Does the Church Hinder Development?

[ITS]

How does the church often hinder the development of its pastoral and lay leaders, and why?

[Jodi Michelle]

How does the church often hinder the developement of its pastoral and lay leaders, and why?

8) According to Dr. Gangel?s book, ?Feeding and Leading,? and the bit about Pastor Petroff?s problem, it appears that the church is simply undeveloped. Due to lack of proper involvement in training and understanding about the roles and functions of the church leadership, many times it is improperly carried out. Furthermore, without this knowledge, the church administration may not even realize the error of their ways, unless they counted their fruit, or rather the lack thereof. Therefore, they may also tend to be resistant to following the pastoral/lay leaders in their development :roll:

[dbear]

How does the church often hinder the developement of its pastoral and lay leaders, and why?

8) According to Dr. Gangel’s book, “Feeding and Leading,” and the bit about Pastor Petroff’s problem, it appears that the church is simply undeveloped. Due to lack of proper involvement in training and understanding about the roles and functions of the church leadership, many times it is improperly carried out. Furthermore, without this knowledge, the church administration may not even realize the error of their ways, unless they counted their fruit, or rather the lack thereof. Therefore, they may also tend to be resistant to following the pastoral/lay leaders in their development :roll:

It seems we often pray in our churches for more power from God to do things when ultimately what we need is more people who will work out of their comfort zone, and commit themselves to the Lord's service. You are correct in that most church administrations have know idea on how to train leaders. Most don't consider that as a task of the church. They are looking for leaders but refuse to train and equip others to become leaders. People want to be called to be heros (significance in life). We must elevate the work and task and call people into heroics for the Lord which is ministry and can be easliy defined as inconvienience. Ministry is about being inconvienienced.

[Vern Caswell]

Question #2 ? How does the church often hinder the development of its pastoral and lay leaders, and why?
The church often hinders by not knowing the functions and requirements of the different offices. The church has suffered because many were taught and still believe that the minister ministers and the congregation congregates. When each office functions as it should, the church is freer to operate as it should and produce the results that God is looking for. The purpose, as Paul outlines in Ephesians 4, is that ?(11) he gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, (12) to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up.? When the church does not understand its role, the lines are blurred and ministry development cannot happen. Each person ? lay and pastoral ? need to be working and growing in the same direction, the building up of the body of Christ.

[Vern Caswell]

Reply to: It seems we often pray in our churches for more power from God to do things when ultimately what we need is more people who will work out of their comfort zone, and commit themselves to the Lord's service. ....


I disagree with two things here. I am not sure we need more people ? if we are talking in terms of sheer numbers ? but we need more people committed to the Lord. It is more about the motivation behind the service than in the numbers willing to serve. Also, we do not need heroes. Yes, there may be people who are willing to risk for God but there are also the mundane tasks that need to be faithfully executed. The gifts available to the church come in all forms and all are necessary to accomplish the work. In fact, without people will to endeavor in the mundane, the heroes would not be able to undertake the heroic. Whatever we do, we need to do it to the glory of God. (Col. 3:17)

[hyper48]

The church hinders the development of its pastoral and lay leaders by focusing on the goal of its mission rather than how to achieve that goal. If the church realized it is important to consider how it can achieve the great commission, it would realize that it needs to equip pastoral and lay leaders with the resources to reach that mission. By ignoring the process and focusing on the end results, the church for the large part has hindered or ignored the leadership development of those God has called to leadership in His church.

[hyper48]

Question #2 ? How does the church often hinder the development of its pastoral and lay leaders, and why?
The church often hinders by not knowing the functions and requirements of the different offices. The church has suffered because many were taught and still believe that the minister ministers and the congregation congregates.

I concur with the idea that many in the church have been taught and believe that the minister performs ministry and the congregation congregates. It is sad that our leaders have been unable to motivate the congregation out of the pews and into minsitry. If the church leadership can effectively communicate to the congregation the need for all people to be invovled in reaching kingdom goals then the church as a whole will realize the importance of leadership development.

[twwilson]

Many churches today hinder the development of pastorl leadership due to two basic issues:

1) Expectations

Too many churches expect their pastoral staff to be superman: too many tasks for too few people. Further, the lay people expect that certain ministries are only the domain of the staff member and do not assist in areas where they could. Due to the overload on the pastoral leadership plate, the leader is unable to develop any meaninful new skills or dedicate time to deeper spiritual growth.

2) Success Criteria

The success criteria of the church has been modified to that which the world uses in too many cases. This includes determining success based off of church size and growth along with determining success of a particular minister by his professional advancement, i.e. his ability to move up the church ladder --> smaller church to bigger church or youth minister to education minister to pastor. This drives the church leadership to focus on the wrong leadership patterns and goals.

[twwilson]

How does the church often hinder the developement of its pastoral and lay leaders, and why?

8) According to Dr. Gangel?s book, ?Feeding and Leading,? and the bit about Pastor Petroff?s problem, it appears that the church is simply undeveloped. Due to lack of proper involvement in training and understanding about the roles and functions of the church leadership, many times it is improperly carried out. Furthermore, without this knowledge, the church administration may not even realize the error of their ways, unless they counted their fruit, or rather the lack thereof. Therefore, they may also tend to be resistant to following the pastoral/lay leaders in their development :roll:

Interesting. I'd also add that lack of development in the church stems from a lack of confidence especially in biblical knowledge. This extends to both pastoral and lay leadership. I find that at times people are unsure of (maybe even intimidated by) a particular leadership position because they are unclear of what the Bible has to say.

[Yeshib1]

In reading the posted responses to the question of how churches hinder the development of it's pastoral and lay leaders I begin to wonder if the hindering started first at some point in the past with the leaders themselves, and subsequently became the "norm" behavior for the church.
Because of today's extreme numbers-oriented success syndrome an egotistical spirit has arisen in some seminary grads whereby our pastors sometimes graduate thinking they have all the answers. When these guys enter a church, instead of cutting down to avoid a full plate, they allow themselves to be overworked. When they come to a church with the agenda of making it grow, then the laity is not properly trained and thus the natural temptation of the church becomes to blame it all on the pastor. They are allowed to hinder development. Maybe in humility more of our newer pastors need to say no and not allow themselves to be hindered in the first place. Just a thought.

[ERICSHEPARD]

It seems that the answer to this question might be a mixture of both the expectations that congregations have on their leaders, and the lack of foresight on the part of Pastors and other leaders. There is a failure in the church to train the congregation to do the work of the ministry; leadership doing all the work themselves.
Members of the congregation never find thier place in the ministry of the church (or just refuse to do it), or the leaders of the church fail to delagate and trust the congregation to do the work. So leadership fails to challenge and the congregation fails to follow through. It usually boils down to a lack of maturity or a lack of experience in the congregation and/or in the leadership of the church.

[ERICSHEPARD]

In Reply to hyper 48 posted on Dec. 7,2003
"The church hinders the development of its Pastoral and lay leaders by focusing on the goals of its mission rather than on how to achieve that goal."

I think this is part of the complexity of the church, and why every church needs a mission statement. It's very easy to get sidetracked onto issues that are not neccessary to complete the mission and the goals of the church. This is why in the body of Christ its important that leadership calls on the church, however the church as a whole needs to call on leadership.
Leadership many times is concentrating on how to get the congregation involved in the plans and programs initiated to accomplish the mission, (a major undertaking these days). But also the congregation bringing leadership back to the goal. Back to what its ultimate achievement is suppose to be.

[vacleslie]

On many occasions I have had opportunity to see pastoral staff and lay leaders frustrated and tired because they have not had an opportunity to grow in their role. I believe that it's often easy to hire or put someone in charge of a ministry area and then leave them there to build it up without ever helping them grow individually. We like to see people in a role, to put them in a box, and feel uncomfortable if that role starts to change. Because of this it can be very easy for us to be reliant on leaders in ministry without wanting to give them the room to grow personally. As the church we need to give our leaders the room to grow and change just as much as the people that they are working with if we want to keep moving in a forward direction.

[vacleslie]

Reply to: "We must elevate the work and task and call people into heroics for the Lord which is ministry and can be easliy defined as inconvienience. Ministry is about being inconvienienced."

I find this approach interesting for several reasons. Firstly, I don't believe that it is our responsibility to elevate the work and task. I believe that it is God's and that he will lay his desires on the hearts of the people that he knows will step up to the plate. Secondly, I don't think that I agree with the thought that minstry is about being inconvenienced. When seeing that someone is using their gifts, seeing how God is working in the lives of others, and that he chooses to use us to do it leaves me feeling grateful and blessed that God sees us as able, and that he wants us to be a part of his bigger picture. Ministry, having the opportunity to be a part of life change, is a gift, not an inconvenience.

[stevepiper]

Regarding pastoral development, I think that people think that pastors know all they need to know, especially if they are seminary graduates but this is a mistaken perception. As an example (Feeding and Leading, p. 205), the core of relationship problems in churches is that pastors and their subordinates often don?t know how to work with each other. A pastor is not necessarily gifted or trained in working with others. Sometimes it is hard for a pastor or lay leaders to admit that they need to learn how to do something.
Another hindrance to the development of church leaders, pastoral or lay, is the enslavement to task/problem orientation. There are things to be done. Training is a nice idea but we don?t have time for it. There are problems to be solved. The church with a longer range perspective is concerned with direction, purpose, and goals. Learning, training, and development play a key role in this future-oriented approach.
Another hindrance is that churches don?t intrinsically know how to do development and it takes hard work to figure it out.

[stevepiper]

On many occasions I have had opportunity to see pastoral staff and lay leaders frustrated and tired because they have not had an opportunity to grow in their role. I believe that it's often easy to hire or put someone in charge of a ministry area and then leave them there to build it up without ever helping them grow individually. We like to see people in a role, to put them in a box, and feel uncomfortable if that role starts to change. Because of this it can be very easy for us to be reliant on leaders in ministry without wanting to give them the room to grow personally. As the church we need to give our leaders the room to grow and change just as much as the people that they are working with if we want to keep moving in a forward direction.
I agree with your observation about the lamentable practice of putting people in ministry areas and then leaving them there to carry on on their own. I think that sometimes we are so glad to have found someone to fill a particular ministry need that we heave a big sigh of relief and forget about the future needs of that role and the person filling it. If it was done right, it took a lot of effort and probably a lot of time to find the right person for the job. In order for that person to continue to be right for the job, growth in the competencies relevant to that position will be required and that requires education, training, and experience.

[jragsdale]

How does the church often hinder the development of its pastoral and lay leaders, and why?

It would seem to me that one problem with leadership development, is that the staff and lay leaders are often scared or feel uncomfortable communicating openly and honestly with the senior pastor of the church. Leaders, in my opinion, have so many things that occupy their time or waste their time, that they neglect spending quality time building relationships with those they are serving in the ministry with. There are so many activities that the church tries to implement that the church may be doing more harm than good. What must happen is the church needs quit attempting to keep up with the "Jones'" and leave time for the leadership to bond.

[jragsdale]

How does the church often hinder the developement of its pastoral and lay leaders, and why?

8) According to Dr. Gangel?s book, ?Feeding and Leading,? and the bit about Pastor Petroff?s problem, it appears that the church is simply undeveloped. Due to lack of proper involvement in training and understanding about the roles and functions of the church leadership, many times it is improperly carried out. Furthermore, without this knowledge, the church administration may not even realize the error of their ways, unless they counted their fruit, or rather the lack thereof. Therefore, they may also tend to be resistant to following the pastoral/lay leaders in their development :roll:

One of the things that comes to mind in response to this answer, is the indication that there is a lack of training in leadership. Dr. Gangel's book was originally published in 1989, and a lot of things have changed in the past 15 or 16 years. Most organized denominations require some form of a degree in Bible, theology, or ministry, before they will recognize someone as a student. So for the reasoning to be lack of training would seem to be incorrect. As a whole, minister's should be trained adequately. There are some that lead churches with very little training, but that would be few and far between. God has told us that we will be held accountable for what we preach and teach, so it is best for us to get as much training as we can.

[matt07serv]

[quote=ITS]How does the church often hinder the development of its pastoral and lay leaders, and why?

First of all, most churches that receive pastors and lay leaders are so grateful they have someone trained in the Scriptures that they automatically assume they need no more training so they focus on the congregation. Yes, the congregation does need training and growth development but the pastors and leaders need it just as much if not more since they are held accountable for the members of the church under their teaching. Discipleship and training is an ongoing thing for all Christians no matter what position they hold. There is always more to learn about God and every day we need His Rhema in our lives to make through the day on the path he has chosen for us. Churches need to be thankful for those experienced in the Scriptures the Lord has given them but they must also invest their time in them to always keep training them to continue to grow up in Christ so that their church may grow in direct relation as well.

[matt07serv]

How does the church often hinder the development of its pastoral and lay leaders, and why?

It would seem to me that one problem with leadership development, is that the staff and lay leaders are often scared or feel uncomfortable communicating openly and honestly with the senior pastor of the church. Leaders, in my opinion, have so many things that occupy their time or waste their time, that they neglect spending quality time building relationships with those they are serving in the ministry with. There are so many activities that the church tries to implement that the church may be doing more harm than good. What must happen is the church needs quit attempting to keep up with the "Jones'" and leave time for the leadership to bond.

I agree with the fact that many leaders feel uncomfortable in their church and do not have a great relationship with their pastor and because of this leadership development is hindered. Leaders and pastors have so many things to do in their positions, but at some point they need to prioritize them and choose to be true pastors and leaders not only to the other people but for God Himself. Priority number one is not the church budget as important as that is, it is first a solid relationship with God and solid relationships with the other elders and leaders of the church, an open line of communication. There needs to be time for leadership to bond if the church is going to grow in unity and glorify God.

[herbiedog]

Lack of relevant, detailed ministry job descriptions have been a cause of lack of development of pastoral and lay leaders in the church. Many churches do not feel that they need to adopt what is viewed as a secular approach to full-time or volunteer ministry, thus any ‘development’ that does occur is slipshod, hit and miss and frankly, not honouring to the Lord. A ‘let’s wait and see how things develop’ mentality on the part of leaders does nothing to motivate lay leaders, in fact, it has the opposite effect. As a consequence of the lack of job clarification, little or no meaningful evaluation of ministry is achieved. This is not helpful for the church and is even more unhelpful for the individual

[herbiedog]

It seems that the answer to this question might be a mixture of both the expectations that congregations have on their leaders, and the lack of foresight on the part of Pastors and other leaders. There is a failure in the church to train the congregation to do the work of the ministry; leadership doing all the work themselves.
Members of the congregation never find thier place in the ministry of the church (or just refuse to do it), or the leaders of the church fail to delagate and trust the congregation to do the work. So leadership fails to challenge and the congregation fails to follow through. It usually boils down to a lack of maturity or a lack of experience in the congregation and/or in the leadership of the church.

“So leadership fails to challenge and the congregation fails to follow through”

A key aspect of getting ministry work done in the church has to do with motivation. I agree that leadership has failed to challenge what may be termed ‘spiritual laziness’ in a sizeable proportion of the congregation and in other instances has failed to ‘unleash’ the potential to do ministry work that undoubtedly resides in every believer. In an ideal world, Christians might be motivated by a sense of overwhelming gratitude to God for their salvation, but they are also individuals subject to the normal, everyday vagaries of human behaviour. Churches can hinder the development of their leaders through their failure to provide opportunities and mechanisms [ministry and training] that will plug into the innate desire within each human being to be needed themselves, to want to help others and to the spiritual desire to want to grow in their faith and God-given gifts.

[Chris Carroll]

How does the church often hinder the development of its pastoral and lay leaders, and why?
Historically, the church has championed heroic paradigms as models for pastoral leadership, looking for the man or woman who can do it all. Recent shifts in our understanding of pastoral leadership, from heroic paradigms championing the individual efforts of pastors to a relational paradigm redefining the pastor as a “facilitator of networks of care,” has been encouraging for me as a leader. What I am able to do as an individual as a minister is limited. A communal strategy encouraging pastors to cultivate networks of care and resources within their ministry context is a model of leadership in ministry that I am pursuing, strategically identifying potential leaders/ministry partners within my congregation through prayer and observation, evaluating these leaders with attention given to their unique gifts and skills, and recruiting accordingly. One is too small a number to produce greatness. Lasting teams are driven by mission, assembled with care, and led with love. We have for too long focused on the achievements of a few rather than the development of many.

Acts 2:42-47 is a focal point of leadership development for me, reminding me of the fellowship shared by believers in the early church. Too often, I fear we forget the importance of this component in our ministry teams, focusing on the task before us rather than the journey we are sharing and its impact upon our own spiritual formation. It is vital for me to cultivate habits of deepening community rather than only being in the company of my own ideas. Recognizing my own need to express myself in service, I am committed to crafting opportunities for others to do the same in a leadership capacity. Too often a “lone wolf” in the past, I have been stretched in pushing leadership down and out, sharing the responsibilities of ministering to others. This has been good for me.

[Chris Carroll]

Question #2 ? How does the church often hinder the development of its pastoral and lay leaders, and why?
The church often hinders by not knowing the functions and requirements of the different offices. The church has suffered because many were taught and still believe that the minister ministers and the congregation congregates. When each office functions as it should, the church is freer to operate as it should and produce the results that God is looking for. The purpose, as Paul outlines in Ephesians 4, is that ?(11) he gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, (12) to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up.? When the church does not understand its role, the lines are blurred and ministry development cannot happen. Each person ? lay and pastoral ? need to be working and growing in the same direction, the building up of the body of Christ.
In reading your response and understanding the language of "offices" in your post, I couldn't agree more. I found myself consistently responding to each sentence with, "Yes, but how?" By quoting Ephesians 4, I sense you are pointing to that as a central text for understanding the different roles the clergy and laity can perform. The question then becomes for me, "How do we help clergy and laity understand the gifts God has called them to use in the pursuit of His divine program?" Helping people understand their gifts and companioning them as they discover these gifts and how they may best be used is a critical role for us as pastors. Too often, I believe the church "expects" pastors to have done the hard work of self-assessment when this hasn't necessarily been done or even encouraged. We expect pastors to know themselves when we hire them. Or, we expect the laity to come to our congregations with a knowledge of the gifts they have and how they can be used for the Body. This, in both regards, simply isn't the case. Perhaps, one of the most significant ways we have hindered the development of pastoral and lay leaders in the church is by not allowing them to tend to their "wounds" on the front end of ministry. Henri Nouwen's The Wounded Healer speaks to this reality, and the fact that by tending to our wounds we are better prepared to pastor others towards healthy development. Thanks for your post.

[71555]

How does the church often hinder the development of its pastoral and lay leaders, and why?

The leadership of a church can hinder by not being open to change. Statistics says that one of the reason this happens is that the older members are defending the "Status Quo." Too many churches are quick to get satisfied with how things are and they are not open to changes when the culture changes around them. Change is a constant thing. Martin Luther, saw a need for a change and he nearly got killed. This is why we need to listen to others around us; when one program does not work, then it has to be rethought. Never get satisfied with the "Status Quo."

[Anja van Slooten]

I would disagree with the question itself. It is only church administration and other leaders that can hinder development of pastoral and lay leaders. Some want to have to much control over everything and don’t give opportunities for others to develop and serve. Some don’t know how to communicate to others what they should be doing. Some don’t know what are they doing and can’t say not to a position even though they know that it’s not their calling. And church does only the things that they learned from their leaders.

[Anja van Slooten]

Lack of relevant, detailed ministry job descriptions have been a cause of lack of development of pastoral and lay leaders in the church. Many churches do not feel that they need to adopt what is viewed as a secular approach to full-time or volunteer ministry, thus any ‘development’ that does occur is slipshod, hit and miss and frankly, not honouring to the Lord. A ‘let’s wait and see how things develop’ mentality on the part of leaders does nothing to motivate lay leaders, in fact, it has the opposite effect. As a consequence of the lack of job clarification, little or no meaningful evaluation of ministry is achieved. This is not helpful for the church and is even more unhelpful for the individual

I agree that the importance of job description is neglected. In my church they are not clear. Because of that some of the staff members who are hired turn out to be not qualified for the job because the job description was so vague. Some leaders are overworked and frustrated because they are doing more and extra also because they are not sure whether it is their responsibility. The personal relationships among the staff are tensed because many are confused and step on each other’s toes.

[BobSchwerdt]

How does the church often hinder the development of its pastoral and lay leaders, and why?

First of all, I'd disagree that "the church often hinders..." A local church, or an ecclesial system, or individual people may hinder development, but the phrasing seems almost to castigate the Church herself. Sorry, but that's kind of a sensitive point with me.
But if we ask "how do churches often ..." then we have a discussion. I'd say that leaders are often hindered in their development because strong leaders are seen as dangerous. They may bring changes that a community is not comfortable with. Therefore many who step forward into leadership callings are "de-fanged" before they can take things too far. In some churches I've seen, those are promoted who make the most people comfortable (forgetting that the gospel has some very uncomfortable elements). Confrontation can be upsetting to the status quo, so those who are willing to confront are channeled elsewhere. The idea of 'Jesus meek and mild' has had too much play, and Jesus driving out the vendors from the Temple (for the sake of the people's communion with God, not just for 'economic justice') has been forgotten.
Often churches can, consciously or unconsciously, hinder the development of their leaders by focusing on peace and unity at the expense of holiness.
There's so much more can be said--but I'll stop here.

[BobSchwerdt]

The leadership of a church can hinder by not being open to change. Statistics says that one of the reason this happens is that the older members are defending the "Status Quo." Too many churches are quick to get satisfied with how things are and they are not open to changes when the culture changes around them. Change is a constant thing. Martin Luther, saw a need for a change and he nearly got killed. This is why we need to listen to others around us; when one program does not work, then it has to be rethought. Never get satisfied with the "Status Quo."

I'd agree that a mindset among a church's people that is closed to change is dangerous (even deadening), and it can lead to a church culture that certainly hinders leader development. But I think we need to be slow to stereotype those who are closed as all "older members." Some of the most progressive Christians I know are old enough to be my parents (and I'm 43). A couple I know in their 70s are as emergent-friendly as engaged in cultural contextualization as anyone I've read about.
Change has its value, and it is often positive. But some things should change, and others should not. How we communicate must change, the content of the Gospel must not.
We need leaders who are aware of the times, and the contexts in which we live, and who are capable of helping the church communicate the Gospel effectively and live holy lives in the world. And we must resist the efforts of structures and systems that resist those callings.

[SeaPeak]

How does the church often hinder the development of its pastoral and lay leaders, and why?

One of the primary ways that the church often hinders the development of pastoral and lays is enforcing “tradition” on them. First let me say I dislike the term “lay leaders” since it somehow implies that there is a significant difference between the paid and unpaid ministers which is nowhere supported in the New Testament. When a church imposes traditions to the point of stifling changes in the demographics or outside environment of the church, opposes decentralization, and/or refuses to consider either zero budgeting or zero programming then not only will the leaders be hindered the entire congregation will be hindered. The “We’ve never done it that way!” attitude can throw a wet blanket over the entire paid and volunteer staff. Likewise being unwilling to consider zero budgeting and zero programming in order to truly establish budgets and programs to fit the congregation’s needs means directing money and personal energy on things that may no longer be needs of the local body.

[SeaPeak]

How does the church often hinder the development of its pastoral and lay leaders, and why?

One of the primary ways that the church often hinders the development of pastoral and lays is enforcing “tradition” on them. First let me say I dislike the term “lay leaders” since it somehow implies that there is a significant difference between the paid and unpaid ministers which is nowhere supported in the New Testament. When a church imposes traditions to the point of stifling changes in the demographics or outside environment of the church, opposes decentralization, and/or refuses to consider either zero budgeting or zero programming then not only will the leaders be hindered the entire congregation will be hindered. The “We’ve never done it that way!” attitude can throw a wet blanket over the entire paid and volunteer staff. Likewise being unwilling to consider zero budgeting and zero programming in order to truly establish budgets and programs to fit the congregation’s needs means directing money and personal energy on things that may no longer be needs of the local body.

[agamtoks]

How does the church often hinder the development of its pastoral and lay leaders, and why?

The church hinders this growth when it leaves the pastors and leaders to do the ministry work. The ministry is to be done by the saints, the role of the pastor and other leaders is to lead and to equip/prepare the people to do this work. When this is not done, the leaders do the work and do not get the opportunity to train other people (which is one of the primary purposes of leadership cf. Eph 4:11-12)
In this way, a pastor who is the only one that can evangelize or teach in the congregation may look skillful and developed, but it is really undevelopment because his leadership is not being utilised when he is doing the work by himself.

[agamtoks]

How does the church often hinder the development of its pastoral and lay leaders, and why?

One of the primary ways that the church often hinders the development of pastoral and lays is enforcing “tradition” on them. First let me say I dislike the term “lay leaders” since it somehow implies that there is a significant difference between the paid and unpaid ministers which is nowhere supported in the New Testament. When a church imposes traditions to the point of stifling changes in the demographics or outside environment of the church, opposes decentralization, and/or refuses to consider either zero budgeting or zero programming then not only will the leaders be hindered the entire congregation will be hindered. The “We’ve never done it that way!” attitude can throw a wet blanket over the entire paid and volunteer staff. Likewise being unwilling to consider zero budgeting and zero programming in order to truly establish budgets and programs to fit the congregation’s needs means directing money and personal energy on things that may no longer be needs of the local body.
I quite agree with you, this can be a serious hinderance to development of the pastor. It is one of the challenges which the leaders have however, and I think that is why change management is one of the imperatives of leadership.
Probably in cases such as these, the people need to be inspired to gradually see things differently. I think though that where the church is gradually brought in to the ministry work of the church and not just leaving it to the leaders, it is easier to make a difference.