Nov 4, 2011
neil

Why you could be the reason your church isn’t growing

Rick Warren on why Ministers can be biggest obstacle to change in a church:’You’ve decided we’re going to grow and you’ve set goals for growth but now;

The role of the pastor must change.

The role must change from minister to leader. Mentally you must (if the church is going to grow) be willing to pay the price for growth. You must be willing to have people that you are not the pastor of,that you don’t personally minister to. That’s a big decision. If you have to personally minister to everyperson in your church then the church cannot grow beyond your own energy level. That is a barrier. You become a bottle neck. The church must outgrow your personal ministry.This is called the ‘Shepherd Rancher Conflict’. As the pastor of a little church you know everybody, doall the praying, all the baptizing, all the teaching, know every family, every kid, every dog and cat and you shepherd everybody personally. But there’s a limit to how many people you can personally shepherd.As the church grows you must change roles from Shepherd to Rancher. The Rancher helps oversee under Shepherds. Everybody on my staff practically, does more weddings than I do and counseling andthings like this. You must be willing to let other people share the ministry. You don’t give it all up ifyou’ve got a pastor’s heart; you’ve got a pastor’s heart! But you’ve got to give up most of it becauseotherwise the church cannot outgrow you. You’re the bottle neck. The Shepherd must become theRancher. Ask yourself, Would I be happy being a Rancher? If you wouldn’t be I suggest you take on a goal that your church will sponsor new churches. Most of us God made with a Shepherd’s heart. God loves people with a Shepherd’s heart because most of the pastors in America have a Shepherd’s heart.

Can a Shepherd become a Rancher?

Yes, he can. If you’re willing to do three things:

1. Stay put and outlast the critics. You will have criticism in growth.

2. Give up part of the ministry and let other people minister and not have to be able to do it all yourself.

3. Learn additional skills.

The conflict that’s going to occur is the fact that if you go into an existing church realize this up front: They’re not hiring you to be the leader; they’re hiring you to be the minister. Actually they don’t want a leader, they want a chaplain. They want a chaplain who will marry and bury and preach and serve the Lord’s supper and do all of the holy things and let the people just handle the church. They’ll make the decisions and administrate. You just be the chaplain. When all of a sudden you start saying, “I don’t want to just be the chaplain, I want to lead this church to growth,” they say, “Wait!” They’re not saying itconsciously but inside they’re saying, “Wait a minute!” Most churches think that the congregation is the leader and the pastor is the hired chaplain. He does all the holy things and yet for the church to grow itneeds to be the exact opposite. The ministry needs to be in the hands of lay people. The pastor must be willing to let the people be the ministers and the people must be willing to let the pastor be the leader for there to be growth to take place.’

2 Comments

  • This is church leadership 101, but needs to reiterated because so many pastors don’t understand the realities related to styles of leadership, styles of relating and even styles of communication that unnecessarily limit the growth of a church. Rick is right. We are often blind to the things we do that inhibit growth. We assume that the way we do things in simply the biblical way because we haven’t been exposed to other models of leadership. Largeness is not necessarily good in itself, but neither should we prize smallness as more virtuous.

  • Interesting stuff. There are a couple interesting issues here, I think.

    Firstly, I agree that it’s important to understand what can limit institutional growth. The physical and emotional limitations of a single pastor can certainly be such a limiting factor, and so can the church community itself: if you have a church which prizes the sense of connectedness, there is a limit to how much it can grow.

    What do I mean by that? Well, the optimal size of a human community is about 120-150. (This is the numeric limit of traditional villages, the number of friends you actually interact with on FaceBook, whatever. Throughout history it seems to be pretty constant). So if your church is big on community and really likes for everyone to know everyone else and feel like one big family, you’re not going to get a congregation past about 150 people.

    Now, this may not be a bad thing. I’ve been in congregations of 1000 and up, and let me just say that I have seldom felt more alone in a church than I do in a faceless mass of that scale. You just can’t interact with that number of people in any meaningful sense. On the flip side, I’ve been in a congregation of 8 that was awesome.

    But if you want to grow past the 150 mark, you really need to think about how you do it. Do you want a mega-church with a 5000 seater auditorium full of strangers? Or do you want to have multiple smaller congregations meeting separately? And by separate, I mean separate – their own pastors, their own service, not just sitting in another room with a video feed.

    I’m not really advocating for any particular approach over another, but i do think it’s important to recognise some of the implications of church growth and what it actually means for the community that you are trying to grow.

    In my current church we have a morning congregation of about 150 (with an emphasis on community), and we’re trying to get an evening service started and specifically trying to build a distinct community for that service, with different music teams, preachers, service leaders, etc. It’s an ongoing project so it’s really interesting to think about these things here – thanks for posting about it!

Leave a comment

Facebook Twitter RSS Feed