Tony Morgans blog is  http://tonymorganlive.com/2010/09/07/new-multi-site-survey-findings/

The full Leadership Network Report is available at http://www.leadnet.org/LC_Resources.asp?IsSubmit=true&LC=MultiSite#637

Is this something your church should be considering?

Mel

—————————————————————–

New Multi-site Survey Findings

Warren Bird and my friends over at the Leadership Network released a new report last week on multi-site churches. There are an estimated 3,000 multi-site churches in the United States. The Leadership Network surveyed over 400 of them. Here are some of the highlights of the report that jumped out to me:

• The number of multi-site churches now outnumber the megachurches. That, of course, means smaller churches are beginning to use the multi-site strategy. (By the way, the number of megachurches continues to grow as well.)
• Multi-sites have a 90% success rate.
• Most multi-site churches launch an on-campus venue first before starting at a new location.
• The new satellite campuses tend to show faster growth than the original campus. In fact, 2 out of 5 surveyed churches have experienced growth of 50% or more the first year of their new campus.
• One-third of new campuses happen as the result of a merger.
• The median size of a multi-site church is 1,300 people including the attendance of all campuses.
• 4 out of 5 churches said multi-site has increased leadership development and volunteer mobilization.
• In-person teaching is more widespread than using video teaching except in large churches. Among churches that use video, it’s usually delivered by DVD.
• Churches who use a multi-site strategy are actually more likely to plant churches as well.
• For the 10% of multi-sites that didn’t work, poor location or weak campus pastor were the two most cited reasons for closing the campus.

If you’re interested in reading the full report, you can download it for free from the Leadership Network.

Mel

======================

Gospel Integrity and Pastoral Succession

via The Gospel Coalition Blog by Collin Hansen on 9/3/10

History tells sad stories of good churches that calcified as monuments to former pastors. Few churches we closely associate with prominent ministers maintained their influence when the pastor left. Fire twice destroyed London’s famed Metropolitan Tabernacle, once in 1898 and again when the Luftwaffe dropped an incendiary bomb during the Blitz of 1941. But these tragedies did not inflict so much damage as that caused when long-time pastor Charles Spurgeon departed in 1891 and died in 1892.

Charles Spurgeon

The “last of the Puritans,” Spurgeon reached millions through his sermons, both spoken and published. But he did not train willing leaders capable of carrying on his theological legacy in his absence. Cleanup crews sifting through the bombing rubble in 1941 discovered the church’s 1680 confession of faith, which Spurgeon had symbolically buried beneath the foundation in 1860. Writing in The Forgotten Spurgeon, Iain Murray found in this recovery a metaphor for the state of Metropolitan Tabernacle and the evangelical movement in England.

“There was in 1941 no influential congregation in England known to stand for the theology which that document contained; nor was there any college preparing men to preach that faith,” Murray wrote.

Notable exceptions to this worrisome pattern merely prove the rule. Martyn Lloyd-Jones thrived at Westminster Chapel in London following G. Campbell Morgan’s distinguished tenure, which ended in 1945. Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia has enjoyed the leadership of Donald Grey Barnhouse, James Montgomery Boice, and Phil Ryken. But even a track record that defies the trend offers no guarantees the next search to replace Ryken, now president of Wheaton College, will identify a worthy heir to the Tenth pulpit.

Perhaps God isn’t so concerned that churches should pass from glory to glory, if history is any indication. Or is it we who become so enamored with star preachers that we don’t share responsibility for the ministry and plan for the future in their absence? Many large, thriving churches today have been blessed by God with gifted preachers whose ministry spans the globe. As those preachers approach the end of their pulpit ministry, however, local churches face difficult questions about how they should prepare for life after their leader leaves.

Succession Without a Successor

Working with a small Bible study group, Tim Keller planted Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan in 1989. The transition from a church’s first to second senior pastor is particularly difficult for a thriving congregation. So Redeemer isn’t even bothering to try. Instead, Redeemer revealed in June that it plans to eventually divide into four distinct but networked congregations, each of which will try to plant another church. Redeemer leaders selected four pastors—David Bisgrove, John Lin, Scott Sauls, and Leo Schuster—to lead these neighborhood-based congregations. But for now these men will share preaching and leadership responsibilities with Keller, who will mentor them closely.

“My ‘successors’ are a new generation of a half-dozen to a dozen pastors,” Keller said. “The difficulty is that to even talk of this as a ‘succession plan’ gives the impression I’m stepping out of my job and retiring soon, but I’m not. I’m 59, and we expect the transition to take eight to ten years. So we don’t call it a succession plan, but that’s what it ultimately is, among other things.”

Indeed, the succession plan corresponds with a larger ministry reorientation for Redeemer. For about 20 years, Redeemer grew as members invited their friends to hear the exceptional music and Keller’s compelling sermons. Without Keller as a draw, however, the church’s strategy will need to change. Church leaders and members will need to become more missional.

Tim Keller

“Now, however, we enter a new season, that, God-willing, will last much longer than 20 years,” Keller wrote to the Redeemer congregation. “Our ministry will now be ‘Go and Tell.’ Redeemer is going to systematically impart what theological and ministry wisdom we have to its people and empower them so that, instead of only inviting people in to hear teaching, they will in the power of the Spirit go out into the neighborhoods to love and winsomely share the biblical gospel themselves. It means a culture of training such as we have never seen before at Redeemer. It means coming to grips with one of the most radical aspects of biblical teaching, that every single believer is a prophet, a priest, and a king, not just a bringer and attendee. According to Jesus, ‘the least’ Christian is endowed with the Spirit and is ‘greater than John the Baptist’ (Matt 11:9-11). It also means raising up a new generation of pastor-leaders. The vision is for a family of eight to twelve sister churches-covering Manhattan—ministering in their communities.”

Divesting Power to Empower Others

Pastoral succession looks different depending on a church’s size, personality, and convictions. But Sovereign Grace Ministries has won widespread acclaim for modeling gospel-centered succession. Many are familiar with how C. J. Mahaney, founding pastor of Covenant Life Church, invited the young Joshua Harris to live in his home and learn from him. Mahaney eventually resigned as senior pastor so Harris could take over. Another Sovereign Grace pastor, Dave Harvey, writes in his book Rescuing Ambition about stepping down in 2008 as senior pastor of Covenant Fellowship Church in suburban Philadelphia, the body he led for 19 years. Like Mahaney, Harvey gave way to a much younger leader, the 28-year-old Jared Mellinger. Showing just how deeply succession was ingrained in church culture, Harvey led Mellinger by asking him to respond to this ordination vow the day he was installed:

“Do you promise to begin praying for your ultimate replacement in ministry, with the hope of one day identifying, training, and transferring your responsibilities to him, so that this church may continue to grow and mature in future generations, for the glory and honor of God?”

Jim Collins writes in Good to Great that an organization becomes a monument to the leader’s outsized ego when it falls apart in his absence. Mindful of this problem, Harvey sought to put subsequent generations’ interests ahead of his own by setting up the church for success after he stepped down to take a leadership role in the Sovereign Grace network. But this wasn’t simply a matter of organizational success. Indeed, Harvey contends that succession testifies to what a church believes about the gospel.

Dave Harvey

“A true test of gospel application is seen in succession—in the health of what we leave behind,” Harvey says. “It’s a biblical way to measure success. If we simply build a church that fragments upon transfer, how does that glorify God or really serve the next generation? It doesn’t. Transfer isn’t about merely protecting programs or salvaging a legacy. It’s about preserving the gospel and passing it on to others.”

And yet few pastors seem to view succession this way. Human nature makes succession plans like those plotted by Keller and Harvey difficult to pull off. Senior leaders don’t want to let go. They realize too late that they’re slowing down, a process that begins in many cases around age 60. Various aspects of the church’s vision become neglected, and the church stagnates. The senior leader’s gifting and experience mask underlying structural weaknesses, as in the case of Spurgeon. Meanwhile, younger leaders don’t want to wait around to take charge. Many capable young leaders know the long odds of a successful succession. So they prefer to plant their own churches or invest in smaller ones they can grow by God’s grace.

Even before the senior pastor steps down, generational tension may be evident as a warning sign that succession will be a struggle. The senior pastor with a long tenure may surround himself with leaders around his same age. Preaching load, administrative tasks, writing commitments, and even personality traits may inhibit him and his colleagues from investing in younger leaders who can eventually take their place. Conscious or not, Hezekiah syndrome sets in, and older leaders leave major problems for the next generation to tackle. “Why not, if there will be peace and security in my days?” (2 Kings 20:19)

To avoid this problem and foster continuity, healthy churches incorporate leaders from several different generations. They also rely on a plurality of leaders together seeking the Lord’s leading for the church and sharing the burden of responsibility. In this model, trusted peers can persuade a reluctant senior pastor to take tangible, self-denying actions to divest his power so he can empower others to act in his absence. For example, a senior pastor might return from vacation on Sunday instead of Monday so he can sit among the congregation during the sermon, limiting himself to announcements or prayer. With this simple gesture, the pastor shows he can share authority and recognizes another leader’s preaching gift.

Succession isn’t simple. It isn’t smooth. It’s not often successful. Yet it’s a matter of gospel integrity. God doesn’t promise our churches will evermore yield wide influence through a preacher’s exceptional leadership. Surely, however, we can testify to his steadfast love by making more of Jesus Christ than ourselves. And that means planning ahead for generations who will never hear the great preacher’s voice.

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/

——————————–

Taken from http://www.thecolumbiapartnership.org/

=================================

April 5, 2010 Edition Copyright 2010,

Rev. George 1 Bullard, D.Min.

The Resurrection of National Denominations

Part One: Assessment

A Travel Free Learning Article

April 5, 2010 Edition

By

George Bullard

Ministry Partner with The Columbia Partnership

Voice: 803.622.0923, E-mail: GBullard@TheColumbiaPartnership.org

Web Site: www.TheColumbiaPartnership.org

In a previous article I talked about the coming death of national denominations. From the Christian

perspective, following death there is a resurrection. Might there be a resurrection of national

denominations at some point? Possibly. Do national denominations have to die for there to be a

resurrection? Probably. Do all national denominations need a resurrection? Not necessarily.

Not all national denominations have lost their way. They are thriving. A few national denominations who

had once their way are now thriving. They transformed. National denominations who have currently lost

their way need to transform in one of five ways depending on an assessment of their starting point.

National denominations who have lost their way may need Revision, Revitalization, Renewal,

Reinvention, or Resurrection. To understand which transformation pathway your national denomination

may need, begin with a clear assessment of your current situation.

Ten Assessment Factors

Ten factors, as a beginning point for dialogue, may provide an assessment for your national

denomination. Many more factors could be suggested. The metrics in these ten are subjective based on

my 50 years of experiencing denominations as an observer, 30 years as a denominational staff person,

and consulting and coaching with more than 300 denominational organizations in 50 different

denominations. Each factor looks at ten year trends in the life and ministry of a national denomination.

The first, and most crucial factor, is that of vision. All five of these pathways assume a national denomination is not currently captivated by an empowering vision of their spiritual strategic direction that is producing vitality and vibrancy throughout the denomination.

Second, is a commitment and successful track record of starting new congregations.

Third, are the financial trends of contributions from congregations, individuals, and various other funding streams.

Fourth, is the membership or number of adherents to denominational churches.

Fifth is the change in number of affiliated churches over the past ten years.

Sixth, is the new clergy under 40 years of age ordained into ministry in the denomination.

Seventh, is the percentage of growing churches.

Eight, is the percentage of churches under 25 years of age.

Ninth, is the nature and experience of national denominational gatherings whether they occur annually or every two to four years.

Ten, is the intensity of conflict in the national denomination.

Five Pathways of Transformation

Where a national denomination is assessed on these ten factors can vary significantly according to the

culture of the denomination, the perspective of the people doing the assessment, and the timing of the

assessment. Also, no national denomination is likely to fit neatly into a single pathway of transformation,

but there is probably one that is most like each national denomination. I invite you to think through these

factors related to your denomination.

Revision: A denomination ripe for a Revision transformation pathway has likely lost vision, focus, and

direction during the past five or so years. It has many good traits and may even be in a crescendo of the

quality of the programs, ministries, and missional activities experienced any time in the past 25 years. It is

starting each year new congregations at a rate of up to two percent of the number of currently affiliated

congregations. Its financial receipts at the national level are at least keeping up with inflation.

It has plateaued nationally in the number of members or adherents in its affiliated churches, in the total

number of affiliated congregations, and in the number of new, ordained clergy under 40 years old. At least

a fourth of its affiliated congregations are growing, and at least a fourth are 25 or fewer years old. [Note:

Some congregations fit both categories.] Its national gatherings are good although the delegates may be

in denial about the impending decline of the national denomination, and there is only a low and typical

intensity of conflict surrounding various issues.

Revitalization: A denomination needing a Revitalization transformation pathway has lacked vision for at

least five to ten years. It is starting a number of new congregations each year at the rate of 1.5 percent or

less of the number of existing congregations, and is thus plateaued or declining in the number of affiliated

congregations. Its annual financial receipts are flat and not keeping up with the rate of inflation. Over the

past decade it has experienced up to a three percent decrease in number of members or adherents in its

affiliated churches and in the number of new, ordained clergy under 40 years old.

Less than 25 percent of its affiliated congregations are growing. The rest are plateaued or declining in

attendance and other vital signs of participation. Less than 25 percent of its affiliated congregations are

25 or fewer years old. Its national gatherings have a tone of nostalgia about the past, plus some

disappointment about the present, and anger at leaders. Conflict is beginning to be expressed at a midintensity.

Renewal: A denomination needing a Renewal transformation pathway has lacked vision for more than a

decade, and has tried several fixes to restore past glory. None have worked for more than one to three

years, and each round has caused them to become weaker. It is starting a number of new congregations

each year at the rate of one percent or less of the number of existing congregations, which means the

number of affiliated congregations is in steady decline. Its annual financial receipts are down up to 10

percent in regard to the rate of inflation over the last decade.

It has experienced a net loss of up to seven percent in total adherents in its congregations, number of

affiliated congregations, and number of new ordained clergy under the age of 40. Less than 20 percent of

its affiliated congregations are growing in attendance and other vital signs of participation. As well, less

than 20 percent of its affiliated congregations are 25 or fewer years old. National gatherings focus on the

constant need to restructure something major in the denomination to see it if will work better. Legislative

processes and resolutions focus on getting the national church to take a stand of issues that are likely to

divide the national denomination. Conflict is a repeating pattern for the denomination.

Reinvention: A denomination needing a Reinvention transformation pathway has lacked vision for 20 to

25 years, perhaps more. It has attempted restructuring multiple times, but often this is more an

accommodation to decline than a repositioning for more effective ministry. It is starting a number of new

congregations each year at the rate of one-half of percent or less of the number of existing congregations,

which means the number of affiliated congregations is in significant decline. Its annual financial receipts

are down up to 20 percent in regard to the rate of inflation over the last decade.

It has experienced a net loss of up to 15 percent in total adherents in its congregations, number of

affiliated congregations, and number of new ordained clergy under the age of 40. Less than 15 percent of

its affiliated congregations are growing in attendance and other vital signs of participation. As well, less

than 15 percent of its affiliated congregations are 25 or fewer years old. National gatherings focus on the

constant need to be faithful to the denomination because while continually getting smaller and weaker,

the current understanding of the denominational ethos is important within the denominational family.

Dealing with issues surrounding regular downsizing, and dialogue about merging with one or more other

denominations are a regular part of the legislative process. Depression actions characterize the

expression of conflict.

Resurrection: A denomination needing a Resurrection transformation pathway has few strong, positive

cultural stories about the last time they were captivated by vision. It has run on the “being faithful”

pathway for so long it believes that is the vision. It is starting few new congregations; maybe none

intentionally. Perhaps the majority of these are started by accident through church splits, or by claiming

churches that affiliate with the denomination as new congregations—even if they were actually started

decades ago. Its annual financial receipts are down more than 20 percent in regard to the rate of inflation

over the last decade.

During the past decade or so it has experienced a net loss of more than 15 percent in total adherents in

its congregations, number of affiliated congregations, and number of new ordained clergy under the age

of 40. Less than ten percent of its affiliated congregations are growing in attendance and other vital signs

of participation. As well, less than ten percent of its affiliated congregations are 25 or fewer years old.

National gatherings focus on an acceptance that they are a much smaller denomination than they once

were, and wondering how many more years they will exist. Clergy hope it will exist until they retire; as

does denominational staff. Attendance is declining as fewer churches can afford to send their delegates.

Many, if not all, of the various institutions started by these denominations have been closed, sold, or

given their freedom so they might survive.

Questions

Which one of these five pathways best fits your national denomination? What ranges or metrics would

you change to make one of these fit your denomination better? What additional factors occur to you that

ought to be added to the list of ten I have used as a jumping off place? What other comments would you

add? I would welcome your comments to me at GBullard@TheColumbiaPartnership.org.

Answers

“OK, George. You have given us the assessment. What are the answers?”

I would like for you to ponder the assessment for a while before we move on to the solution. This part one

article is being posted on Monday, April 5, 2010. I will seek to post a part two article with some solutions I

see some time in the next seven to ten days.

Important Things to Know

George Bullard is a Ministry Partner with The Columbia Partnership. He is also General Secretary [executive director]

of the North American Baptist Fellowship of the Baptist World Alliance. The Columbia Partnership is a non-profit

Christian ministry organization focused on transforming the capacity of the North American Church to pursue and

sustain Christ-centered ministry. Travel Free Learning is a leadership development emphasis. For more information

about products and services check out the web site at www.TheColumbiaPartnership.org, send an e-mail to

Client.Care@TheColumbiaPartnership.org, or call 803.622.0923.

Mel

http://columbiapartnership.typepad.com/the_columbia_partnership/2010/03/the-coming-death-of-national-denominations.html

The Coming Death of National Denominations

A Travel Free Learning Article

By George Bullard, Ministry Partner with The Columbia Partnership

Voice: 803.622.0923, E-mail: GBullard@TheColumbiaPartnership.org, Web Site: www.TheColumbiaPartnership.org

Many national denominational organizations in North America are dying. The causes and signs of their demise are obvious, but few are choosing to make wise decisions to morph into 21^st century denominations. Too many are choosing to recommit to old patterns or suicidal patterns of denominational life.

The death of national denominations is not imminent; it is not coming in the next five to ten years. However, if current trends continue some national denominations could reach subsistence level within 25 years. The death of national denominational structures does not necessarily mean the death of the denomination itself or its regional or middle judicatory expressions. These latter expressions may thrive in some locations.

Here is a beginning list of things national denominations are failing to do or succeeding in doing to drag themselves down. What would you add to this list?

Denominations are dying because of their failure to do the following things.

First, they are failing to renew themselves, and sustain vitality and vibrancy, by being catalysts for the starting a number of new congregations each year equal to at least three percent of the number of congregations affiliated with it at the beginning of the year. Without a high priority focus on new congregations, national denominations are missing two factors.

1. Sufficient numerical growth in affiliated congregations and adherents to offset the loss of congregations and adherents through congregations who are dying, declining, or dis-affiliating.

2. Increased vitality and vibrancy throughout the denomination that comes through the excitement surrounding new congregations and the challenge they offer to existing congregations to be more intentional about their ministry.

Second, they are failing to help their leading edge of faithful, effective, and innovative congregations to soar and fully express their spiritual gifts, strengths, and skills. These congregations are generally 10 to 15 percent of the total number of congregations affiliated with the denomination, but may account –along with new congregations—for at least 50 percent of the new adherents in the denominations.

Denominations assume these congregations do not need or want their help rather than realizing they want high quality peer learning experiences than the vast majority of denominations are offering. They would love to help their denomination soar, and they yearn for their denomination to understand and celebrate their situation.

Third, they are failing to help only those congregations who are ready and eager to transform to go through transformation processes. Instead they are trying to help any plateaued and declining congregation who asks for help regardless of their capacity to benefit from the assistance or their readiness for transformation. Further, they define transformation as a healthy, faithful congregation rather than one that is also effective and innovative in fulfilling their mission and vision and thus becoming more vital and vibrant. Thus, they have lowered their expectations of congregations. Faithfulness has become a euphemism for mediocrity.

Fourth, perhaps worse than ineffective service to congregations is the diminishing of an emphasis on serving congregations, or helping to create and sustain more vital and vibrant congregations. Over the past several decades numerous denominations have decreased their efforts through staff, budget, and resource materials that focus on church planting, church growth, and church transformation. Some national denominations have one office or department that seeks to handle all three of these emphases. Denominations are forgetting that congregations are their basic building block and why they exist in the first place.

From another perspective, national denominations are trying to serve congregations through old concepts that assume national denominations do for congregations what congregations cannot do for themselves. This is a gapology approach that no longer works. The number of things congregations are dependent on their denomination to do are less and less.

Fifth, they are failing to jettison their institutions from core denominational financial support and ownership through trustees appointed or elected by the national denomination. Over the past five decades many, if not most, colleges/universities, seminaries/divinity schools, benevolent institutions, and other institutional entities have developed multiple funding streams and are not longer dependent on the national denominational budget for their survival and vitality.

Wise national denominations are withdrawing core operational funding and creating partnerships with their institutions in strategic areas of need for the denomination, and funding those on a renewable project basis. Institutions that cannot survive without funding from the national denomination for core operations may not need to exist in the 21^st century.

Denominations are dying because of their success in doing the following things.

First, many national denominations are demanding loyalty rather than earning loyalty. Congregations who respond to the call for more loyalty tend not to be the growing, vital, and vibrant congregations, but rather are the plateaued, declining, and passive congregations. Dying denominations are successful in reinforcing the myth that congregations exist to serve the denomination.

Second, many national denominations are professionalizing, formalizing, and centralizing their clergy education, credentialing, and support systems in an attempt to achieve a purer and more effective collection of clergy leaders. This approach certainly provides more control and creates more dependency among the clergy leaders, but is does not necessarily produce purer or more effective clergy leaders. It may also result in a lack of sufficient new clergy leaders, as persons called into clergy ministry seek out denominational families with a more open and flexible system.

Third, some national denominations have become experts at dividing and driving away congregations and adherents by badly addressing explosive moral and theological issues. The big ones these days focus around sex—homosexuality, promiscuity, and pedophilia. When national denominations combine with sex the issues around clergy ordination and discipline—or lack thereof—it creates an “ensmallment” movement within the denomination.

Fourth, many national denominations believe that restructuring themselves or re-tasking national agencies is the same thing as renewing the spiritual, strategic direction of the national denomination. No consistent evidence exists that restructuring national denominations alone leads to the renewal of these denominations. Restructuring actually is a step in preparing for another restructuring within five to ten years. Restructuring fits in the same category as rearranging the chairs on the Titanic.

Fifth, many national denominations continually reallocate their core funding stream receipts from congregations rather than looking for innovative ways to increase the generosity of adherents and congregations. They have a basic funding stream or two that they have had for several decades rather than an innovative plan involving at least 12 funding streams. The reallocation is in response to a decreased buying power of the funds coming from congregations, and like restructuring leads to the next reallocation.

Important Things to Know

George Bullard is a Ministry Partner with The Columbia Partnership. He is also General Secretary [executive director] of the North American Baptist Fellowship of the Baptist World Alliance. The Columbia Partnership is a non-profit Christian ministry organization focused on transforming the capacity of the North American Church to pursue and sustain Christ-centered ministry. Travel Free Learning is a leadership development emphasis. For more information about products and services check out the web site at www.TheColumbiaPartnership.org, send an e-mail to Client.Care@TheColumbiaPartnership.org, or call 803.622.0923.

There are two major types of Christian coaching:

• Individual Leadership Coaching (sometimes called executive coaching or life coaching) and
• Organizational Coaching (sometimes referred to as church or revitalization coaching).

Let’s look at each major type separately.

I. Leader, Life or Executive Coaching

This approach is typically done with a coach and an individual. It usually focuses on helping the leader identify his or her strengths and abilities. Within this major type of coaching, there are several distinct approaches. (NOTE: Coaches from this major approach would usually not be the best coaches for organizational or church coaching.)

Non-directive life coaching

In this approach, the coach listens to the client and by the use of listening skills and good questions helps the client think through their issues. You would want this type of coach if you would like help processing issues and questions you are facing. A good example of this approach would be coaches certified by the International Coaching Federation (ICF) (http://www.coachfederation.org).

Directed life coaching

In this approach, the coach leads the client through a process to help them establish key competencies. You would want this type of coach if you want to establish key life and leadership competencies. A good example of this approach would be Ministry Coaching International and their “Core4” system (http://www.ministrycoaching.org). Like most coaching organizations, Ministry Coaching International has a coach’s certification program.

Examples of Life Coaches:

• Bobby Clinton
• Greg Salciccioli
• Terry Walling
• Steven Covey

II. Organizational or Church Coaching

Now let us consider Organizational or Church Coaching. In this approach a coach works with a church or organizational leadership team, and almost never with only a leader or individual. Organizational coaching focuses on helping the organization identify their weaknesses and design a plan to strengthen them. Within this style of coaching there are also several approaches. Most organizational or church coaching providers offer coaching certification in their approach (NOTE: Coaches from this major approach would usually not be the best coaches for life or executive coaching.)

Church Directive Coaching

In this approach, the coach has a specific point of view and helps the church or organization apply their approach. You may want to consider this type of approach if you just need some system to follow. It is critical if you use this approach, that it match your philosophy of ministry, for it does not encourage you to consider other approaches or alternatives. It is a little bit of a cloning approach. An example of this would be Nelson Searcy Coaching (http://www.churchleaderinsights.com/coaching). Another example of this would likely be the Acts 2 model currently being developed by the AG.

Church Process Coaching

In this approach, the coaches lead the church leadership team through a process to help the church discover their own ministry direction. You may want this approach if you want to discover your church or organization’s unique DNA. In this approach, the coach will guide you through a process sharing with you options that you might consider. Then your team will consider your theology, philosophy and context and identify the approaches you feel would be best to accomplish your full kingdom potential. An example of this would be the Leadership Development Resources (LDR) process (http://www.ldrteam.com/ldr.html). Obviously, as a founding partner of LDR, I think this approach has the most potential for church transformation.

Church Consulting

In this approach, which is closely related to coaching, the consultant does an extensive assessment and then recommends action steps. You may want this approach if you feel you need a specific plan of action that is customized for your church, but are unable to develop it. An example of this approach would be the Society for Church Consulting (http://www.churchconsultation.org/).

Examples of Organizational coaches:

• Lyle Schaller
• Bill Easum
• Gary McIntosh
• John Ewart
• George Bullard
• Mel Ming
• Steve Mills

Recommendations and conclusions:

1. Only use a coaching approach for what it was intended to accomplish.

Do not use a “life coach” for a church or organization. A life coach would not be the best for a church revitalization or development process.

In the same way, you probably do not want to use an “organizational coach” to help you develop life skills.

2. Various groups have their own certification, but the certification is for only their approach.

There is not any one certification for all types of coaching. Each approach has it strengths and weaknesses. The real issue is the coach’s impact on those they coach, not the paper on the wall. Look at their references for proven success.

3. For Church or organizational coaching, be sure they are coaching the leadership team, not just the pastor or leader.

I know of no legitimate church or organizational coaching that works only with the pastor or leader.

Coaching can be a great help to a church or leader. Find a coach that matches your needs.

Mel

By Deborah Ancona and Henrik Bresman

Harvard Business School Press, 2007

Summarized by J. Melvyn Ming

“… leadership can no longer exist only at the top of the organization, but must also be distributed throughout the organization and shared with teams”[1]

“Leadership … must be pushed from the executive level to the operational level, with rapidly flowing dialogue between them”[2]

“The X in X-Teams underlines the point that an X-Team us externally oriented, with members working outside their boundaries as well as inside them.”[3]

The shift from a singular reliance on command-and-control leadership to more of a distributed leadership mind-set requires additional dialogue and alignments up and down the organization.[4]

X-Teams Defined

X-teams are externally oriented, adaptive teams that emphasize connections to those outside their area and the organization.

Components of X-Teams

X-teams are set apart from traditional teams by three components:

1. External activity
2. Extreme execution
3. Flexible phases

1. External activity

• High levels of external activity are key
• Outreach may be role of leader or any member
• External activities:

1)   Scouting—lateral and downward searches through the organization for knowledge and expertise

“They need to know where critical information and expertise reside, both inside and outside the organization.”[5]

2)   Ambassadorial activity—aimed at managing upward

3)   Task coordination—managing the lateral connections across functions and interdependencies with other teams and units

2. Extreme Execution

• Three fundamental concepts:

1) Psychological safety

“… the teams culture must support a frank exchange of views. Such ‘psychological safety’ means that all members feel the team is safe for interpersonal risk taking. It means that team members feel free to express their views, even controversial ones.”[6]

2) Team reflection

“…team members need to take time to reflect on their actions, strategies, and objectives.”[7]

“Members set aside time to think about their big picture, where the team is going, and how things can be done better; and they lean on each other in that effort.”[8]

3) Knowing what others know

“Knowing what others know enables a team to connect islands of expertise into a system in which the right members work on the right tasks at the right time.”[9]

• Tools for Extreme Execution

1)   Integrative meetings

2)   Participatory and transparent decision-making process

3)   Shared guidelines (Heuristics)

4)   Shared timelines

5)   Information Management Systems

3. Flexible Phases

“X-Teams change their core tasks over the team’s lifetime.”[10]

1)   Sense making

“Understanding the context in which a team and its members operate.”[11]

2)   Relating

Developing key relationships within and across organizations.

3)   Visioning

Creating a compelling picture of the future.

4)   Inventing

Designing new ways to work together to fulfill the vision.

The X-Team Support Structure

1. Extensive ties

• To engage in external activities, X-team members need to have extensive ties with outsiders

2. Expandable tiers

• X-teams operate through three distinct tiers that create differentiated team membership:

• Core members—carry the team’s history and identity
• Operational members—do the ongoing work
• Outer-net members—join the team to handle tasks that are separable from ongoing work

3. Exchangeable membership

• X-team membership is fluid
• People may move in and out of the team during its life or move across tiers

[2] X-Teams, p 47.

[3] X-Teams, p 6.

[4] T. Malone, The Future of Work. Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press, 2004.

[5] X-Teams, p 65.

[6] X-Teams, p 92.

[7] X-Teams, p 96.

[8] X-Teams, p 97.

[9] X-Teams, p 101.

[10] X-Teams, p 118.

[11] X-Teams, p 121.