Within Churches of Christ, the debate over the issue of leadership, which was generated by the Church Growth movement and the consequent emergence of large churches and team ministries, has continued fitfully, and occasionally acrimoniously, since the early 1980's. The debate was intentionally addressed by Ron Elbourne in an article he wrote for the Australian Christian in 1986, in which he argued the need for strong, transformational leadership.

A Contribution

I would like to make a contribution to this debate by attempting to clarify some of the factors involved. I will first make a few general observations and then specifically address what has been the focus of the debate, that is, large churches and senior ministers.

A Major Focus of Contemporary Debate

The issue of leadership is not peculiar to Churches of Christ, or even to the Christian Church. In an era of significant transition, the business and political world is experimenting with a range of leadership and management styles. While some are ideologically driven, others represent the reverse image of frustrating or alienating structures within which many of the present generation of leaders feel themselves imprisoned. The underlying, if untested, assumption of many of these transitions is that anything has to be better than the immobile Juggernaut over which they are presiding.

Current leadership models run the gamut, from autocratic hierarchical structures, epitomised by the empires of the media barons, to loose team networks that are formed and reformed around tasks, in which lines of responsibility/authority are more disguised. A range of new initiatives, of which this latter is representative, and which have been made possible by the cybernetic revolution, have yet to prove themselves. Women have also been contributing to the debate, both theoretically and through the development of leadership styles that are consonant with the priority women have traditionally given to relationships, networking and the consideration of special needs. It is also argued that leaders would benefit from meditation and that they should attune themselves to intuitive nuances.

Churches of Christ

Within Churches of Christ the leadership issue, within certain parameters bounded by our tradition of autonomy, invites wide-ranging discussion. This is partially a consequence of the freedom local Churches of Christ are able to exercise over structure and worship. It also results from the range of styles with which we have experimented, together with the fact that we have come to recognize that the way we have traditionally structured congregational government was based on a selective, culturally-biased reading of the Scriptures. We realize that our pioneers found what they wanted to find--patterns that reflected the prejudices of self-employed Britishers resentful of traditional authorities who limited their opportunities, the passions of an American frontiers population and the suspicions of an Australian pioneering, working-class stock who thumbed their noses at the high and mighty and challenged their authority.

A Sign of Health

That we are debating the issue of leadership is opportune and healthy. Given the magnitude of the ideological and structural changes that are transforming society, [1] it should be clear that the matter will not be easily resolved. In fact, it will never be resolved if what is sought is a single monochrome solution. Hopefully, what will emerge is a range of solutions and a spirit of mutual supportiveness that will encourage us to enthusiastically embrace this diversity. This is a big ask, but the alternative is a dance of recrimination that will bleed us to death.

The Focus of the Debate is Misplaced

While the leadership debate is inescapable, necessary and opportune, its focus is misplaced.

Most altercations are not exclusively rational. The fact that we are reluctant to confess to weakness in our logic or to the manipulation of factual data indicates that the debate is driven by emotional energy. The fact that we are often oblivious of this points to the unconscious as its source. Unless we are willing to recognize what is driving us, the debate will be a dispute between two blind contestants whose vaunted qualification is that they can see better than anyone else.

It should also be recognized that specific words, usually those under attack or those that become buzz-words, attract a range of connotations, that is, flavoured associations, in the course of their usage over time.

In recent years "hierarchy" has come under fire, especially from feminists, who have associated it with patriarchy and have regarded it as a demonic manifestation of male domination. However, while hierarchical structures offer unique opportunity for the abuse of privilege, they are not inherently dehumanizing. The universe is made up of hierarchies, as are even the most intentionally egalitarian social structures. This needs to be born in mind when we are debating the issue of small versus large churches. We need to challenge the emotive connotations of the words we use in debate.

Styles and Models

My major reason for suggesting that the focus of the leadership debate is misplaced is that disputants are arguing at cross-purposes, without it being recognized that this is the case.

In the course of the debate, I have discerned a failure to distinguish between styles and models. Styles are intentional and attitudinal. They have to do with one's inner being. Models are structural and are related to external observations.

Few are debating that our leadership should be a servant leadership. This issue is a question of style or inner attitude that one can carry into the discharging of leadership in any one of a range of models. There is no one model that is a servant model. In fact, what appear to be more egalitarian models, where there are no formal hierarchical structures, are often more at the mercy of self-appointed autocrats. Ironically, this is largely the consequence of the fact that there are no formal hierarchical structures and, therefore, checks and balances. It is also salutary to reflect on the fact that there were few more consummate autocrats that Paul, who is often quoted by proponents of a servant ministry!

To talk about differences between styles and models is merely to scratch the surface.

In a recent book, A Brief History of Everything, Ken Wilber has argued, with respect to truth claims, that phenomena can be looked at from four perspectives. The "holon", according to Wilber, is made up of four quadrants. Two divisions [2] constitute these quadrants, that is, the division between inside and outside and the division between individual and communal.

For instance, at the level of the individual one can look externally at the human brain, which can be observed and measured by scientific procedures. The human mind, on the other hand, that is, your internal experiencing of your thoughts and feelings, can only be known by someone else if they take the trouble to dialogue with you. The entity in either quadrant cannot be reduced to what appears as an equivalent in the other quadrant.

At the level of the collective, that is, where the individual is seen as, or experiences themselves as, part of the wider cultural community, the same phenomenon is operative. Communities can be measured by external criteria by sociologists that will reveal patterns of interplay. However, the experiencing of the cultural texture of such communities can only be known by those experiencing that culture from the inside. Dialogue and interpretation, through an increasing refinement of hermeneutical strategies, are necessary to evoke in the inquirer an understanding of what is being experienced by insiders.

In the debate over leadership, mis-communication is occurring because of a number of factors. First, interior dispositions are being equated with external models. Second, external phenomena, such as formal models of church government, appraised by external observation, are being equated with internal dispositions, such as servanthood. Third, and predictably, each side has a tendency to appraise their own approach on the basis of inner dispositions and the positive experiencing of the internal culture, while criticising opponents on the basis of purely external criteria. I have also observed, somewhat sadly, that those who have zealously attacked the demon of autocracy have, more often than not, been more autocratic in temper than those against whom they have laid this charge. This could, of course, relate to their frustration.

Large Churches and Senior Ministers

Some years ago I prepared a contribution to the leadership debate, which I felt might help us work our way beyond polarization towards a more balanced perspective. It arose out of an exchange of views resulting from an article on Leadership, which I contributed to the Australian Churches of Christ Historical Society Digest. At the last moment, I asked that the article not be published. I was too fragile and too exhausted to cope with the adversarial energies it could have evoked.

My attention was recently drawn to that article and I was asked if it could be disseminated. I was reluctant to give unqualified permission as the paper was written for a specific context and my own thinking has moved on. However, on re-reading the material, I felt it was worthy of publication as originally written, with several minor amendments. This paper addressed both the broader subject of leadership and the specific issue of large churches and senior ministers. It is reproduced in what follows.

The Focus

At the outset, let me indicate what I do not intend to do. I do not intend arguing, at length, for the legitimacy of a broad range of models. I attempted this exercise in 1982 in the pamphlet Ministry Models, where I briefly outlined the Traditional Model, the Church Growth Model, the Social Action Model, the Charismatic Model and the Relational Model, and where I argued that we must be willing and able to accommodate diversity and to encourage [another minister] whose style differs from ours, or, even worse, whose philosophy of ministry appears to contradict ours. [3] What I do intend to do, however, is to look closely at the model espoused by many of our senior ministers.

Two Reasons

There are two reasons why discussion of this model is critical.

First, the model is new and there has been insufficient time for us to become aware of its weaknesses. We have lived with several of the older models for enough years to be aware of their frustrating and inhibiting deficiencies. While we have had large churches and enterprising ministers in the past, the style of leadership practiced and advocated by many of our senior ministers today is unique in its mix of elements and in the fact that it is partly a product of contemporary Western society.

Second, within the course of our history as Churches of Christ, changes in theology have been preceded by changes in practice. While we have been afraid of theology, and even argued that we do not have any, it has never been difficult for us to justify the changes biblically. A people who have been more concerned with doing things, than with theological reflection, we have produced few theologians and have been supersensitive to rigorous critiquing of our position.

It should also be appreciated that, in the history of Churches of Christ in Australia, it is in our doctrine of ministry that the most significant and revolutionary changes have taken place. These changes, however, have taken time, which has allowed for unhurried reflection. Living in a world where change occurs with increasing and breathtaking rapidity, and being presented with a new, attractive, workable model of ministry, which is being strongly advocated, in print and by the very successes of its practitioners, we need to fast-forward the process of listing its strengths and critiquing its weaknesses.

Support for the Model

Let me affirm my support for the model of ministry espoused by those who generally describe themselves as "senior ministers". To work effectively within the parameters of this model requires a capacity for initiative, vision and a measure of entrepreneurial skill.

Leadership

I will approach this issue with random musings on the subject of leadership.

Made or Born?

In response to the question, "Are leaders made or born?", it is generally argued that qualities common to leaders, such as competence, decisiveness, courage, persuasiveness, dedication and hard work, can be learned and need to be developed.

Classification of Leaders

Leadership styles used to be categorized as autocratic, democratic and laissez-faire. We now recognize that the situation is far more complex and is better represented by a managerial grid that positions people between two axes, concern for people and concern for production. There are those who argue that the best leaders are those who score high on both indices. Some even go so far as to [4] contend that a person's leadership style can be correlated with the pattern of their childhood development.

Changes in Leadership Style

A further emphasis being made is that different leadership styles are appropriate for different situations and that leaders can change from one style to another as occasion demands.

Influence

It is also acknowledged that we are all leaders in the sense that we influence other people.

We influence others through an exercise of power associated with wealth, position, knowledge, charisma, organizing ability, integrity and love. Ainslie Mears, who argues that this influence is mediated through identification, conscious imitation, suggestion, exhortation and logical communication, suggests that we should ensure "that the unconscious side effects of our leadership work to the benefit of others or at least are not harmful to them".

The way we exercise the power we enjoy, and therefore our style of leadership, will be evident in the way we handle conflict situations.

Leadership and Management

It is important to distinguish between management and leadership. Managers, who are bound by limiting assumptions regarding the way tasks are structured, strive for efficiency within circumscribed parameters. Leaders, who grapple with unstructured problems for which they seek effective outcomes, are concerned with goal setting and innovative achievement. However, while leadership can be distinguished from management, leaders do have a limited managerial role, which includes such functions as delegation, enlisting and using the skills of others and motivating and encouraging them.

Vision and Initiative

Two qualities, essential to leadership, are vision and initiative.

Leaders are visionaries who are able to see the shape of the future they desire. They work on long-term goals. They are able to inspire their people to creativity by enabling them to gain satisfaction through the realization of intermediate goals. This, however, can be difficult, as we are dealing with people. While we can measure numbers at services, we cannot easily measure personal/spiritual growth.

Leaders are also initiators, i. e., they accept the responsibility of leading. They are pro-active rather than re-active.

Manipulation

To the criticism that strong leadership involves manipulation, it has to be responded that we all "manipulate", in the sense of needing to control our environment, which involves us, among other things, in influencing people. The question to be asked is not, "are they manipulating", but rather "In what direction are they seeking to steer us?" and "What are their motives?" [5]

Leaders accept the initiating role and are willing to influence the beliefs and behaviours of others. This is certainly one aspect of what we as ministers are seeking to do. In fact, if we abdicate our responsibility, we leave people at the mercy of a discordant chorus of competing world-views, many of which are capable of subverting the faith of ordinary Christians. However, in seeking to influence the beliefs and behaviours of others we need to scrutinize our motives, be sure of our goals and road-test the means we intend using to achieve them.

Change Agents

Leaders are concerned with organizational change, rather than mere institutional maintenance. Because of a built-in inertia, or resistance to change, society will be transformed through the persistence of the few with energy and vision. There is, admittedly, an element of irreducible elitism associated with innovative leadership. However, such leaders should not heedlessly and carelessly ride rough-shod over those who have not caught their vision.

Nevertheless, leaders are change agents who recognize that change will come about largely as a result of a widely perceived crisis and a consequent majority vote. They will seek to increase dissatisfaction with the status quo, or, as Paul Alinsky put it, "rub raw the sores of discontent".

They will develop coalitions, allies, committees and form initiating groups, support groups and a team of people capable of initiating the changes. As a consequence of initiating change, they will not be universally liked and will need to live with the alienated and the angry. This process involves high risk, but so too does indecision and lack of foresight, planning and action.

The Context of Leadership

Leadership doesn't occur in a vacuum, but within a specific cultural and organizational context. Leaders operate within a culture, a value context, which they, in their turn, will influence.

Leadership and Size

The style of leadership a church requires will depend, in part, upon its size.

In the small church, where relationships are small and familial, where people know each other and are known with a reasonable degree of intimacy by the leader, decisions will be made by the vote of the congregation. It is difficult to organize a congregation in this fashion when the membership rises above 100.

Middle-sized churches, according to Schaller, have between 100 and 200 at worship. In organizational structure, they are somewhere between the family and the corporation. They are caught between the survival goals of the small church and the aggressive entrepreneurship of the large church. They cannot function as participatory democracies and yet do not possess the personal or financial resources of the large churches. If they are small churches on the way up, rather than large churches on the way down or older churches that have plateaued, they are often frustrated by democratic traditions, by a persisting small church culture and by an entrenched and dominant lay-leadership. These "awkward", middle-sized churches do not have a lot in common with each other and are usually understaffed.

The sort of leader that best suits the middle-sized church is someone who can work with part-time paid staff and with volunteers and who can initiate and delegate. Such leaders have to cope with a degree of organizational complexity and [6] be able to conceptualize abstract ideas. They must counter the opposition of resident pessimists, have a strong future orientation and recognize the importance of music. However, because of the size of the church, they will not be able to spend a great deal of time with individual members on a regular basis and will, more likely than not, create, what Schaller has called, a AADEL club, made up of angry, alienated, older, ex-leaders.

In larger churches, which have more in common with each other than do middle-sized churches, the "senior minister" generally operates in a more autocratic way, whether this autocracy is blatant or disguised. As principal initiator, he works with a small group of collegial initiators. According to Schaller, ministers of larger churches must want growth, be oriented to the future, see opportunities where others see conflicts and problems, be willing to accept and fulfil a strong leadership role and serve as number one leader in the congregation.

Churches of Christ

Traditionally, the practice and polity of Churches of Christ has discouraged the development of large churches, despite exceptions. Local churches of Christ have been ruled by tribal elders. The full-time ministers servicing them have been treated as medicine men, rather than leaders. Leadership has resided in the more powerful of the tribal elders. It is interesting that, more recently, when new patterns have begun influencing the way churches organize themselves for evangelism, those churches that have shown considerable numerical growth have dramatically changed their organizational patterns. In some cases, older, traditional structures persist, but the real power lies elsewhere.

Large or Small?

The prior question of whether churches should be large or small is not easily answered. To quote Jesus or the early church is not always helpful. Jesus was preoccupied with a specific mission and there was no uniform pattern in the early church, which, anyway, was only beginning to find its feet. Furthermore, we have to live in our world, not the world of the first century. If Schumacher's vision of a world made up of small self-contained communities ever becomes a reality, the small church will certainly be the ideal. In the meantime, we need to learn how best to relate to, evangelize and serve the diverse, complex, and, in our case, technologically sophisticated and highly mobile communities, in which we in Australia live. It must surely be a matter of small and large churches, of formal structures and networking. In fact, the same group of people who do much of their shopping at church supermarkets for brand name products may also be involved in experiments in local communal barter.

One further factor, relating to church size, is worth mentioning. People, in terms of identity and esteem, generally relate socially to those above rather than below them. Because of this, not altogether healthy, reality, larger churches, which offer increased prestige, will be at an advantage. This will be partially offset by the reaction of those who find large churches impersonal.

Developmental Stage

The style of leadership that churches require will depend, not only on size, but also on the developmental stage the church has reached.

Radical movements have a tendency, over time, to develop into smooth-running organizations that gain community acceptance. Commenting on this phenomenon, Schaller argues that in the initial stage, leaders are highly visible subversive agitators. The next group of leaders are prophets, who change the focus from [7] discontent to goals. In the final stage, leaders are effective administrators concerned with harmony.

Marrying Minister and Church

The minister, when he/she changes churches, or grows a church to a critical size where changes in leadership style are recommended, has two choices. They may deliberately set out to change their leadership style. This is rarely easy. We become habituated to particular ways of behaving, particularly where they have been successful and when we are predisposed to them by personality type. If you are a people-person and have grown your church through pastoral contact, you may find it difficult to adopt a leadership style that takes you away from people and that requires of you an organizational expertise that you feel you do not have. The other alternative is to retain the pattern of leadership with which you are comfortable and attempt to modify it to suite the situation. This may work, or, on the other hand, it may curb the numerical growth of the congregation. Of course, you could argue that this is not a bad thing and that it is more preferable to develop satellite churches than to grow a mega-church.

Cognitive Capacity

Elliott Jaques has developed a theory of leadership that argues that our capacity for leadership is measured by our cognitive development, by the time-frame within which we operate, that is, by how far we plan ahead. Where Piaget contended that all people, in their cognitive development, travel the same path through an ascending series of stages, Jaques argues that there are a whole series of different pathways, or maturational bands, within which different individuals progress. Each of us travels on one the many pathways and each of these pathways begins at a lower or higher point on the time-frame scale and is associated with a different rate of progress.

If Jaques is correct, then it is obvious that different ministers are suited to different sized churches at different stages in their careers. Some would be stultified in smaller churches, while others would be overwhelmed by the organizational demands of larger churches. Furthermore, to suggest that we should all be ministering in large churches, or should grow our churches into larger churches, is to overlook our differing cognitive capacities. While God gifts us for ministry, by growing us as people and as Christians, and by developing actual or potential abilities, it seems quite unreasonable to expect him to give a person with a mismatched personality or spirituality style, or an inappropriate cognitive capacity, responsibility for a 2000 member church!

Ministry is Unique

I would also want to argue that, while Christian ministers will resemble their counterparts in secular enterprise in the organizational shape of their leadership styles, they will differ from most of them in certain important respects.

They will recognize that it is God's work in which they are engaged. It is God's people for whom they are responsible. They will wait upon God for guidance and empowerment. They will encourage his people, in growth groups and task groups, to foster and use their spiritual gifts for the building up of the Church and for its ministry and mission in and to the world. Above all, they will be people-centred. They will love. Hopefully, as they will grow in grace, their leadership will become less a matter of ego-satisfaction and more a matter of self-giving, compassionate service. [8]

Furthermore, the leadership offered by different ministers, of similar capacity, will bear the distinctive stamp of their personalities and specific abilities as well as their unique experiences and distinctive theologies. There are those who will feel called to grow churches after the pattern of Robert Schuller or Yongi Cho. Others, like Gordon Cosby or Jim Wallis, will develop alternative congregational structures that they feel allow for a more appropriate and healthy expression of the life of the Church as the Body of Christ or as a Community of Disciples.

Leadership a Necessity

However we envisage the shape of our ministries, and whatever the unique nature of our leadership style, we will be called upon to lead, to envision, to inspire and to initiate, to help our people be and do. We will be required to lead a body of people, which is at one and the same time a people-oriented community and a task-oriented structure.

Servanthood

It is often argued that we are called, not to assertive leadership, but to servanthood.

That we are called to servanthood is without question. Jesus showed the way and drove home the lesson with the enacted parable of the towel and the basin. However, the fact that we are to be servants to those of God's people for whom we have responsibility does not mean that we are not to give leadership. Jesus was both servant and leader, as was Paul. The nub of the matter is that we are to give leadership in a spirit of self-giving and servanthood, recognizing that those persons for whom we have been given responsibility belong, not to us, but to God. It is only as we serve our people through our leadership that they, as the local expression of the church, will understand how they can offer a servant leadership to the wider secular community.

Servanthood, as I argued in the preamble, is a matter of disposition, of style, and cannot be exclusively related to any one model.

Returning to the Subject of Large Churches and Senior Ministers

I have argued, hopefully convincingly, and with certain cautions, that there is an important place for large churches and for creative, visionary and energetic leadership in the life of our churches and of that of other communions.

I would also like to place on record my appreciation of the inspiring leadership offered by many "senior ministers". They have helped us lift our sights and have generously shared themselves and their insights. A diverse group in personality, style and theology, their contribution has enriched us.

Several Concerns

While endorsing the legitimacy of this new and unique model of ministry, that is, as one among many, I would like to argue that some, often unintended and unrecognized, implications of the approach are disquieting.

While there is considerable diversity in the approaches of different of our senior ministers, there is sufficient in common for me to critique a recognizable model. This will mean, however, that the issues I raise will not all be relevant in every case. [9]

Issues Relating to Ethos

First, there are concerns associated with the mix of elements that make up the ethos of the model.

Criterion of Effectiveness

There is a tendency for the rhetoric advocating this model to imply that ministerial effectiveness is to be measured primarily by an increase in membership?

Such a judgement may be unintended, and it may be argued that it is people and not numbers that are important. Nevertheless, it can hardly be denied that numbers do not assume a critical importance or that judgement of one's effectiveness is, in considerable measure, determined by numbers.

It could also be argued that a particular style of leadership is considered authentic, appropriate or successful, if, and, when there exists a body of persons who deem it to be so on the basis of a set of accepted criteria. Others, giving priority to other factors, will not view the same behaviours as leadership, or as successful leadership.

Perceptive observation and cross-cultural studies, which have pointed in this direction, have been recently endorsed by substantial research data and scholarly opinion, which argues that a specific leadership style is perceived to be leadership by those converted to its unique inner logic.

Bigness Equated with Health

While this implication is rarely explicitly argued, exposition of the model tends to promote the idea that bigness is an important criterion of health or effectiveness?

I am not suggesting that bigness is a disvalue, that it is wrong for churches to be big. In appropriate circumstances some churches ought to be big. On the other hand, however, other churches will have little opportunity of being anything other than small. It is one thing to exult, "Isn't it great that our Church is now large and can cater for a wide spectrum of need". It is another thing to say that churches should be big, or that bigness is a major criterion of valid ministry or church health. We should seek to grow our churches, but not primarily so that they will be big, even if size does offer additional opportunities for ministry and mission.

Factors Often Overlooked

I would also like to suggest that the rhetoric that suggests, consciously or by implication, that size is important, tends to overlook three important factors.

The first of these is that in Australia, as in the United States, the larger churches, if we look at churches over 500, account for. 7% of the total number of churches, despite the fact that, in a small communion like ours, they may account for a reasonable percentage of the State or Federal membership.

Second, only a small percentage of ministers have the personality and mix of gifts that fit them for the style of leadership that large churches demand.

According to Alon Gratch, who uses an instrument to measure ego development devised by Professor Jane Loevinger of Washington University, those who make the best leaders in the corporate world are located between the 3rd (conformist) and 5th (autonomous) stages. It is the "tamed rebels" in the 4th (conscientious) stage and not the "integrated" of the 6th stage that make the best leaders. They are also those who, according to Elliott Jaques, are able to plan years ahead. [10]

While I am not implying that "senior Ministers" have uncritically aped the management/leadership styles of the CEO's of the corporate world, I suspect that certain skills, analogous to those exhibited by those offering leadership in the secular world, on both sides of the management/labour divide, are required of those ministers who take on responsibility for large churches. It could also be argued, without attributing comparative value to their style, that those ministers whom one could describe as "tamed rebels", who are capable of planning years ahead and who have the mix of personality and gifts that suit the new model, constitute a very small percentage of our ministers.

Third, there is also a tendency to overlook the nature of the area in which the church is placed. Bible-belt territory is easier to "work" than are the inner or western suburbs, where numerical results are difficult to achieve and where the nature of ministry requires a different mix of skills and a different passion.

A Shrinking of the Circle of Decision-Makers.

It could also be argued that long ministries, that are associated with strong leadership, have a tendency to homogenize the lay leadership, particularly in large churches where the senior, decision-making, leadership base involves fewer people than in smaller churches?

Gathering a team of supportive elders is essential to any ministry. It is impossible to work effectively with a seriously divided eldership, particularly with people who are constantly sniping at you. However, it is equally disadvantageous to work with an eldership that is too supportive, that is, to work without some element of loyal opposition. This tendency, if not the full-blown reality, is potentially present in larger congregation where ministry has proved effective.

Let me hasten to add, however, that the problem of too homogeneous and uncritical an eldership is not confined to large churches where ministers have enjoyed effective long-term ministries. Leadership dynamics in smaller churches often prove equally dysfunctional, though mostly for different reasons.

A Subtle Seduction

The model under review, which is, at one and the same time, a reflection of older corporate structures that are currently under challenge and the phenomenon of Post-Modernism, is in danger of unwittingly capitulating to a not-so-subtle and largely a-moral commercial ethos.

Speaking evangelistically/commercially, rather than theologically/missionally, we need to market our product and to capture attention for our message. This may be a crass over-simplification, but it is a reality. Even prophets need to eat.

However, the more professional and successful our marketing becomes the more we are in danger of fostering religious consumerism and of secularizing our gospel, a phenomenon not inconsistent with traditional, conservative theology, as observation of certain American tele-evangelists will testify.

I also wonder whether the advent of large team-ministry churches, particularly in a competitive evangelical context, is not producing, through a more rapid turnover and transfer of members, the sort of homogenization that impairs theological or ideological commitment. [11]

The Flip-Side of Long Ministries

It is well established that Long ministries, particularly where strong leadership is given, are a problem for successors.

This is inevitable and is not easily overcome. Training local talent on the spot to take over the succession does not appear to have been all that successful. Perhaps it is a matter of engaging an interim minister to break the circuit.

Unacknowledged Consequences

I would like to draw attention to what I see as broader, often unacknowledged, consequences of the new model.

It is sometimes insinuated, usually in the sub-text, that adoption of this model is the only way to go. It is against the background of this perception, whether real or imagined, that I offer the following comments.

Other Models Inferior

While it is admitted that this may be more a matter of perception than reality, many ministers, operating out of alternative models, are left with the feeling that their models lack validity, or are inferior?

Such a perception belies the diversity of approaches in the New Testament to ministry. Furthermore, the gospel, in all of its richness, represents a much broader reach than that usually associated with the model we are considering. In this model, Kingdom issues of justice, peace and the integrity of creation are often less prominently featured than they are in some alternative models.

Other Ministers Second-Rate

Another consequence of the perceived implication, that the large-church model is the only way to go, is that ministers not servicing larger churches feel that they are regarded as second rate or under-achievers.

This perception undermines the self-esteem, and, therefore, the effectiveness of those who judge that they are being regarded in this light.

Compared with ministers of other communions, our ministers are at a disadvantage in being under considerably more pressure than their peers.

Full-time ministry within Churches of Christ was only grudgingly accepted and vestiges of the older attitude still persist. In addition, the pressure on our ministers to increase the size of their congregations is far greater than that in other Christian communions. This is partly a function of a traditional commitment to evangelism, of our size, of the increasing cost of ministry and of our lack of substantial endowments.

Furthermore, since self esteem is not derived from position or status, or even professional competence, within Churches of Christ, but is awarded on the basis of results [a dubious and stressful criterion], numbers of our ministers are necessarily defeated before they begin. For it to be suggested that they are second rate, whether intentionally or unintentionally, could deliver the fatal blow.

The Threat of a Class Structure Within Ministry

It follows from this that we are in danger of dividing ministers into two classes and of developing an incipient, unofficial hierarchy. [12]

The pursuit of excellence, or doing one's best, is to be applauded, though not as a means of over-reaching one's peers and therefore satisfying a desperate and insatiable need for acclaim, which is a self-defeating means of building self-esteem.

Coming to terms with who we are, self-acceptance, self-esteem, are a function of our receptivity to the grace of God, or our accepting God's acceptance of us. For some, because they bear the burden of the guilt of others, being crippled by the way they have been treated, this is a much more difficult and drawn out exercise.

The more our self-esteem depends upon our successes, the more we are likely to unwittingly covet the sort of reputation that leaves others feeling inferior. This is rarely an explicit intention, and, incidentally, is not confined to the model of ministry that we are reviewing.

Denominational Fragmentation

Another indirect result of the emergence of large churches and senior ministers, as a distinguishable phenomenon, is an increasing fragmentation within our denomination. Ironically, this fragmentation has also been precipitated by what could loosely be called "Post-Modern" developments, to which the larger, regional church is a response.

This fragmentation is occurring at several levels.

First, as has been argued, ministers, and thus churches, are dividing into two groups. Some of those who are seen to be more successful see conference structures as decreasingly relevant. They have almost become mini-denominations. Those who see themselves as less successful are often perceived to be more critical of conference structures. The reason for this is that they depend on them and thus need them to be more relevant. The first group regards conferences as irrelevant, while the second group criticises it for being ineffective.

Second, loss of corporate identity is also fostering this process. For years I have been concerned about our loss of identity and purpose and have served on committees that have attempted to come up with answers. However, if Schaller is right in contending that once movements have become comfortable organizations it is impossible to capture the allegiance of their voluntary supporters for a resurrected or a new vision, this may well be a forlorn adventure, foundering on the realities of the organizational life-cycle.

However, local churches can more easily recapture vision, and many are doing so. But it is an individual, a unique vision. These two factors taken together make for increasing corporate dismemberment, particularly in the absence of an increased ability to accommodate diversity.

Accountability

Because we have jealously guarded our local autonomy and only grudgingly accepted conference structures, we have been vulnerable to the influence of strong personalities and influential groups. Esteemed, and sometimes wealthy members, conference departments, including college faculties, and, in the early days, editors of our journals, exercised considerable influence.

"Senior Ministers" are, individually and as a group, new players in this arena. However, where conference departments, college faculties etc are answerable to conferences, as the recent task force of theological education indicated, senior ministers', while responsible to the local leadership, is not formally constrained by broader structures of accountability. [13]

In Praise of Diversity

The Body of Christ is not all mouth, all foot, all brain or all gall! As people engaged in ministry we differ from each other in personality, in spirituality, in competencies and in the particulars of our callings. We are also at different stages in our personal/Christian maturation and in our professional development.

The churches, or settings, in which we minister, are differently located--geographically, socially, culturally and racially. We also represent a large range of awareness of, or discernment of, the plethora of transformations occurring in contemporary society, where diversity, rather than homogeneity, is becoming the norm.

If we are to be a relevant Christian movement that makes a significant contribution to the world of the second millennium, we must be open to that world and be capable of discerning its changing shape, and yet, at the same time, we also need to prophetically critique it. To make our contribution, and to embody a message of reconciliation, we must work co-operatively together, encouraging and challenging each other in a spirit of energetic mutuality. To do this we must trust each other and be willing to accommodate and encourage a broad range of diversity. This will require all our good-will and ingenuity. But without it we will soon degenerate into being little more than a historical curiosity. [14]