A small worry about church plants... (part 1)

I'm a bit worried about the UK church planting scene.

Not a lot worried - because there are some brilliant young (and older!) men and women planting exciting, dynamic, faithful churches all over the place. There's a lot more to do. But there's lots that's good.

I'm just a bit worried about what seems to be a 'default' for church plant leadership as church plants start and as they become more stable local churches.

It seems to me that quite a number of church leaders and planters talk favourably about a system that has the leader/planter (or leaders/planters where there are two of them) in charge without either a superstructure (a bishop or presbytery) or accountability to the congregation (proper church membership or genuinely plural elder governance).

In quite a lot of contemporary church plants (perhaps especially, but by no means exclusively, those started by people from Anglican churches but operating outside traditional Anglican structures) the full-time paid leader(s) or leaders are the only elder(s) the church has and there is no formal mechanism in the church for removing them for either heresy or 'moral failure.'

Given everything that we know, not only from Scripture but also from church history, it ought to be patently obvious that a church where one person, or two people whose livelihoods are in some sense mutually dependent, is in charge makes a powerful recipe for pride or manipulation. But it seems that the pragmatic case that "I can get things done quicker where there are few constraints to my leadership" is being used in conservative evangelical churches in just the same kind of way that the "Holy Spirit anointed leader" case is used in different theological circles. Whilst no system of church governance is incapable of being circumvented by those determined to do wrong there is no doubt that concentration of decision making power into a the hands of one or two people makes things worse - remember the Nine O'Clock Service anyone?

So what are the particular problems of the "church planter leads" model and what would be better? I'll consider the first of those questions in this post and some better alternatives in a second post.

It's worth saying at this stage that lots of churches with these (in my view) poor leadership structures do great work and are being mightily used by God for the kingdom and I praise Him for them. The brutal truth, though, is that almost any system of church governance is OK when things are going well; the differences are only exposed when things aren't going so well.

So then, three problems with the "church planter's in charge' model...

1. It fails to recognise the change from church plant to church.

When a new church is planted it is undoubtedly true that a ruthlessly uncompromising vision is needed to get things off the ground. Having lots of checks and balances in your process may hinder the church from coming to life. Whilst I still don't think that a single leader is really ideal in these circumstances there are arguments to be made for a much more individually led ministry at this stage. 

But, unless they fail, church plants become churches. At this point the range of things the church exists to do widens. It is no longer just about gathering a group of people and seeing them converted or about gathering a group of Christians under God's word (not that church plants are ever solely about that but it's definitely the main thrust to start with). It is now also about meeting the pastoral needs of the church family as well as carrying on with the business of evangelism. This demands different skills from the 'planter' and the involvement of more people. As time passes the people who have been involved in the church for a while, quite rightly, feel some ownership of the church. Whilst the church is always God's not "mine" allowing the congregation a say in the vision and mission of the church doesn't undermine its divine ownership any more than having one or two guys in charge does!

Many church leaders seem not to trust their congregations with meaningful input to decision making and vision. Inevitably some people in any church, no matter how rigorous its approach to membership, are not very godly. But if the majority of people in a church you have planted and led can't be trusted on the doctrine, vision and mission of the church perhaps it's time for the church planter to look for another job?

2. It fails to see the seductive power of money.

There is no doubt that money functions as an idol, at least some of the time, for most of us. Churches where power is concentrated in the hands of those who make their living from preaching the gospel are in a dangerous place. The world recognises this - so the Charity Commission will not allow you to set up a charity where more than 50% of the trustees are employed by the charity and none of the trustees may be paid for their work as trustees.

It seems to me, however, that quite a lot of church plants think that this is just a silly legal requirement. So they set up systems where the trustees live miles and miles away, meet just a few times a year and don't really have much day-to-day say in the pastoral care, teaching programme or vision of the church.

In practice the power is left in the hands of those paid to run the church, with all the possible temptations that ensue.

It's not only money though - this model fails to really consider the future. What if the lead planter dies suddenly or is seriously ill? In the first couple of years this might simply result in the closure of the church. But if the church is in any way established the believers there might want somebody else to come in - and a proper mechanism for the appointment of that person needs to be in place?

3. It creates a group of people who have responsibility without authority.

I was talking to another minister recently who said, in all seriousness, "but the other elders at Christ Church couldn't stop you doing X if you really wanted to." He was, I think, simply baffled when I replied that of course they could. The non-staff elders at Christ Church could prevent or alter anything I wanted to do - change the teaching programme, the meeting times, the pastoral input to a particular church member, the strategy for evangelism, children's work or discipleship. And, by not appointing or reappointing elders, the members of the church could do those things too.

We have this system because the elders (who are also the charity's legal trustees) are ultimately responsible before the Lord, and the law, for the running of the church and they are the people whom the members of the church expect to hold accountable for the teaching and care they receive.

Alternative systems, either where the pastor is simply the hired hand of a board of deacons or (the situation I see more commonly in church plants) where a planter appoints 'elders' but where they are not the legal custodians of the church with power to fire the planter if need be, mean that people are given responsibility for things the church does but without real power to change what it does. Eventually this means that the only people in the church willing to take on such roles are "yes" men or those willing to live with the constant frustration of not being able to change things even though people will think you are responsible for them.

I think any one of these problems ought to be enough to make us look for an alternative model; the combination of all three is a powerful reason for finding a better way to organise our church plants...