**What follows is a condensed excerpt from an extended research paper written to complete my seminary work, posted in hopes that the content is beneficial.
Every time I visit my home church there are a handful of people I seek out, if only to at least say hello. One such person is Mrs. Hauxwell. When I was in high school, she taught English and literature classes, but I was never lucky enough to have one of her classes fit into my schedule naturally. When I was a Senior though, I twisted my schedule a bit so I could take a Junior-level English Literature class I didn’t need just so I could have her as a teacher at least once. Even though I didn’t need the credits and I was used to something a bit more challenging, I really enjoyed being taught by Mrs. Hauxwell and have a few great memories from that class.
The Curse of the Group Project
Every time I visit my home church there are a handful of people I seek out, if only to at least say hello. One such person is Mrs. Hauxwell. When I was in high school, she taught English and literature classes, but I was never lucky enough to have one of her classes fit into my schedule naturally. When I was a Senior though, I twisted my schedule a bit so I could take a Junior-level English Literature class I didn’t need just so I could have her as a teacher at least once. Even though I didn’t need the credits and I was used to something a bit more challenging, I really enjoyed being taught by Mrs. Hauxwell and have a few great memories from that class.
One such memory is a group project on Beowulf. It’s now been over 15 years since I took that class, but my teacher still remembers my group’s project and tells me about how she still has the video and used it as an example for classes until she retired. I don’t recall the specifics of our project, but I remember my group had a lot of fun conceiving and filming a project that may have had something to do with a foot odor spray. It was apparently the rare exception to the curse of the school group project.
The school project: loathed by the academically inclined, loved by the slacker. It is amazing that these projects are such a mine field that a success story is so remarkable. It seems like unless you get to pick your group, these projects are generally doomed to fail. Navigating the intricacies of group dynamics is difficult enough for adults with training and experience; for a student it a sure path to a B- at best. It takes a group of like-minded students with the right blend of temperaments and abilities to work out well. That group for Mrs. Hauxwell’s Beowulf project wasn’t comprised of all the best students in class, but we were unique in that we worked well together, had fun, and still produced great results… on time.
I will never forget another group project I was assigned in my final year of college. In a sort of capstone course for ministry degrees, we were placed in groups to create a hypothetical church. We were to make up demographics and describe our mission and ministries together with our (assigned) partners; each taking on an position on staff. Though I was a youth ministry major and we had a pastoral ministry major on our “staff,” I was selected for the role of Senior Minister. Even in this fictional church with a name that referenced either a tree or body of water (don’t they all?), I had issues with a youth minister who couldn’t get it together. Typical.
The pastoral ministry major in the group competently completed the work related to his role as an associate minister of some sort. Another on staff who was pursuing a degree in missions went above and beyond in her work. The youth minister turned in his portion of the project at the last minute and it - to describe it with kinder words than deserved - did not match the quality of work put forward by the rest of the group. I worked several long hours with the missions major to “edit” the youth minister’s work and bring it into alignment with the ministry of our church so we could present a quality product.
Eventually, we turned in the project and anxiously awaited our grades. The project itself received high marks, but I was surprised to find that my personal grade was considerably lower than the others in my group and scheduled a meeting with the professor to find out why. It turns out a part of our grade was based on the feedback of our partners. While I received high marks from two members of the group, the youth minister gave me an even lower score than I had given him. As the group leader, I bore the brunt of his resentment for the rewriting of his portion of the project even though our revamping of his work ensured a higher grade for the group as a whole.
The professor admitted that my efforts had drastically improved the product the group presented, but offered me an invaluable lesson on group dynamics when he allowed the disgruntled employee to adversely affect my grade. In any collaborative effort, whether hypothetical or real-world, the makeup leaders involved is integral to the success of the undertaking.
Many of the challenges presented for cooperative efforts and shared leadership for the benefit of rural churches in the previous blog entry were related to the leaders involved. Lay leaders in the rural church are often untrained and their vocational ministers often hope their stay is impermanent. A lack of humility and vision in either ministry staff or lay leadership can short-circuit an attempt at collaboration before it even begins. Like in our group project experiences (they are almost universal aren’t they?), a leader who is unable to produce results on par with the rest of the group, for whatever reason, will mar the efforts of the whole - even if efforts are made to accommodate for their shortcomings.
In addressing the implementation phase of shared leadership and cooperative efforts, one of the first steps is to identify compatible leaders for cooperation. Even before strategies are discussed, even before any possible collaboration is conceived, one must first identify the traits required of the leaders involved if those efforts have a legitimate shot at success. This may seem self-evident, but the temptation is to seek to be all inclusive. There ought to be a path towards collaboration offered to every leader and congregation with a desire, but when establishing core leaders on any network or collaboration, a certain level of exclusivity is essential to avoid the project being dead on arrival.
Distinctive
Leadership
The first aspect to consider is the
ability and quality of work of prospective leaders. Many of the ministers and
lay leaders involved with the churches in an area may simply not have the tools
to competently contribute. An individual could lack essential organizational,
interpersonal, or intellectual abilities. Laziness, a lack of focus, and
deficiency in any number of skills related to general ministry could spell
trouble for a collaborative effort. When an alliance of any sort is being
conceived of, one must take a realistic view of potential partners. Don’t merely
look to their potential contributions, but to their actual involvement and production
in their current areas of ministry.
We often tend to seek out dynamic personalities, impressive titles, and talented individuals; but merely gathering a team of gifted individuals will rarely bear fruit without also applying a few other criteria. When building a connection with a nearby church, it would be advantageous to pay close attention to who is already serving in various ways and demonstrating an ability to work well in collaboration with others regardless of title or individual aptitude. In seeking such leaders, one must pay close attention to the motivation, character, and ministry philosophy of any prospective partner, in addition to their demonstrated leadership abilities.
Motivation
In
speaking specifically to church mergers, the authors of “Better Together”
identified the following improper motivations: preservation, denial, personal
gain, solely financial motivation, and personal glory.[1]
Within those improper motivations, one can easily recognize that they can be
boiled down to the desire to either maintain the status quo or to pursue
selfish ambition. In either case, such a motivation would derail the
effectiveness of any collaborative effort.
One cannot effectively
practice collaborative leadership simply out of a desire to keep things the
same. In such a situation, the worst case scenario would be that they succeed!
Likewise, the desire to simply expand one’s personal authority or notoriety would
prove counterproductive if achieved. If the leader’s personal agenda is nothing
more than to become known and respected, their goals will stand in stark
contrast to those of the group at large. It would be foolish to join with such
a leader, regardless of their potential contribution. It may seem attractive to
team up with a talented and charismatic leader, but if they carry this
motivation, doing so would invite that leader to hijack the efforts of the
group as a vehicle to personal advancement.
In
speaking about partnerships between churches, the following motivations can be
identified as the beginning of a successful partnership: “fellowship and unity,
evangelism, and compassion.”[2] These
are “kingdom” partnerships. They have a clear purpose outside of the improper
motivations highlighted above. They are aimed at producing fruit, and “the
primary goals for change should be effectiveness and fruitfulness.”[3]
The collaborative leader must be primarily motivated by the desire to bring
fruit from the works of the congregations involved in the work.
Character
***SPOILER: The
key word here is “humility.”***
There is a need for a catalytic leader with strong character in
a partnership: “Kingdom partnerships don’t
ignite on their own. God typically uses a few key pastors or churches to
provide the first few sparks.”[4]
Catalytic leaders are respected, radically dependent on God, role models,
selflessly humble, hard workers, and passionately committed to people.[5]
Many of these character traits echo what we saw accorded to the leaders of the
early church, specifically that they were selflessly humble hard workers. Authors describing individuals who had
successfully led churches through a merger painted a similar picture:
Kingdom minded, mission driven, strategic thinking,
get-it-done individuals. They are able to rise above their specific
circumstances and help others see the bigger picture of possibility. They are
strong leaders but not overbearing. They know how to motivate people and build
teams. They are bold but gracious. They exude confidence without being
arrogant. They are able to keep a calm head in the midst of chaos. They are
tough skinned enough to endure the criticisms, but tenderhearted enough to love
the people regardless. They not only lead the people but genuinely love them
through the process.[6]
By nature, collaborative
efforts require a humble, egalitarian leadership. In any circumstance where
collaboration is sought among churches, leaders must emerge beyond the formal.
In many cases, the natural fit may be senior ministers and elders, but new and
exciting areas of ministry may well inspire new leaders. New and young leaders
taking on prominent roles in a shared leadership situation may easily disturb
or even offend those who currently hold influential positions. Osborne notes
that “One person’s emerging influence is always another person’s
waning influence. That’s why making room for the young eagles is a hard sell,
especially to those who already have a place at the table.”[7]
Andrew D Clarke speaks to this humble, deferential style of leadership as practiced by Paul. In 1 Corinthians 3, Paul refuses the idea of Christians aligning themselves with Apollos, Peter, or himself, saying in verse 6 (ESV), “I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth.” He did not allow for them to elevate one leader over another. Clarke additionally indicates that “Paul in writing to the Corinthians urges them to submit to Stephanas, Fortunatus and Achaicus, as well as those like them.”[8] Paul didn’t see authority as something to be claimed and hoarded, but as something to be shared by those who have demonstrated work within the congregation. An effective collaborative leader must seek out capable servants and effectively empower them to lead. The long term efficacy of a collaborative effort relies on leaders with the humility, the depth of character, to carry out this strategy.
Philosophy of Ministry
As I read and researched for the project from which these
blog entries are sourced, this final characteristic required of leaders in
effective alliances remained on the indeterminate edges of my thoughts. The
issues of motivation and character were core discussions in almost every
leadership and ministry resource I came across; I could just have easily cited
a dozen more sources saying essentially the same thing: selfless humility. I
found though, that there was something more that was a little bit more
difficult to pin down. Many humble and effective, Kingdom-minded,
high-integrity ministry leaders would struggle to take part in what will be
proposed as a solution to the obstacles I’ve identified. The difference, it
seems, is in their way of thinking; their general approach or philosophy of
ministry.
Many small, rural churches are struggling for legitimate reasons, having lost touch entirely with their purpose while keeping their traditions ever in arm’s reach. Many are well-meaning, but facing the same fate as their dwindling and dying community; hopeless and hopelessly out of date. The immediate temptation is to simply throw the whole thing out and start anew. The simple truth is that most instances of struggling rural churches experiencing renewal that I’ve read or heard about are the result of just that approach. The heritage of the church is sacrificed on the altar of newness. The price paid by existing members in years of long service is cashed in for tokens to fund rebranding. Very often, what you find is an entirely new church taking up residence on the existing property, with the former tenants left out in the cold.
I, of course, understand the necessity of allowing old attitudes and approaches to pass away. I have experienced the need to sacrifice a few “sacrificial calves” in order to move forward in a healthy direction. This whole concept of collaboration, however, is built on the conviction that our small, rural churches can and should be saved. Before a leader can take the first steps in cooperation, they must adopt a strong redemptive stance. At some point, these churches were likely healthy, thriving faith communities – our intent must be to utilize whatever methods necessary to revitalize that vigor in the local church. This approach requires a specific mindset; one that takes into account more than what looks good or “works.” One that aims for the redemption of what already exists, not merely the establishment of what will be effective; even when it is the harder and longer path.
It seems that the rural minister who is in such a community as a matter of choice may already take this view of things. The shorter and easier path to effective, established ministry is most often at home in a middle-class suburban neighborhood, where a corn field is driven past, not driven through. Such a leader does well to bring this aspect of their personal philosophy to the forefront, if only for their own sanity. In the midst of such change, when it seems all is lost, it is important to remember that you really do believe in a redemptive ministry. Even beyond the leadership, it is an essential step to develop a similar understanding within the congregation.
Mark DeVine describes such a realization: “God had not called me to bully a proud little flock down a path of my choosing. They needed to see what I saw.”[9] Even in the best of situations, one can expect both pain and conflict, so this path requires a leader who understands why they are convinced of this approach themselves and who is prepared to illumine a clear vision to everyone involved.
Ministry within the rural church has a unique set of demands, and requires a leader who can develop a viewpoint on ministry that addresses those demands effectively. “In order to lead the town and country church through change, we must first understand the forces that cause change and what kinds of change they are causing.”[10] Rural leaders must keep tabs on the changing demographics of their community, noting the emergence of a new rural poor that exhibit similarities to the inner city.[11] They must also acknowledge tension between lifelong rural residents and those moving to the rural setting from a variety of contexts. These emerging cultural dynamics must be understood for a collaborative leader to be effective in a rural context.
Answering these leadership needs begins with the careful selection of leaders to be included in any collaborative effort. They must meet the baseline standards regarding ability, motivations, character, and philosophy to enter into an alliance. Those with shortcomings in these areas, will need to submit to the training and mentorship of an established leader before being invited into share authority in a project or association. The aim is not exclusivity at the expense of the redemptive nature of such a ministry in general, but rather at maintaining healthy ministries and relationships in the process.
Not all leaders are immediately qualified for this work, so the establishment of associations to provide learning opportunities is essential to building the type of ministers, elders, and ministry leaders required for cooperative work. There is no perfect leader, so providing avenues for those with different perspectives and styles to find common ground and mutual understanding is essential to beginning shared work.
As we work to change the mindset and effectiveness of rural leaders and churches, we can begin to influence the negative perception of both. Recruiting and retaining quality leaders while providing them training and an environment where they can thrive as they share a leadership works to reverse the trends associated with the negative views of rural ministry. Sharing leadership may also build an environment where the weaknesses of our leaders are balanced and their strengths are emphasized. We must believe the rural church can become a place where ministry can bear great fruit and where talented leaders can thrive. Creating a vital network of churches works to rally together still more like-minded ministers and lay-leaders that may otherwise shy away from serving in a rural church.
[1] Jim Tomberlin and Warren Bird, Better Together: Making Church
Mergers Work (San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass, 2012), Kindle Edition:
Location 1200.
[2] Bruno and Dirks, Churches
Partnering Together, Location 331.
[3] Wells, Guise, and Klassen, Leading through Change, 13.
[6] Tomberlin and Bird, Better
Together, Location 3254.
[8] Clarke, Serve
the Community of the Church, Location 1808.
[9] Mark DeVine and Darrin Patrick, Replant: How a Dying Church Can
Grow Again, (Colorado
Springs, CO: David C. Cook, 2014), Kindle Edition: Location 788.
