Leadership. Definitely.

I’m not even sure that you can say that the 90% are doing things right.  A lot of churches lack both leadership and managment.

I’ve also met fellow pastors who have a desire to do the right things but don’t have the organizational, managerial skills to make them happen - leadership (to some degree) without management.

As I understand Drucker’s idea, you’ve got to have both.  That’s what we find in the 10%.

I am in a church is that is doing the right things and we are constantly evaluating our progress in this area. And as a result we have continued to grow at a very steady rate of 10% per year for 10 years.

I know of churches that are in steady decline and they are doing things right. I think the hardest thing to do for a church in decline is admit that change is needed. They often say “this is what has been working for us so why change.” This is the reason it is so hard for Super Bowl champions to repeat.

How do you identify the right thing to do? In our context it ministry is always done in the context of teams and I think this really helps us discover what that right thing to do is.

Whoever is leading without anyone really following is just someone taking a walk.

Leadership starts the race. Management clocks the progress of the race. Together we win the race!

Leadership plants the seeds, management waters the planting, God gives ALL the increase.

Sadly, once again, another example of a well-meaning attempt but unbiblical advice from a Christian ministry.

First, there is the problem of over-assumption by the statement, “The percentage of churches in decline is America is substantial.  (I’ve heard as high as 90%!).” If you’re going to give statistical facts, then make SURE it’s a statistical fact and not mere unverified gossip or rumor. There is an excellent article entitled, “Evangelicals Bad With Statistics” about how evangelical leaders as guilty of throwing out statistics without verifying or giving away the source of their statistics. Todd Rhoades at least gives Peter Drucker as the source to the Leadership vs. Management phrase. But he needs to do the same when throwing out statistical quotes. Otherwise, it only makes Todd Rhoades appear disingenuous about whether what he has to say really is worth reading.

And then the second problem with this article, which is a bigger problem than the previous one, is the utter sadness that for Todd Rhoades, and for many evangelicals out there (dare I say 90%?), the solution to church decline is not about “obedience vs. disobedience,” “repentance vs. unrepentance,” “faithfulness vs. unfaithfulness,” etc., but is about “leadership vs. management.”

Third, I find it ironic that Todd Rhoades uses Peter Drucker and the “corporate business” concept as the answer to evangelical churches’ problem, but fails to apply another “corporate business” concept of decision-making, “Identifying the problem.” Todd Rhoades doesn’t even identify the deadly disease that has stricken the bloodstream, muscles, bones, nerves, and senses of evangelical churches. Instead, he merely sees a symptom and thinks his “Peter Drucker” bandaid will cure the problem. If we are to see an example of what is the problem with American evangelicalism, it is right here with Todd Rhoades’s entire faulty perception of identifying the problem and faulty solution. The disease that has incubated in the church is not that 90% of the church are failing to grow numerically and failing to be vibrant (whatever Todd Rhoades means by vibrant, I have no clue, as he fails to define what he means by it), but that the deadly disease is the failure to uphold the word of God as the only test for truth and as the only solution for the church to “be growing and be vibrant.”

It seems to me that Todd Rhoads should read less of Peter Drucker and read more of Peter the Apostle.

In a culture that is not Christian, that is not biblical, that is not evangelical and not that interested, certain gifts of God’s Holy Spirit show themselves to be missing and much needed.  I believe that never in the history of the church in this country has this been more evident and I believe one gift the church has flat out overlooked is the gift of leadership.  To assume leadership is unspiritual is a mistake, since it is also a gift of the Spirit.  The problem is that we have far too many churches with leaders leading without that gift.  We have far too many churches that never seek to develop that gift in others.  Far too many churches are hoping that the good old days will come back, instead of figuring out how to engage this culture. 

The church needs leaders and a management does not develop leaders rather keeps what is going on, going on.  Leaders develop leaders.

Hmm …. Okay

Having been employed in both the business and ecclesiastical world (often at the same time) I find this discussion interesting.
I have been apart of churches well led and well managed. I have found that in both world experiences that management usually trumps leadership out when critical decisions need to be made. Let’s see in if I can get Donald Trump into the discussion.
Having said that I am presently serving in a management environment church where everyone wants to be the manager. Traditionally the role of the church “leadership” has been to serve as the Pastoral Break Society.
And I have read both Peter Drucker and the Apostle and found them both applicable to serving in the church.
Thanks Todd

Certainly, as has been posted, both are very important.  If I had to choose between excelling at one at the expense of the other, I would definitely pick leadership (during the right things).

I would, however, respectfully challenge the notion that the churches that are growing the most (numerically & financially at least) are the ones that must be doing both well.

I don’t doubt that it is true in some cases, but I think it is dangerous to assume that they are automatically linked.

For example, I’m sure we can all think of at least a few churches that have grown large but have done so while compromising certain Scriptural principles and doctrines. 

I would suggest that some (by no means all) of the ‘fastest growing’ churches are in fact examples of organizations that excel in management but not leadership (at least that which is Scriptural).  In other words, they ‘succeed’ on the strength of their management (doing things exceptionally well) even while failing in Biblical leadership (doing the right things).

Does anyone else see this?

I believe the biggest miss in almost all churches is the ability to manage the organization (the local body of believers).

Those that say they do a good job of managing their church have church blindness and/or a totally skewed picture of what management is.

The most biblically sound church is the one where the leadership understands that the growth and stability of the local body they are accountable for is dependent totally on understanding their role as steward leadership in Gods church as directed by God.

Growth does not come from management or local leadership; the success of both come from our accountability and to the degree in which we disire and obey the direction of the leadership head of the Church, Jesus Christ.

This issue demands that we really revisit the primary purpose of the church.  What are its biblical purposes?  This will help us with the issue of leadership (where are we leading toward) and management (what needs to be done to ensure we progress).

A key issue here is that of vision.  So many leaders and pastors are in their roles because they are gifted to teach or nurture or disciple… but so few have precise vision.

What exactly has God revealed that they are to give themselves to?  Write it down.  Clearly.  What geography?  What focus?  What is the goal?

So many church planters tend to want to launch their church from Acts 2:43 instead of Acts 2:1.  Jesus detailed the process in Acts 1.

So, again, what’s the primary purpose and what’s the specific vision.  That answer will demand wild leadership and strong management… though, I’d sacrifice management much quicker than I would leadership.

Grand thoughts on the macro level, now let’s talk about it on the micro. For those considering themselves among the 10%, let’s take it personal.

Of the 10% who are leading “the Church,” are they “doing things right” as they “do the right things?”

In other words, is the Church, once again, following the world’s standards [i.e. of “management"], or are we living into biblical principles and standards regarding “management” and in doing so setting the pace for the world to follow? 

Let us not be so concerned with what we do that forget how we do it can be just as important. Both are an opportunity to honor Christ and be a witness for Him.

As we let the Bible be our guide for determining “leadership” let’s let it be our primary resource for “management” as well. Having integrity and being fully-Christ-honoring means doing both.

I have been a longtime reader of MMI, but rarely contribute to its forums.  I felt I had to chime in, because this topic is close to my heart.

God has called me back to a book that has been on my shelf for years, “Developing the Leader Within You,” by John Maxwell.  He, too says that prosperous businesses (churches included) are headed by Leaders, not Managers. 

People want to be a part of something successful, and follow people that are successful.  We see this in Hollywood, Nashville, etc.  But managers are only being followed because of their titles, and not success.  That is why the decline takes place.  They are nothing more than a title, and after the inital “wow factor,” the title gets old.

But Leaders that have attained the title, established relationships, produced results, developed their people, and have gained the respect of their people are successful and have followers for life.  (Picture the Verizon network guys) When that is established, people want to be a part of something and have ownership in a successful business or church.

Now, to answer your question, I am a youth pastor at a church with a manager for a pastor.  It is hard.  Managers typically lack vision, or at least what it takes to carry out that vision.  I, myself am very vision-oriented, but have found myself hitting a ceiling, so to speak, because my Manager will only allow me to go to a certain point.  I am committed to the church and love the community and the church, but I am saddened to see the church going this direction.  In fact if anyone has any words of wisdom for me, I am open to receive.

Jeremy

Will:

While I agree with your seeming premise to Jeremy that we sometimes critique leaders or leadership in the wrong manner that does not mean that Jeremy doesn’t have some potentially legitimate concerns. 

For instance, Jeremy may fee led to be more aggressive in his outreach to the teen community where he lives and his senior pastor may not have such a vision or worse yet may be afraid to ruffle the feathers of Mr. or Mrs. “so and so”, or may like things “just the way they are.” In either case that could frustrate someone like Jeremy.  In fact, too many pastors have been “program oriented” for far too long rather than “gift oriented” which I believe is more biblical and Godly.

What I mean is this, if Jeremy’s Senior Pastor is blessed to have a Youth Pastor with a Vision to reach more youth is it possible that this Vision of spreading God’s truths to more and more people (Matthew 28) can only come from God because Satan would NEVER promote the spreading of the Gospel.  Then someone who is being prodded by God’s Spirit must deal with this seeming contradicion of Biblical purpose.  In an example like this you would have a Senior Pasor with a lack of Leadership and Vision and this will work against the promoting of the Gospel.

Your premise that as long as the Senior Pastor is teaching the “right stuff” then everything is OK is way off.  The problem that MANY pastors have is that they teach the right stuff ... people like Jeremy respond to the prodding of God’s Spirit ... and then the TEACHER QUELCHES WHAT THE SPIRIT IS DOING IN RESPONSE TO THEIR TEACHING!  That is disasterous to the church.

And PLEASE don’t become un-Christlike by comparing John Maxwell and Todd Rhoades to Oprah Winfrey.  John and Todd promote principles that are based on scripture and if they use examples from the non-church world what’s the difference?  Wouldn’t it be great if there were more examples to use IN THE CHURCH?  Oprah on the other hand promotes Humanism and Self-Righteousness.  Please don’t do Satan’s bidding by putting John and Todd in Oprah’s category.  That’s shameful and they are both owed an apology.

Finally you stated that John and Todd’s problem is that they promote the idea that God promises to grow His local church.  My understanding of scripture moves me to believe that God does promise to grow His local church IF HIS PEOPLE ARE OBEDIENT.  Jesus says that He is building His Kingdom and Hell will not overcome His building.  Jesus tells us that we should go into the world and make disciples of His - baptizing them and teaching them to obey (which includes going out and making more disciples!) The book of Acts tells of God’s Spirit building His Church (and so and so many were added to His church, and more were added to His church DAILY!) I’m not sure what scriptural evidence you have that demonstrates that God is NOT concerned about the growth of His Kingdom (both numerically AND in Christ-likeness.)

That’s why the church needs Biblical wisdom AND Visionary Leadership!