The Secret To Healthy Churches

My grandpa Westman was a district superintendent in the Evangelical Free Church of Canada for many years. He didn't initially want the position, but the denomination needed him and he answered the call. Basically he was a resource to the "E Free" pastors in western Canada, a "pastor to the pastors" if you will. I have always thought that would be a cool job. Lots of stress, yes, but hugely challenging.

I've found that nurses are usually morbid people. They are fascinated by stories of blood, guts, puss, and other terrible things. I think this is what makes them good nurses - they are curious about the gross realities of people in physical peril. I am the same way . . . except with churches. I could sit around all day and listen to stories of church dysfunction, spiritual abuse, and all the terrible things that (unfortunately) churches often experience. What is highly distressing to some I find . . . well . . . fascinating! Not only am I intrigued with the ugly but I am also passionate about healthy churches. I see my grandfather's job as a district superintendent as the ultimate fun job - helping pastors and churches in their worst hours. I realize that not everyone would feel as I do but then again I don't think helping people bloodied and on death's door would be enjoyable. To each his own.

Gerry (our counseling director) and I were shooting the breeze about churches yesterday. We talked about why churches go wrong and also about what kind of church model is the best one. I have belonged to churches that were congregationally led (council and congregation have the most authority) and those that are pastor led (pastor has most authority). I have heard excellent arguments on both sides as to why their model is superior. Here's my theory: it doesn't matter what kind of model you have. Each model has strengths and weaknesses. Congregationally lead churches have more checks and balances and are safer, but slower moving and more impervious to radical change. Churches where the pastor is a strong authority can change quickly when necessary but are more prone to error and abuse.

So here's my theory: It doesn't matter what leadership model the church has, it matter what kind of people are in the leadership. No system or model can protect the church from people of low character or low spiritual health, the kind that too often make there way into church leadership. Thus if the board, council, pastors, or lay leaders are people of high character and spiritual integrity the church should be healthy. If there is even one person with low character/integrity and they are allowed to remain, eventually something will go terribly wrong. Bill Hybels in Courageous Leadership says there are three traits that he has learned must be necessary in any ministry team person her recruits: Character, competency, and chemistry. The problem that churches often make is that they see competency in a potential leader but don't do enough homework in the character department. But everything rises or falls on it. Look at most church problems and they can be traced back to people with lacking character and integrity. They betray the principles that people of integrity hold highly whether this is honesty, justice, kindness, self control, or a passion for the truth. A lack of character in a church's leaders is not the only thing that will cause churches to stumble (there are plenty of others) but it is the most important one. When leaders have character and integrity, all problems have the possibility of being rectified. Without it there is little hope.

May Light increase!