1. Introduction
1.1. The Selection Process
I have
derived great benefit from my contact with three nationally
recognised Christian leaders: one from the Baptist tradition, and
two from the early days of the House Church movement. They have
each published numerous books, but there is comparatively little
biographical detail published about them so far. They have each
exercised significant ministries that extended far beyond my
personal experience of them, and I concluded that in each case I
would only be capable of reflecting upon my experience of their
leadership styles. Given the limits of my experience, this was
potentially significantly misleading.
We are
allowed to interpret 'significant leaders' as 'leaders who
have been significant to you', so I decided to choose two leaders
who served as pastor in the same church. This made the process of
comparison more straightforward, and enabled me to gain information
about both leaders from the same sources - people who knew them -
which also made the process of comparison fairer. Of course, there
is always the possibility of individual bias, but this can occur
from any source, and by interviewing four other people who were
close to both leaders this risk could be reduced.
1.2. Methodology
I
interviewed people who had known both leaders well, and who had
served in some way under both of them. Several of the interviewees
expressed concern about confidentiality, so I promised that I would
not use proper names in the assignment.
The
interviews had to be arranged all to take place on a single day,
which limited the time I could spend with each individual. However,
we were careful to structure the time effectively, and each
interviewee indicated that they were content they had given a fair
summary of each pastor's leadership style.
1.3. The Leaders
In the
period covered by this study, both leaders were reasonably mature,
the second being older than the first. After leaving the church,
the first leader spent a short time with one congregation before
serving in his last pastorate elsewhere; the second, with an
extension to his term, served his last pastorate at the church
before retiring.
2. Context
"Describe
and discuss the context within which leadership is exercised."
Both
leaders worked as the pastor of a group of nonconformist churches in
a Northern suburb of a large town in Surrey. The second pastor
('P2') followed the first ('P1') after a gap (generally
referred to as an 'interregnum') of several years during which
the church had no paid leadership.
When I
talk about 'the church,' or 'the congregation' this is a
reference to the largest congregation in the group of churches, and
the one in which I and my interviewees were based during these two
pastorates. At the time, I had contacts with the other churches in
the group. The two pastors spent most of their time working in the
largest church, so it is valid to concentrate on the experiences of
people based in that church.
The
precise membership of the group changed during the (roughly) twenty
years covered by this assignment, but during the whole period the
most significant of the other churches in the group was located in a
village some four miles outside the town. Where I need to
distinguish between them, I will generally do so by reference to
'the village church' and 'the larger church'.
2.1. Location
The
church building lies on the boundary between a council estate and an
area of private housing.
The
council estate is one of the most socially and economically deprived
areas in Surrey. On the estate, a short distance from the church,
is a secondary school that made the national news on several
occasions because it was failing so spectacularly.
2.2. The Congregation
Many in
the congregation lived within walking distance of the church
building, with perhaps a 60-40 split between the the council housing
and private housing; other members travelled in from different parts
of the town.
A
sizeable portion of the congregation had grown up and spent their
entire lives in the area, while a similar number were graduates of
the local university. The church was also popular with students of
the university, some of whom became closely integrated into the life
of the church and took on various responsibilities during their time
there.
2.3. Theology
Both
pastors clearly identified themselves as evangelicals and
charismatics, in a denomination that is dominated by people who are
non-charismatic and liberal.
In the
last fifteen years of the period being considered, both pastors were
practising believers' baptism, in a denomination in which infant
baptism was the standard. This was theologically complicated, as
the denomination accepted in principle the validity of both infant
and believers' baptism, but this was interpreted by most people in
the denominational hierarchy to mean that believers' baptism was
acceptable in the case of people who had not previously been
baptised as infants.
A number
of other churches in the denomination were also practising
believers' baptism, but they all adopted a "don't ask, don't
tell" policy of not asking baptismal candidates whether they had
been baptised as infants, so they never knowingly baptised anyone
who had undergone infant baptism.
P1, once
he had become convinced by believers' baptism, openly baptised
people who had already been baptised as infants. This caused a long
lasting conflict with the denomination, and sparked a major
consultation within the denomination.
This
conflict with and within the denomination dominated not only the
relationship with the denomination but also a significant part of
church life for some ten years.
Within
the church, the transition from infant to believers' baptism was
remarkably smooth. It also provided a focus of church unity: the
church had a common 'enemy', and this always encourages and
promotes internal unity. It is not clear to what extent the lack of
unity under P2 was the result of the removal of conflict with the
denomination.
When P2
arrived, he was confident that he would be able to continue
practising believers' baptism, and that the conflict with the
denomination would soon end. This claim and this confidence
probably played a significant part in the decision to call him as
the pastor.
He was
as good as his word: very soon after arriving, he told us that a
solution had been found. When we baptised people, he would not say
"I baptise you", instead he would say "I immerse you in these
baptismal waters." This, it seems, satisfied the denomination
that the church was no longer re-baptising. Very few people in the
church believed that this trivial change of phraseology could stop a
conflict that had been going on for so long, but the conflict with
the denomination did cease.
With
hindsight, it seems possible that the denomination finally
recognised that they were not going to change the belief and
practice of the church, either through threats or through
theological persuasion, and hence settled on a compromise that
allowed them to save face. The common opinion was that if P1 had
suggested this form of words, the denomination would never have
accepted it.
2.4. Local Relationships
Both
pastors were part of a local grouping of some twenty evangelical
churches. Neither took any significant part in the local council of
churches. Neither built any kind of relationship with the local
parish church, which was not particularly evangelical but was
healthy and very active in the local community.
2.5. Wider Relationships
P1 had
very little significant connection with other churches or Christian
groups. Most of his energy and activity was directed at the
congregations and people under his care, although P1 and his wife
were gifted singers, and continue to have an involvement in
creating, producing and performing in a range of musical activities.
P2 had
connections with a wide range of other churches and Christian
groups: he was planting a church for the ex-pat community in the
Spanish resort of Benidorm; he maintained communication with
previous pastorates; he received invitations to preach at various
churches in Britain and the USA. At one point, he went to receive
an honorary doctorate from an academic institution in the USA.
2.6. More Background for Pastor 1
P1 had a
traditional liberal background, and functioned within that paradigm
for many years. He was asked to perform an exorcism in a house,
which he did out of politeness, and was astonished by the difference
his prayers made to the people involved. This led him to believe in
spiritual realities that were not a functional part of his
churchmanship, which in turn led him to consider parts of the Bible
he had previously dismissed.
For a
number of years, he went through a process of discovering the
relevance and importance of Biblical truth, and of the present day
work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of believers. He eventually
came to be publicly identified as an evangelical and a charismatic.
I played some part in this process, and also in his journey from
belief in and practice of infant baptism through to a wholehearted
commitment to believers' baptism.
P1's
gradual move from liberal to evangelical charismatic caused
remarkably few problems for the congregation. A few members were
already evangelical and charismatic, and the majority of the rest
accompanied P1 in his journey, which he openly talked about in his
sermons and elsewhere.
The move
from infant to believers' baptism took place with similar lack of
conflict. In this case, some members of the congregation remained
true to their infant baptismal roots, but they did not want to
interfere with the rest of the congregation responding to what they
saw as God's leading. Consequently, when the denomination tried
to stop what was happening, the whole congregation was united in
opposition to the heavy-handed tactics they applied.
2.7. The Two Churches
On the
majority of Sundays, P1 would lead the service at the village
church, then leave at the end of his sermon and drive to the larger
church, where someone else would have been leading the service and
drawing the worship to a close in readiness for the sermon. Nobody,
other than P1, liked this arrangement. The people in the village
church never had the chance to talk with P1 at the end of the
service, and the worship leader in the larger church would always be
anxious about exactly when P1 would arrive - would he arrive in
time?
It was
also clear to many people in the larger church that the sermon was
being delivered in the context of the worship and sermon from the
village church, and this often seemed out of context for the worship
and other activities that had taken place in the service at the
larger church before P1 arrived.
When P1
left, the village church changed the time of its service so that one
minister could not attend both services.
When
preparing a job description to be used in advertising the vacancy,
both churches made it clear that they did not want a new pastor to
attend both services on the same morning. This was also made very
clear in discussions with all the candidates who were interviewed.
Despite
this, P2 managed to change the time of the village church service
back to its original time, and to preach in both churches most
weeks. This was initially justified as a temporary but necessary
part of 'getting to know the congregations', and then as an
essential part of his pastoral responsibility. God had called P2 to
preach, and by sitting under his ministry we would be protected from
error and sin.
2.8. More Background for Pastor 2
P1, when
he left, had been in the church some 20 years. The church had grown
significantly under his leadership, both numerically and
spiritually. He was respected for his achievements and loved both
despite and, in some ways, because of his faults and failings.
As far
as we could tell, P2 came to the church after a series of pastorates
in which he was loved and obeyed. But, despite his wide-ranging
experience, he came proclaiming his own achievements and criticising
P1 and his legacy. This divided the church: some were deeply
impressed; others deeply offended. He was certainly not given the
unconditional love and obedience from the whole congregation that he
expected.
A few
months after P2 arrived, the church went away and was joined by some
members of his previous congregation. They were clearly in awe of
him, and were constantly saying things like, "Don't you feel so
blessed to have P2 as your leader?" to members of our
congregation. We were never sure if they noticed the non committal
responses they received.
I had
been preaching at the church, and others, for some years when P2
arrived. After several months, P2 asked me to preach in the evening
service, which had a significantly smaller congregation than the
morning service, and had declined since P2 arrived. This was the
first time a local person had been allowed to preach since he
arrived. Unfortunately, the congregation was almost double the size
that he usually attracted, and I was never asked to preach in the
church again during his time with us.
P1 would
occasionally take the Elders away for the day, to consider business
that needed more time than was available in the normal evening
meetings, and to socialise and get to know each other better. P2
took the Elders away for the day, but could only spend part of it
with us. Most of this time was taken by him delivering a sermon
that could easily have been preached on a Sunday. When this was
mentioned as part of the feedback at the next Elders' meeting, P2
threatened to resign unless we were prepared to cease the 'constant
criticism' of him. Looking back at this time, several of the
people present have told me that they regarded this moment as a
missed opportunity.
3. Summarising the Interviews
The complete text of the interviews can be found
in Appendix 2. Some of the points identified in the interviews are
briefly summarised in this section.
3.1. Mistakes
Fletcher Byron makes the point that leaders need
to "generate a reasonable number of mistakes... if you can come to
the end of a year and see that you have not made any mistakes,
then... you just haven't tried everything you should have tried"
- quoted in (Adair, 1985, 156).
P1 was flawed but human. While he would not
totally bare his soul in the pulpit, he would admit to faults,
failings, sins and struggles. He shared his joys, and sometimes
admitted to doubts. While he was not entirely honest, there was a
level of honesty in public that people could both respect and
respond to. In private, he made friendships with a number of
people.
P2 admitted to no weaknesses. He was our Leader,
and he delivered God's Word to us. Our job was to hear God speak
to us through him, and to obey. Anything that could be interpreted
as a criticism of, or even a lack of total agreement with, him was
taken as an attack on his entire ministry.
3.2. Releasing Gifts
P1 was constantly seeking to help people discover
their gifts and release them into ministry. He frequently got it
wrong, his judgement was flawed, and sometimes he seemed far more
concerned to find someone to do a particular job than to find
something that was appropriate for the individual. If people did
not volunteer to do what was needed, they would sometimes feel a
degree of emotional manipulation to persuade them to agree to do it.
P2 was the person with the Gifts and the
Ministry: the role of the congregation under him was to watch, to
listen, to support, to applaud, to turn up, to give, and to do what
we were told. We also had to pray, to read our Bibles, and to learn
what he taught us: this is how we were equipped to play our role.
3.3. Control
Following on from the previous point, P2 was only
happy when everything was directly under his control. P1 on the
other hand would readily delegate, but found it hard to let go in
the areas in which he was strong. In some areas of church life,
people could exercise almost total autonomy, while in other areas,
people were frequently frustrated by what they saw as interference
and, possibly, a lack of trust.
4. Evaluation
"Critically
evaluate their leadership styles."
4.1. Effectiveness
I am concerned that this case study reads like a
contrast between a good pastor and a bad one. Certainly, P1 was far
more effective than P2 in his ministry in the church by almost every
measure: numbers increased, giving increased, people regularly were
saved, many discovered and learned to exercise the gifts of the Holy
Spirit in ways that built up the church, missionaries were raised
up, sent out and supported, and ordinary members were encouraged to
exercise a wide range of different ministries. All of this
contrasts with the time when P2 was the pastor: most areas of church
life stagnated, conversions were rare, no missionaries were sent
out, and so on.
The one area where P2 clearly had the advantage
was in the relationship with the denomination. However, it is only
fair to note that numerous other congregations clearly thought the
world of P2.
4.2. Absolutes
As
far as his ministry within the congregation went, it seems that P2
saw the world in black and white. P1 taught about absolute right
and wrong, but recognised that people and actions are rarely one or
the other: this built a reflective congregation that was, in
general, more willing than most to listen to people who differed
from and disagreed with their own beliefs. This, in turn, help the
church relate to and reach out to people outside the church.
4.3. Career Choice
Any
evaluation of the leadership styles must be undertaken in the
context of their chosen career, and how they understood it. They
both chose the career of a Pastor within an established
denomination.
They
each chose to be a 'professional' Christian: paid to be a
Christian, and denied the normal means of interaction with the world
enjoyed by most church members.
They
each derived a significant degree of authority through their
position within a church hierarchy.
They
each professed allegiance to an institution which sometimes
conflicted with their personal beliefs.
They
were each employed by an organisation which not only determined
their working life, but also shaped major aspects of their spiritual
life, affecting both their belief and practice.
They
each experienced a significant degree of isolation from the rest of
the church who, for the most part, put each of them on the
'pedestal' whether they wanted it or not.
My point
is not that they were wrong in choosing such a career, but that the
choice of career brings with it certain tensions, conflicts and
challenges. I have deliberately chosen to avoid these battles in
order to be better placed to fight other ones.
4.4. Ecumenism
Neither
pastor gave any priority to ecumenical activity, although I suspect
that both had engaged in it to some extent in the earlier part of
their careers, and had decided it was not a worthwhile investment of
their time and energy.
For me,
Jesus' prayer "that they be one" has always seemed
significant, and this causes me to build relationships with people
whom I disagree with theologically.
4.5. Culture
It
sometimes felt that P1 was dragging the church behind him. But, as
Schwarz observes, it makes a big difference "whether leaders push
and shove a congregation in their own strength, or whether they
concentrate on letting God's growth mechanisms take hold" (1996,
82), and while he clearly felt a high degree of responsibility, the
growth in the church cannot be explained as the result of one man's
efforts.
P1
created a culture in which gifts and talents flowered, and in which
authority was respected but also expected to explain and justify
itself.
P2 did
not respect the culture which he found, and chose to criticise it
along with P1. He failed to contextualise his message - "to
render [it] culturally relevant, meaningful and acceptable,"
(Krallman, 1992, 166) and so he failed to achieve any of the goals
he was evidently aiming for.
4.6. Emotional Self-awareness
"Leaders
high in emotional self-awareness are attuned to their inner
signals... Emotionally self-aware leaders can be candid and
authentic, able to speak openly about their emotions or with
conviction about their guiding vision." (Goleman, Boyatiz and
McKee, 2002, 327) P1 demonstrated a good level of emotional
self-awareness, higher than any other pastor I have known, and this
probably made the lack of it from P2 feel more distancing by
comparison.
4.7. Denomination
P2 was
effective at denominational politics, while P1 ignored the
denomination as far as possible for as long as possible. This
proved to be an unwise choice.
5. Application
"Consider
the practical relevance of these leadership styles for your own
leadership practice."
5.1. Pastor 1
I think
it is reasonable to describe P1 as flawed but effective. I have a
clear perfectionist tendency, and it is helpful to be constantly
reminded that God blesses and uses us not because we are wonderful
people but because He is loving and gracious. God does not need a
high level of performance from me; He simply asks for my
availability and willingness to be used.
At a
personal level, P1 served with his whole heart: he loved Jesus and
he loved the members of his congregations, and the people in the
congregations knew they were loved. The feedback I receive from the
people I lead is that they know I love Jesus, but are less certain
of my love for them. This is a serious weakness, and I need to find
ways to communicate more effectively my love and appreciation for my
staff and volunteers.
5.2. Pastor 2
The
lessons from P2 are less straightforward. He alienated many people
in our church, but elsewhere he had several long and effective
periods of ministry. On a personal note, I consider it a tragedy
that his long history of faithful service should end in a church
where he was not as appreciated as before, and where his approach to
leadership did not work.
He was
confident in talking about himself, his achievements, qualifications
and divine appointment. He made people feel privileged to have him
around. As noted in the Personal Development Plan assignment,
I find this a difficult area: I do not respond well to other people
proclaiming their achievements, and am not comfortable doing it
myself.
The
downside of my approach is that people will often not know of my
achievements and abilities unless I give them the relevant
information. Both my staff and trustees need to have an accurate
assessment of what I am capable of, in order to respond
appropriately to my initiatives and strategies. In consultation
with my mentors, I will seek to find ways to present my abilities
and past achievements, when appropriate, to those who need to know
about them.
His
preaching left me cold, but other people responded very warmly to
it. He repeatedly told stories that tugged at the heart strings,
and used them as emotional blackmail: if this poor little child
could stand up for her faith in such difficult circumstances, can't
you pay a much smaller price and witness to your friends? While I
dislike this technique, the reality is that many people respond to
it very well. I should seek to find ways to put more of an
emotional kick into my sermons - without the emotional blackmail,
of course.
P2 was
effective at denominational politics, which resulted in him getting
away with activities that were impossible for P1. This is an area
where I believe I have learned from him. He made time to attend
meetings and get to know people, even when the meetings and the
people could not immediately further the work he was doing.
Consequently, he was accepted and listened to within the
denomination even though his culture and theology were not welcome.
Following his example, I make a point of attending and being helpful
in meetings organised by the council and the voluntary sector in
Bristol.
Bibliography
Adair,
John, Effective Decision Making (Pan: London, 1985)
Goleman,
Daniel, Boyatiz Richard and McKee, Annie, The New Leaders (Time
Warner Books: London, 2002)
Krallmann,
Günter, Mentoring
for Mission: A Handbook on Leadership Principles Exemplified by
Jesus Christ (Globe Europe e.V.: Wesel, Germany, 1992)
Schwarz,
Christian A, Natural Church Development (British Church
Growth Association: Moggerhanger, Beds, 1996)
Appendix 1: Preparing for the Interviews
It
seemed clear that totally unstructured interviews could easily
result in a set of notes that was difficult to compare. On the
other hand, I did not want to present the interviewees with a closed
set of questions, as they may well have relevant information that
did not fit within my pre-determined questions.
I
therefore decided to outline the context of the interviews, and then
give the interviewees a copy of the outline of Christian leadership,
as I developed it for the first assignment in this module. Given
the time constraint we had, I did not attempt to insist that each of
the topics was commented upon: the interviewee was free to determine
most relevant and important areas, as they saw fit. Their selection
process is also significant, I believe, but I do not have space here
to follow up this line of thought.
Some of
the interviewees attempted to work through the areas more
systematically than others. Sometimes they did a 'compare and
contrast' of the two leaders as they worked through each area in
turn, sometimes they concentrated on a leader and worked through the
areas, and sometimes they moved between the two approaches. I have
re-ordered some of the resulting material, and sometimes added a few
words to make the context explicit, but otherwise the interviews
are as complete and unmodified as I could manage without shorthand.
This is
the outline that I gave the interviewees:
1.
Introduction
1.1.
Why consider the theology of leadership?
1.2.
Who can be a leader?
1.1.
Varieties of leadership
1.2.
Related concepts
1.3.
Leadership or leadership-support
1.4.
Lay leadership
2.
Leadership
2.1.
Leadership is about management
2.2.
Leadership is about vision
2.3.
Leadership is about people
2.4.
Leadership is about commitment
3.
Good leadership
3.1.
Leadership qualities
3.2.
Leadership activities
Inspiration and vision
Appropriate activities
3.3.
Leadership principles
Speak from experience
Empower your followers
Act with integrity
Demonstrate what it means to
follow
4.
Christian leadership
4.1.
Jesus
4.2.
Ethics
4.3.
Spirituality
4.4.
The Cross
4.5.
Dependence
4.6.
Priorities
5.
Managing Leadership
5.1.
Anointed or appointed?
5.2.
Identification
5.3.
Training
5.4. Accountability
Appendix 2: The Interviews
The text has been anonymised and partly
resequenced to bring related topics together within each interview.
I have added occasional personal comments in brackets (like this).
As well as the two pastors, the name of one other
person cropped up regularly. I have referred to this person as 'PA'
because she served as the church Pastoral Assistant under P1 and
functioned as a Personal Assistant for P2.
Interview 1
Pastor 1
Looking
at the first aspects of leadership, it is clear that P1 had all four
of them: management, vision, people skills and commitment. He had a
strong, clear vision, and was a very strong 'people person'.
He was
strong on ideas, some of them 'off the wall'. He needed a
strong group around him to help filter the ideas.
He
listened to the people around him, whether he agreed with them or
not. You were allowed to disagree with him. He was prepared to
change his mind. He made real friendships with church members.
He
produced structures, like Housegroups, to encourage people in
discipleship and he produced many courses that we all signed up for.
He was
manipulative, getting people involved and doing jobs, whether or not
they were suited for the job.
The
details of the vision changed over the years, but people were always
given the freedom to 'buy in' to the current vision.
Pastor 2
It
seemed clear that P2 had a vision, but we don't know what it was.
(After prompting:) perhaps his vision was to build a successful
old-fashioned church.
P2
decided that PA was an evangelist, no idea why.
He
shouted a lot - that was very much part of his style. The church
polarised very rapidly into those who liked him and those who did
not.
He
didn't like P1. There was some history between them, but we never
found out what.
P2 had a
problem with free speech. You could say anything you liked, as long
as you agreed with him.
He
directly controlled everything. The church had a small group that
established a fund to support a black pastor in Zimbabwe. This had
worked well for ten years or so. The pastor took it over, and the
people who set it up and kept it going for so long had no further
involvement. The church involvement in supporting the pastor in
Zimbabwe dwindled to nothing.
P2
established a church plant without any discussion with the church or
involvement by the membership. Selected people moved over to the
plant. For a long time, the church was told the plant was going
well, and not to worry about it. Then, suddenly, it collapsed.
He was
the leader: he told the church what to do. He was deeply frustrated
that his plans, such as the church plant, did not work out. In
practice, most of the church was not involved in his plans, whether
they liked him or not.
The
Housegroups were not actively supported, and were frequently
undermined: every new scheme or event took priority over the
Housegroups, which were told not to meet so that the members could
take part in the other event. They did not always follow this
instruction, and sometimes would meet anyway. The Housegroup
leaders were never helped, encouraged or supported, either together
or as individuals. (They could, of course, go to him for pastoral
help. They could possibly have gone to him for help with their
Housegroup, but I am not aware of any Housegroup leader that ever
did.)
(I once
heard him say that Housegroups were 'a thing of the past' -
God had used them at one time, but their day was over. Someone else
once observed that Housegroups formed an alternate power-base, a
source of instruction and direction for people that did not come
directly from the Pastor, so of course he believed it was impossible
for God to use them.)
P2 was
anti-intellectual, which was a problem in a church where many of the
members were graduates and were used to applying their minds to
their Christian faith and service.
From
early on, the church entered a half-stagnating state, simply waiting
for him to move on. The church members were - and were only
expected to be - spectators. But they were expected to turn up to
events, to support him by their presence.
P2
always acted with integrity, but not openness.
Christians
(actually, Christian men) fell into two categories: you were either
CALLED or not. He certainly believed in 'the CALL', and while
it was never written, it was always said in capital letters. If you
are CALLED, then you run your own church; if not, then you submit to
the leader. One couple, who became missionaries in France were
clearly not CALLED. Actually, it was the husband who was not
CALLED: we were told this several times. The question of the wife's
status was never touched on, but it was generally assumed that,
since she was 'only' the wife, the question did not arise. But
he was wrong to try and become a missionary because he was not
CALLED. (Despite this, the couple did move to France, without the
support of the church, and have successfully worked as missionaries
there for over ten years.)
He
didn't empower anyone - possibly, other than PA, who seems to
have been treated as an honorary male. She became his right-hand
worker, always agreed with him and always did what he wanted. It is
not clear whether she was empowered, or just used.
The
Bible School was a success: he brought in outside people who were
good speakers. (The Bible School had a healthy number of people
attending, but there was serious pressure put on the congregation to
sign up for it. But it only consisted of lectures or sermons, and
there is no evidence that anyone engaged in any area of Christian
service as a result of attending.)
He
established a 'Management Team', but this was never allowed to
work. When he left, there was a functioning Eldership, but it was
secretive.
A few
weeks after he left, P2 returned for a visit and told everyone he
felt the church had 'deflated'.
The
denomination was fighting us during P1's time, and in the
inter-regnum. The battle stopped soon after P2 arrived.
Interview 2
P2 was
an autocratic ruler: he expected everyone to follow without
hesitation, and especially without questions. He disliked
questions.
He had
clearly defined roles: the leader and the followers. The job of the
Elders was to implement his decisions.
He was
not good at sharing vision. Not sure if he had one. It was clearly
his last job before he retired. P2 was brought in (by the
denomination) to repair the damage P1 had done. (I don't think we
have any evidence of this, but it was a a common assumption within
the congregation.) He was less of a maverick, and in a better state
(i.e., had a more positive relationship) with the denomination.
Perhaps
his vision was to develop personal spirituality within the members
of his congregations?
He was
better at denominational politics than P1.
P2's
attitude to Housegroups: they were important in the 1960s, but now
not relevant. He had issues with the HG leaders, and considered
them to be too independent. He allowed them to continue, but did
not support them at all.
He was
sensitive to criticism. P1 allowed criticism; P2 did not take it
well, and was upset if you did not completely agree with him.
P2 was
very upset that we wanted to vote on him continuing for another 3
years. He applied a lot of emotional pressure early on in his
ministry to extend his appointment. (The denomination required the
church to decide whether we wanted him to continue to serve beyond
his official retirement date, but P2 assumed that the Elders would
report to the church that they recommended that this happen, with
the church participation being a nominal: "Everyone agrees, don't
they? Good. Next item..." Instead, it turned into a serious
debate about both the decision and the timing of it: we did not need
to make the decision then, and many people would have preferred to
wait until we knew him better before deciding whether to extend the
appointment. The vote was fairly close.)
P2 was
keen to support PA in various ways: both qualifications, and in
ordination by a small group of churches, which were not part of the
denomination. (She has subsequently, many years later, become a
Baptist minister.) PA supported him, and he involved her, to the
extent that she became a part of his family.
Apart
from PA, P2 did not bring people on. P1 appointed the interviewee
and his wife to be Housegroup leaders for new believers, provided
them with both material and support. P1 put on training days,
developed courses, brought in courses like 'Teach and Reach'
(the UK version of 'Evangelism Explosion') and 'Life in the
Spirit'.
P1 was
constantly communicating and explaining his vision. P2 did not
communicate a vision: he did not believe he needed to, because the
congregation had to obey him. He was the leader: that was all the
congregation needed to know.
P1
constantly produced new ideas, generated things for people to do,
created jobs for everyone.
P2 had
his vision, and expected you to support him in it and cheer him on.
He was involved in other ministries, especially in Benidorm,
Zimbabwe and the USA. You were expected to support him, give money,
and sometimes go with him. You could travel with him thousands of
miles to hear him preaching in other churches.
P1 was
always looking for people to involve. He would train you, build you
up, establish you in a role, and then move on and forget about you
as he moved on to the next Big Thing.
The
interviewee would not fault either in terms of integrity and
spirituality.
A local
Christian leader, and one of the most popular Bible School speakers,
advised P2 to forget about ministry in Benidorm and instead to
concentrate on developing the people in his congregation. After
that advice, P2 and the church had no more contact with him.
Interview 3
Relationship
with the denomination: P1 ignored or was aggressive; P2 talked with
the hierarchy and cooperated.
Use of
and attitude to Elders: P2 would use them when they agreed; he would
ignore, reject and disrespect them if they disagreed with him.
Actually, the difference was not whether they agreed with him or
not: it was whether he thought you agreed or disagreed. Sometimes,
he got this seriously wrong, in both directions.
Use of
church members: P1 used a lot of lay people. He recognised where he
was weak, and used others to make up for this: the Pastoral Visiting
Team was a good example. He would encourage people to do their own
thing. This produced a disconnected church at times, with many
different people doing many different things. This created a
problem for P2.
P2 kept
a much tighter control of the church, possibly had a fear of people
doing their own thing. He didn't want anyone showing any
initiative.
P1 saw
himself as a servant. On one occasion, he said something (that was
obviously incorrect to my interviewee) in a service, my interviewee
quoted a relevant Biblical passage to him after the service, and P1
corrected himself in the service the following week. He
demonstrated a consistent humility. He would listen to you, even if
he was not convinced by your theology. He took a bottom-up
approach, Congregational and democratic. This produced a church
that was hard to control and direct.
P2 told
the Elders that they had to understand they were the Elders and he
was the Minister - not just one leader amongst equals. He had a
top-down approach to leadership. He expected the congregation to
see the Elders as leaders (even though he did not allow them to act
as leaders). He expected, demanded and required obedience.
Did
either of them think about their leadership style, or did they just
go with their personalities? It is not clear. It is hard to
separate the leadership style from their personalities, in either
case.
Both
attracted people who liked their leadership style, and both lost
people who remained for a while but decided they didn't like or
couldn't cope with the leadership style. P2 had strong support
initially from some individuals who then turned against him.
P1 did
very little about establishing leaders in the village church until
close to the end, when possibly the wrong people were put in place.
P2 tried to develop better lay leadership there. (On the other hand,
P1 took the village church from being a very few people in a
minuscule dilapidated chapel to being a large church in a larger
building, while the church did not grow under P2.)
Interview 4
Both
were very driven people - intensely so.
They
both had difficulty in delegating. P1 would regularly ask someone
to do a task, and then go ahead and do it himself anyway; P2 would
ask you to do something, give you no guidance, assure you that he
trusted your judgement, and then come down on you like a ton of
bricks when you didn't do it exactly the way he wanted.
(P1
understood people had different skills and did things differently;
P2 'knew' that the way he did things was right, so if you did it
differently, you were wrong.)
P1 was
dragging the church behind him, making all the effort to move the
congregation. P2 moved people with a metaphorical whip: the
congregation were seen as the slaves with the oars on a Roman
Galley, or perhaps as a army he was standing behind, prodding with a
stick and shouting. He did a lot of shouting.
P2 had a
strict moral code; P1 did whatever it took to achieve what needed
doing.
P2 was
the more frustrating minister to serve under. The interviewee would
regularly find himself walking in the fields, crying and shouting
(he described this as a 'cathartic' experience, but I suspect
that was not the right word). He never reached the same point with
P1.
On the
surface, P1 was more laid back. Under the surface? Not sure.
P2 was
spiritually abusive in a number of relationships, expecting (more
than expecting: requiring or demanding) things of people because of
their Christian commitment. "I think you should do this" was
the same as "God says you must do this."
P2 was
an intensely proud man: proud of his ministry, constantly talking
about his achievements in ministry - always with a disclaimer,
always saying it was what the Lord had achieved, but you were always
very clear that the Lord had achieved it though him.
Management
styles: P2 drove, P1 dragged people with him, always feeling
responsible, couldn't let go of responsibility.
Vision:
P2 had led a successful, evangelising church some 30 or 40 years
earlier. He was always seeking to re-create this, which is why he
tried getting the church - and other churches in the town - to
organise tent missions. This vision never changed (and could never
be questioned).
P1 had
lots of visions that lasted for 6 months or so. For each of them,
this was the thing that would bring in the Kingdom. 'Signs and
Wonders'; 'A New Way of Living'; Roy Pointer's 'Church
Growth'; 'Teach and Reach'; 'Life in the Spirit Seminars'
(not to mention many internally created programmes to promote
discipleship and mission). They were two extremes! (To be fair to
P1, many of these 'visions' lasted much longer than 6 months:
several of them were an important part of church life for over five
years.)
P1 was a
people person; P2 wanted numbers to show that he was successful.
In his
early days, P2 met the interviewee and another worship leader
regularly each week to plan the worship: this is the sermon, this is
what I want to do with the service. Then he ditched them overnight.
His attitude was that you can't make an omelette without breaking
eggs, but he would never see it that way. If you complained or
expressed hurt from such treatment, you were accused of being
childish.
P2 was
very cult-like in his requirement for commitment. People were
sucked into what he wanted, and went along with it in a way that,
with hindsight, was very surprising. But both pastors manipulated.
P2 had a
huge amount of integrity: he believed what he believed, and he
stayed with it. In contrast, the interviewee would only give P1 an
integrity rating of 5%.
Both had
areas where they could be compared with Jesus, and areas where they
were very different.