Most Recent Articles

What Your Small Church Needs Is...

Thu, 01 May 2008 - 4:28 PM CST

It's a fact. The leadership style that works well with a new church of 35 persons may hinder the expansion of a church with 200 or more persons. There isn't a single leadership style that will work throughout the various stages of growth in an emerging church. The most appropriate style at any given stage depends on the particular tasks to be accomplished and the unique needs of that phase of development.

Having served in small as well as large churches for a total of 12 years, I'm fascinated by the variety of leadership styles that I observed and practiced. My initial ministry was in a church of over 300. I was their first associate staff member. People in this large congregation didn't expect in-depth personal contact between the pastor and all members of the congregation. As a result, key lay leaders played a more dominant role. For instance, when someone expressed interest in joining the church, a deacon and his wife would often visit instead of the pastor.

Our next ministry was as a staff member for one of the larger BGC churches. The multiple staff of which I was a part was expected to motivate and equip lay leaders for service to the larger fellowship. We were viewed as "professionals" who got the work of the ministry accomplished through other people. The expectation for us to be directly involved in every member's life was minimal. Their understanding of the role of the vocational staff was reflected in the way they addressed us. I was "Pastor Keith." Only a few called me "Keith."

My most recent ministry was a church planting venture. Only twelve adults attended the first home Bible study, and thirty gathered for the first Sunday service. Over the two and one-half years we served in this capacity, we experienced very warm and close involvement with every family of the church. Church programs were dependent on my wife and me for implementation. Attenders enjoyed knowing us on a firstname basis. They enjoyed kidding me even during the informal church services. They were often in our home, and we were often in theirs. My "professional cloak" was transparent.

Persons in each of these three churches had different expectations for their pastoral leaders. Why? Because the goals and needs of each church were different.

Pastoral leadership style is a very crucial consideration for persons engaged in small church ministry. But before we focus on leadership styles, let's dissect what we mean by a small church.

God obviously loves small churches --He has established so many of them! Yet in an era of church growth conferences and books, the idea of a small church has come into disrepute. From personal experience I know how many leaders react to smallness during conversations at pastors' luncheons.

"So you're a pastor, too. How big is your church?"
"Thirty-five."
There's a long pause, then an embarrassing "Oh."
Despite the misconception that bigger is better, small churches continue to thrive. In fact, the Baptist General Conference is a denomination composed primarily of small churches. BGC churches average 140 in morning worship. In over 50% of BGC churches, the average S. S. attendance is around 90. And in most of these churches, the fellowship is genuine and the witness is vibrant. So being small doesn't necessarily reflect a lack of God's blessings.

In a recent seminar on the small church, Lyle Schaller grouped small congregations into three categories:

• fellowship group: 0-45
  
• genuine small church: 45-115
  
• middle size church: 115-175
  

In effect, a fellowship group is lay owned and operated. Caring and informality are its hallmarks. If a service starts 10 minutes late, that's okay. Everyone knows the names of all other group members. When a group grows to approximately 75, there's what's called a "comfort level." There's almost enough people to fulfill basic needs in the areas of finances, programming, and personnel. Caring is still a distinguishing characteristic, but it doesn't happen quite as often or as spontaneously. Services are a bit more formal. When the congregation becomes "middle sized," the leadership is expected to be more professional. Providing care and services to members must now be organized, or it won't happen. The church hires or yearns to hire a part-time staff member to help facilitate ministries which volunteers performed without pay when attendance was less. When a congregation reaches this size, many small cells form: formal cells such as Bible study groups and choir; informal cells such as the four couples who regularly enjoy ice cream and coffee at a restaurant after the Sunday evening service.

The point is this: each of these three groupings has peculiar needs. That's why each needs a somewhat different pastoral leadership style. The style that works in one phase of a church's development will not be effective or feasible during another phase.

"Style" describes how a pastor operates rather than what or who he is. Typical phrases that point to style are "player-coach," "one-man show," and a "prima donna." In The Making of a Christian Leader, Ted Engstrom defines style as "the way a leader carries out his functions and how he is perceived by those he attempts to lead."

Let's consider two pastoral leadership styles identified by church consultant Lyle Schaller, and examine each in light of the needs of small churches.

The first style sees the pastor functioning primarily as a shepherd. For centuries the dominant visual image of the pastor has been that of the faithful shepherd tending a flock of sheep, showing deep concern for each one in the flock. This image depicts a pastor who gives members individual attention. As a shepherd, he watches, feeds, and leads the sheep from infancy to old age. It's an excellent image to use in describing the pastor of a consistently small, but stable congregation.

In Making the Small Church Effective, Carl Dudley describes the "shepherd" leader as a "lover." He says, "Professional distance is a source of tension in many small churches. Members of small congregations want the benefit of skilled pastors to serve their churches. But even more important, they want someone whom they feel they can know personally -the small church wants a lover."

The second style puts the pastor into the role of a rancher who manages and delegates responsibilities to various helpers. Though the rancher is indirectly concerned for each of the livestock, his priority is managing the total operation of the ranch. The rancher doesn't carry out the acts of care and feeding for each, but he's responsible to see that others get the job done. He doesn't feel guilty if he can't personally care for each individual.

The rancher's style of leadership can accomodate growth. He's well-pleased when the herds increase. But in contrast, the shepherd-style leader eventually becomes frustrated with the birth or addition of new sheep. He knows there's a limit to the number of sheep one can personally tend. As membership increases, his watchcare over individual members becomes more difficult.

In the July 1977 issue of The Christian Ministry, Lyle Schaller illustrated how a church responds favorably to these different leadership styles as it moves in and out of different phases of growth. He wrote, "A common analogy in the church is the new mission founded in the early 1960s with a shepherd as the pastor. It soon grew to be 'one large small group' averaging 65 to 100 at worship. At that point one of three things probably happened. First, the Pastor changed his leadership style from shepherd to rancher and the congregation continued to grow. Second, the shepherd pastor left and was replaced by a rancher pastor and the congregation continued to grow. Third, the shepherd pastor remained or was replaced by another shepherd pastor, and the congregation leveled off on a plateau as an overgrown small church."

Schaller also pointed out two other dimensions of his illustration. First, the vast majority of church members are content to have their pastor operate with a rancher leadership style with the congregation as a whole, but they still expect him to operate as a shepherd in his relationship to them individually and to their families. It's common to hear a member say, "Pastor, you should spend more time at home with your family, and be freed to study more in your office. Why don't you delegate your leadership of a few committee meetings, and let the deacons make some of the hospital calls." Yet these welcome words are often followed with, "Oh, by the way. Could you drop by the house at 6:00 on Thursday. It's Amy's birthday, and we're celebrating."

Second, a common characteristic of the pastoral placement system in most denominations is to "promote" the most effective shepherds and ask them to move to a larger congregation which needs a rancher style of pastoral leadership. Both the pastors and the pulpit committees involved often overlook two facts: the shepherd style which worked so well in the smaller context will not be feasible in the larger church; and not every pastor is equipped by God to succeed equally in both the shepherd and rancher leadership, styles.

But must a pastor discard the shepherding role in a medium or large church? No, the biblical concept of the pastor as a shepherd to the sheep applies to the rancher as well. But the number of his sheep is, for the most part, restricted to the lay leaders who he is training and equipping for ministry. He shepherds a few, yet serves as rancher to the total flock.

How this discussion of styles applies to your church should be crystallizing by now. In the very small fellowship, you're expected to know and to care for each sheep personally. In a church of 110, if you want continued numerical growth, you serve primarily as a rancher instead of as a shepherd. It just isn't feasible to exercise care in the same concrete ways as you did when the group numbered 50. The sheep-especially the ones who received your individual attention when the congregation was smaller-may not understand why you're more remote. But if ministry expansion is your burden, a change from shepherd to rancher is a prerequisite.

At what stage of development is your church? Are you serving primarily as a shepherd or rancher? Mull over your past month of ministry in light of questions such as these: How many meetings did you attend? What was the nature of each meeting? What happened in the life of the congregation without your direct involvement and guidance? With how many members of the congregation did you have significant personal contact'? Who made personal contact last month with the fringe members of the church?

As a church passes from one stage of organizational size and need to the next, there is an unavoidable tension. Ideally, a pastor should be able to adopt a different style to match the different phase of development. Flexibility and adjustment are the keys; for as the needs, expectations, and goals of the church change, so must the pastoral leadership style. The leader who feels he cannot adopt a different style as the church grows should acknowledge the one style he is most comfortable with and is best gifted for, and make career decisions accordingly.

Whatever the style of leadership, it's essential that our followers see biblical priorities in our lives: a commitment to Christ; a commitment to our family (to our immediate household and then to the larger church family); a commitment to the work of Christ in the world through the church. No leadership style succeeds if we sacrifice the most vital relationships for the work of the ministry.

Used by permission.  Terry Powell, Director of Family and Church Education Program at Columbia International University, and by Keith Kraakevik