I may just be flattering myself, but I think this hits the nail on the head regarding my current situation.  I hate being a manager or administrator, but I love sharing big ideas and seeing them successfully implemented.  I get so frustrated, though, with elders and senior staff who write me off as naive or immature.  I’m tired of hearing that “those ideas just won’t work here.”

Kim, you’re right on.  I’ve been in a couple of situations where I’ve tried to work under a managing leader and one I was asked to leave and the other I ended up leaving.  Life is too short to be in the wrong fit.  I think there’s little chance of changing people, so if you’re not in a position of power, you’d best be on your way to find a place where you can shine the way God wired you.  It becomes a stewardship issue.

Just know when something is worth losing your life (or job).

Word!  -Kim

Obstensibly, the piece is about the types of minsters in this world (4, says Nelson--Relational, Teaching, Managerial, and Catalyst) and how they stick or unstick their congregations. What I find interesting, however, is not the analysis (the first three types are necessary, but ultimately bog down churches; catalysts take churches “to the next level” but have largely been run out of the church, so says Nelson). Rather, it’s that he defines a church’s being “stuck” as a church that’s ceased to grow members, and a church that’s “unstuck” as a church that is growing membership.

Hence his love affair with catalysts, those ministers whom Nelson says have a “full-speed-ahead attitude.” They’re all about growth--new ideas, cutting edge experiments, etc.

Pardon me while I yawn and ponder another idea. That by connecting “stuck” to enrollment numbers we’re missing out on the key to getting unstuck--Christian maturity.

Let’s face it, catalysts may be go-getters; they may get folks in the door; but at the end of the day, their appeal is limited to the young (in faith), the immature (in belief), and the gullible (in their desire to find something new to entertain them).

Read more of my thoughts on this at http://faithandfumbleswriter.typepad.com

Such words--perhaps. But then, I’ve been at this for a lot of years, and I’m comfortable with them. The article did apply to all types of church leaders. But regardless of whether that person is a senior minister or a Sunday School teacher, my criticisms still apply. Energy’s fine, but a faith reved up solely with emotion--as many, many of the catalysts practice--is rarely a faith that individuals can grow into. Don’t just take my word for it--look at the study recently done by Willow Creek which showed just this point. The more “mature” people become in faith, the more an obstacle the church comes to growth. The result? They leave. A reasonable response to a faith that doesn’t take reason seriously.

Projecting? Yes, indeed. If you’ll have a look at my blog entry on the story, you’ll see how I’ve spun this article out. Moreover, as I noted in an earlier post, What’s interesting about this piece is not the analysis, it’s the equation of success with butts in the pews. And that’s what I’m writing about. That connection.

I am, as you are no doubt un-surprised to learn, extremely critical of the protestant tradition and its very flaccid intellectual life. This comes in part from personal experience (seminary student for 3 years, involved with churches in one capacity or another for most of my 46 years of living), in part from academic experience (professor of history with graduate degrees in American religious history), and in part from my professional experience (journalist who has covered religion for a number of respected publications, including National Journal).

I am, and remain, a Protestant by choice. But my experience with the church’s ability to move parishoners to a level of faith that moves beyond “the basics” is not good. Moreover, the people that I frequently speak with (seminary presidents, ministers from congregations across the nation, and parishoners) further fuel my understanding.

So yes--there’s a huge issue here that goes beyond the style of leader. It cuts to the core of what ministers are teaching their members. Be you a catalyst or a manager or whatever, if you’re not developing members’ intellectual faith along with their experiential faith, then you’re not doing a good job.

Of course, there are major exceptions to this generalization, and I’ll be the first to acknowledge them and tip my hat to them (see my list of interviews on my blog site with such individuals). But these folks are a distinct minority and are decidedly swimming against the stream.

Growing membership is the least of the church’s problems. Growing people who think independently from a mature Christian perspective that has impact in the culture at large is the problem.

Yes, let’s all go look at Martin’s blog (since it’s the second time he’s asked us to).  Martin, I believe you’ve made the mistake of equating knowledge with maturity.  Maturity is the balance of truth and grace.  You sound like you’ve got a lot of info in your head, but I think you need to season it with a little more grace.  You make a lot of assumptions based on someone else’s studies and your own opinions, but I wonder if you’ve ever spent time getting to know any of these catalyst leaders.  Even if they are a bit too emotional for your taste, that isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

OK then, that explains a lot.  Thanks for clarifying.

Great post… would you say that there are ways to develop one’s catalyst skills? Or is it simply something that is naturally a part of a person’s personality?