Today is the final installment in our series on Zac Veron’s Leadership on the Front Foot and deals with his last thoughts on strategic issues for church leaders (see also parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6). Let me encourage you to go out and buy the book; it is worth your while.
5. Work within your denominational laws to appoint rather than elect people to certain positions of leadership within the church
As far as it’s within the bounds of denominational law, you should appoint, rather than elect your church leaders. Zac waits till the end of this chapter before asserting that “Appointing rather than electing people to leadership in the church was practised in the New Testament churches” (p. 161).
And contrary to Mark Dever’s congregationalism, which suggests that the congregation has the final say on the appointment of elders, I agree with Zac that in the New Testament, elders are only ever appointed by existing leaders like Paul, Titus or Timothy, or by implication, the existing body of elders. See Acts 14:23 and Titus 1:5 (and compare with 1 Tim 3:1, 4:14, 5:19, and note also Acts 15—especially verses 6, 22 and 16:4, where it’s the apostles and elders who decide, rather than congregational vote). We only see congregational decisions for the appointment of those to ‘deacon’ (serve) at tables in Acts 6:3-6 and as a final court of church discipline (Matt 18:17, 1 Cor 5:4-5). Once again, the application guide provides more of the biblical data than the chapter proper.
The application of this in Anglican circles, at least, is somewhat more problematic—although Zac is technically correct with his radical suggestion about parish councils and the frequency of meetings required. I guess it only requires the courage of that conviction to give it a whirl. In the Anglican system in our diocese, it seems one could certainly appoint a council of lay elders with whom you voluntarily shared your eldership responsibility if you wished, while the parish council retained their responsibility for property and finances!
6. Develop your strategic ministry plan with the core leaders in each of your church’s affinity groups
Next, Zac suggests you should develop your strategic ministry plan with the core leaders in each of your church’s affinity groups, rather than doing it alone and then presenting it to the church.
Zac rightly uses Proverbs to establish the importance of listening to advice and care in planning. There are some suggestions about strategic planning and vision, and there are five steps towards this goal in the application guide. I would recommend finding something more substantial to read if you want to explore this area.
Notably, the larger question of whether the business language of strategic planning, mission and vision and so on is appropriate in the church is not explored. It also leaves open the question of whether such planning is really primarily an eldership function.
However, the point of this chapter is to encourage collegial planning and to seek wide ownership of plans. This Proverbs-based wisdom makes plenty of sense to me in practice!
7. Budget to expand your ministry every year
Zac’s final point in dealing with money matters is that you must budget to expand your ministries every year. Don’t let last year’s offertory dictate the ceiling for next year’s ambitions. I loved this quote: “The offertory cart must follow the ministry horse” (p. 178).
I have found this to be good, general advice, although I think growing churches occasionally need a year where they pause a little bit in terms of financial stretching to catch their breaths. But I guess that just shows I’m not really a visionary entrepreneur!
8. As you grow larger, you must grow smaller
The second last principle says that as you grow larger, you must grow smaller. This is a chapter about the importance of small groups for prayer, Bible study and care. Zac insists on the advice you may have heard before—that small groups should be changed every year or two. He gives some pretty strong benefits that flow from such a policy, and the application guide presents some good suggestions on how to implement this change.
One again, I was challenged to think that perhaps this is a change that, although often resisted, should be explored more vigorously in the church I serve.
I would add that there are some clear cases where it would not be appropriate. For example, I think of the Bible study in a local retirement village where most member are well over 70, and where it would be completely inappropriate, not to mention unrealistic, to close it down and suggest they attend different groups every year.
9. Back yourself
The last principle is back yourself: go for the godly dream. This has been the theme of the whole book, really: have the courage of your leadership convictions. Don’t die wondering, because strong leaders never give up.
Once again, I am glad the application guide adds this proviso:
Pragmatic principles in church mean nothing if they are not theologically formed, and as such the hope is that you will be a theologically-principled pragmatist. (p. 193)
I think that’s a pretty good place to complete this set of posts.
Thanks, Zac, for sharing your convictions about leadership. I’ve been stretched and challenged. God-willing, I think there’ll be some changes in my leadership as a result. But I want them to be theologically formed.
Thanks Sandy – I’ve really enjoyed your in-depth review of this book, especially as I’ve reflected on my own thoughts on the book when I read it earlier this year.
However, I still have a question for you. You’ve thoroughly critiqued the book by going through it and considering each point on its own merits. That’s great – and helpful. You see the good points, and the not so good points.
But – I still have questions about the big picture. Do you have any “overall” critique of the book (besides “go buy it”). Have you any thoughts on the big picture? What are the driving principles behind this advice? What’s the core of it? Is there some unifying principle? Overall, what are your comments on Zac’s methodology and use of scripture? More widely, what should drive a Christian understanding of leadership and doing Church, and how has Zac interacted with it?
No worries if you don’t have any answers – but if you have reflected on it, would love to hear it.
Hi Mike, and thanks for your encouragement.
You’ve also nailed me in observing attention to the individual details possibly at the cost of missing the big picture. I can miss the forest for the trees at times
Anyway, I have written a review of Zac’s book to be published (I think) in December’s Briefing, which is not simply an abbreviation of these blog posts, although there is overlap. So to be fair to subscribers, I won’t anticipate here yet what I’ll say there about the book overall.
But to try and express it yet another way, if the book was being published and promoted in circles lacking strong biblical foundations and good theological education, I would be a bit worried. But in my Sydney evangelical and Moore College circles I think it is a very good book for us to be reading and critically engaging with.
Maybe come back at me after the review comes out in December (though I suspect blog posts don’t retain that much currency!)
It seems to me that more important than appointing, rather than electing, leaders is that we should be seeking those whom the Holy Spirit has set apart for particular purposes and positions within the church. When we see that God has placed a gifting in a certain individual that corresponds with a particular position, it becomes really easy to “appoint” that person, because in all likelihood they are already in some fashion playing that role, or a similar one—and all in the church will agree. If they’re not, I think I would question whether they were the right person for the appointment…
In Acts 6 (mentioned in the blog), there were seven men chosen by the congregation to tend to the widows’ food distribution. The apostles did ask the disciples in Jerusalem to select those individuals, but the people accepted the proposal and then appointed these men based on their being full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom. The apostles then commissioned the church’s selections.
In Acts 13 it doesn’t seem to be important at all by whom Barnabas and Paul were “appointed” or “elected,” because the Holy Spirit himself told the people to set those two aside for a special work. So the Antioch church did.
Even in some of the other texts where elders were appointed by apostles, there is a list of qualifications, which very well could be a description of a Spirit-filled man that had been set apart to serve as a shepherd within a congregation.
It’s also interesting to note that prayer and fasting are mentioned so often in connection with choosing or appointing men for their rightful positions—an attempt to be in tune with the Spirit while making these decisions?
If the congregation and the elders and the apostles and whomever else may be “appointing” an individual are all listening to the same Holy Spirit, it doesn’t seem it would matter a great deal which of those groups stated to everyone what was probably already known by all. I wonder if the greater importance of the “appointment” was the laying on of hands and prayer?
Brett, thanks for commenting. In one sense, the importance of the work of the Holy Spirit in a person’s life is critical.
My comments – and Zac’s thesis – were largely over the matter of church governance – do elders appoint or do congregations elect leaders.
But yes, the right leaders are even more important than the method of appointment.
That said, I’d like to interact with what you have said.
This assumes that the Holy Spirit always gives direct revelatory guidance about such matters in terms of setting people apart for particular tasks. I am not persuaded that we have any promise in the New Testament that this is the ordinary or guaranteed way the Holy Spirit guides us. Rather I am persuaded we must rely on the guidance he has given us in the God-breathed Scriptures. (See Jensen and Payne’s book Guidance and the Voice of God or the discussion in my blog post on calling.
In particular, I would take issue with the suggestion that simply seeing God’s gifting of a certain person that corresponds to a position means we should appoint them. No. Character matters enormously as well as gifts.
However the Acts 6 description of the men chosen to deacon as being “full of the Holy Spirit”, may simply mean their character, attitudes and actions were seen to be godly, and produced by the impact of God’s Spirit, perhaps along the lines of Ephesians 5:15ff or Galatians 5:22ff. I certainly don’t think we can assume that phrase means the seven were somehow publicly marked out by the Spirit
True, but we are given no information about how this ‘telling’ occurred, nor can we assume this description in Acts is prescriptive or normative.
Mentioned “so often”? I think you are overstating the evidence – I can only find two examples in the entire New Testament which mentions both prayer and fasting involved in the appointment of people to ministry – Acts 13:2-3 and Acts 14:23. Nothing wrong with it, but just part of the variety of material that is sometimes mentioned and other times not mentioned in association with ministry appointments.
Brett, you’ve made me look carefully again at these various issues so thanks…
Once again the laying on of hands occurs mainly in the New Testament in association with healings (by Jesus several times, by Ananias with S/Paul Acts 9:17, by Paul with Publius’ father on Malta, Acts 28:8) and also with the coming of the Spirit on two key groups for the progress of the gospel in Acts – the Samaritans, Acts 8:17, and the Ephesians whose beliefs still seemed more shaped by John the Baptist, Acts 19:6.
In terms of ‘ordinations’ or appointments, it occurs with the seven selected to deacon in Acts 6:6; with the setting aside of Saul and Barnabas in Acts 13:3; twice in association with the giving of Timothy’s ministry gift, 1 Tim 4:14 and 2 Tim 1:6; as well as in the warning to Timothy not to be nasty in the laying on of hands, 1 Tim 5:22, most likely a reference to appointing others as elders. (I think it is impossible to tell for sure what the reference in Heb 6:2 refers to.)
Yet the laying on of hands is by no means always mentioned in association with the appointment of church leaders. And very little fuss is made of it when it is mentioned. It just happens. And that’s fine.
But I think it extremely unwise to put a heavier emphasis of things mentioned descriptively, almost in passing, and to downplay the importance of the explicit and prescriptive requirements given to us for the appointment of elders/overseers in places like 1 Tim 3:1-7, Titus 1:5-9 and 1 Peter 5:1-4.
The way we listen to the Holy Spirit is by relying on what he has told us through the Prophet and Apostles in the Scriptures – in this case about the sort of persons to appoint as leaders.
Could you briefly outline what the reasoning is for changing small groups every 1-2 years?
I’m in a church that has recently shifted from changing every year to trying to get more stability across 3 years.
Sam, sorry for delay in replying.
Here’s a quote from Zac giving 5 good reasons:
Remember he says the same approach could work over every 2 years.
I presume some of these advantages could be maintained though diluted, even if groups changed only every 3 years, so long as most did.