney!)
if you stopped funding these 60 and saw them all through it would be a cost of 2.52 mil over 11 years.
not sure how you work out a cost benefit ratio.
if there are 250 parishes, with 70% who are improvable through a DMin you would need to find scholarships for 175 elders.
120 leaders over 11 years in a Dmin is 5.04 million.
those 120 parishes would have leaders who under God might help them to grow their people budgets etc
which at 10% per annum on a $100k year 1 budget is about $77 K over 6 years.
if they all did this (ie grew by 10% per year starting on a $100 k average ) , there would be after 6 years an extra revenue of 9.24 million which is about close to double the cost of 120 Dmins ( and you still have 6 years of growing revenue to come) and I have compounded the growth figures?
I did 2 unit maths in 1989.
the question is, are there other (more effective) ways of investing $5.04 million over 11 years to produce 120 effective, growing churches.
p.s is knowing your in the 10% naturals a bit like a JW knowing they are in the 144 000?
Shane,
always important to do the math!
Two other thoughts – the $5.04M would be 3-6% of the total Diocesan budget, which gives some perspective.
And second, the ‘return on the investment’ of the DMin’s would continue for the life of the minister, not just during the funding period, so you could extend it even further by adding the next 20-30 years of increased revenue.
I’m not sure that there is a more effective spend!
And I suspect that thinking too quickly that you’re in the 10% is a pretty sure guarantee that you’re not!
Love the blog – been catching up as a late comer.
On this discussion there is another way to skin the cat to make it more affordable for more sooner!
If the church, the minister, and the diocese split the cost in thirds. The $2000 price tag per group is affordable and is only a fraction more than an MA unit at MTC.
Personally I think MTC should think about developing a DMin course similar to TEDS. $5M (or even a third of that) could go a long way towards a new department there. they could fly out TEDS and other specialists to deliver units until they had build up the staffing levels in this department. However, I guess given the GFC and tightening of the purse strings a new department is the last thing on their mind.
Bazz, great to hear from you.
Good move to split the cost – that’s the arrangement i came to with the wardens here.
But I think Mike J is right that MTC is not really set up for it, and the benefit of seeing other people / churches / styles overseas is terrific.
Wow, can we farm out those warden’s out around the diocese!
I wouldn’t mind a little of that ‘financially subsidized’ O/S study action!
You would need to ship the rest of parish council out with them I fear.
And you definitely can’t have them – they’re great!
just thinking a little creative, Moore could put a Dmin in place and outsource some of its stuff to somewhere like TEDS – much cheaper to fly 1 to Aust then 60 to the US
and we do have SOME practitioners here who would bring great value to the learning, in a context that is more similar –
the reality being most churches need to move from 100- 200- 300 – 400 , very few from 1000-2000.
IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO SPONSOR ME AND MY RELATIVELY POOR CHURCH – I WILL GLADLY START A DMIN AT TEDS.
Shane,
so quick to the ‘see trough – insert snout’ response!
And it’s not your church – that would be a little (!) rector centric.
How would the 70% be determined?
A starting point would be simply to ask them to self-select! It’s just so crazy that it might work.
If what was offered was not punishment but coaching, then I think this could be really effective.
But then, a next step would be to go through the Parish statistics, and find those that are declining or plateaued, and then approach those Rectors and see if that have eyes to see and ears to hear.
I don’t think this part of the program would be that difficult – it’s at the next level that the real challenge lies.
Of course, you needn’t wait for the Diocese to set this up. It will be quicker to follow Andrew’s lead.
Hi Andrew,
Just came across your blog, and finding it really interesting.
Just a point, how do 10-20 churches sustain growth when their Senior Minister heads off for a year (particularly since there are no longer Assistant Ministers around to keep things stable)? Would the momentum lost from bringing in an interim set the church back more than the additional training for the Senior Minister would take them forward?
Nate, good to hear from you.
Sorry not to be clearer. The DMin program is typically done part time while you stay in your job, and in fact is thoroughly integrated into the ministry you’re serving at the time.
But if you are doing it in the United States…?
Nate,
so the deal is that you do some reading at home, go the US for a week of lectures, and then come home again and send the assignment over.
I’ve done 3 subjects like that now, and found it to work really well.
Hope that’s a bit clearer!
Andrew,
love your IRTD “sermon series”
Question though, (assuming this 10-70-20 breakdown is accurrate )
how do you determine who the 70% are?
I reckon that some of them would think they belong to the 10% category, and thus don’t need this exra training. Particularly the older minister who has been around for a while and doesnt want to be told to go back to school!
Also are we focusing on newly ordained senior ministers, all senior ministers, or all potential senior ministers?
Mike,
glad you could drop in.
In a sense, I think the 70% choose themselves – ie. where the church is not really finding a way forward and has been stuck for some time.
I think there are ways of gently persuading a Rector to go back to school (nice phrase). Bishops have a good deal of persuasive power, etc.
If they don’t want the help, then it could be made clear that they really won’t be getting any help – grants, etc. That is, they can’t have it both ways.
This is a really interesting topic. As someone trained in Sydney, now working in the North East of England and lapping up leadership input from the States lots of what’s being said resonates strongly.
I want to make two comments –
First about leadership training. It seems to me that a doctorate programme isn’t the only way to learn, in fact when it comes to leadership it may be on the less effective end. What about a mentoring scheme, there are great ones out there – check out churchleardersinsights.com for an example. Mentoring is something that could be imported fairly easily and doesn’t require a theological college to work. Even more simply we could start by finding the gems from the classic leadership and management books. By all means send (some?) people off to the states to do the doctrates, but don’t think it’s the only way to learn.
Second, about the 70%; I don’t think we should be on a search for the inneffective, but we should be challenging and encouraging everyone to take possitive steps to grow and learn as leaders – even the 10% uber leaders – and we don’t need to wait for the diocese to give us a push, we can encourage each other.
Not having done the MTandD programme I may have missed it, but standing on the outside looking in it seems like this is one of our areas of weakness in Sydney. Is it possible that we’ve been so focused on thinking theologically that we’ve neglected topics like management, leadership and church growth, which are the mechanical or practical aspects of leading a church? If that’s the case then any work on leadership would be steps in the right direction.