Return to Pastoral
series
During the course of my research it was not hard to find significant problems emerging in many churches with MLTs
Selection of team members
Though each diocese has a slightly different recommended procedure for choosing
team members, Lichfield is typical in recommending a method which represents a
hybrid between election and selection.
This begins with an invitation for each member of the congregation to submit a list of
names and roles of those who they would trust to share leadership with the incumbent.
These names are collected and counted; but a nominations committee (chosen by the
PCC, and including the incumbent) has the final say in deciding who should form the
team. In some churches this appears to have worked well; in others, however
considerable problems have arisen
In one congregation, the majority of team members repeatedly blocked the incumbent's proposals, whilst showing very little positive responsibility for leading the church, or putting forward alternative suggestions. After a number of years of conflict, the majority of these team members resigned. However the church was wary about undergoing a fresh calling out process under the old procedure, as this was perceived to have simply thrown up the names of those who were well-known and well liked. Instead the incumbent and two others who had remained on the team were given a free hand to select those who they thought they could work with.
In other contexts, a large proportion of those initially invited have declined to join the team. The main reason for this has generally been a lack of time, due to existing family, work or church commitments. However in other cases, those invited have not felt comfortable with the ethos of an MLT. One particular individual was reported as being uneasy about what he perceived as being 'elected' to ministry. Where several of those initially invited to join the team have declined, the attempt has usually been made to form a team from other people. However though this may result in a very good team, it could produce a group which the congregation does not easily recognise as representing their natural leaders.
Elsewhere, members of the nominations group have proved unable to maintain confidentially, resulting in those who received several nominations, but were not chosen, becoming hurt and angry.
Management and leadership of the team
Some of literature is dangerously close to presenting MLTs to incumbents as a
panacea for all their problems. Whilst there may be some teams (such as 'Stephen's'
cited in the booklet) which are immediately able to take the burden of management
and leadership from the incumbents shoulders, in many contexts this is not so.
In one church, a team was initiated by an incumbent who was experiencing a variety of personal struggles and was very attracted to the idea of 'sharing the load' with others. However, without effective leadership and direction, team meetings proved to be a very frustrating experience, with members resenting the endless discussions, which were often repeated in the PCC, and which rarely led to concrete action.
In other contexts, things may not have been as bad as this; however, as all the secular literature1 warns, leading a team requires considerable skill on somebody's part. For a number of incumbents, the reality may well be that after the initial excitement has faded, preparation for team meetings simply represents an additional burden, with no obvious benefits to them or the church, or the mission of God. One clergyman I interviewed, whilst remaining very committed to the current developments in local ministry, observed sadly that, considering how much energy had been invested in such teams, there had as yet been little payback.
Disagreements
A certain degree of conflict and disagreement is, of course, desirable in any leadership
group or team. However in some churches, significant differences of churchmanship
or theology have resulted in a team that is constantly disagreeing over the same
underlying issues, and is unable to set an appropriate lead. In one case I am aware of
this repeated conflict led to the premature resignation of the incumbent and collapse
of the team.
Change of incumbent
This has always recognised as problematic; and the diocesan system of 'mandating
teams' has, as intended, ensured that MLTs are not simply folded by a new incumbent
who finds them uncongenial.
My interview with John Allan, formerly Local ministry advisor for the Wolverhampton Area of Lichfield Diocese, suggested that around 50% of Leadership Teams experience significant difficulties in adjusting to the arrival of a new incumbent. In some cases these were, in time, satisfactorily resolved; but others were a major source of ongoing conflict.
In one congregation, attempts at developing a local leadership team predate the diocesan scheme. However, during 3 incumbencies there have, in effect, been 3 different teams; and one naturally wonders whether the next incumbent will require a 4th team to be formed.
Sometimes, a team's difficulties in adjusting to a new incumbent can be seen to be the result of a poor choice of incumbent, who had little understanding of the demands of collaborative ministry. The reality is though that for some posts, the field of candidates is very limited. And in many other cases, problems have arisen despite choosing a person who had seemed to be genuinely committed to some form of collaborative ministry; and had perhaps even worked well with a different sort of MLT in a previous congregation.
In one church I am aware of, a conflict has arisen between a new incumbent and a person who was being considered for ordination as an OLM, but whose candidature the new incumbent did not feel able to support.
In another context, despite the team being very successful, and continuing to work well with their new incumbent, there were significant differences in understanding which could, in my view, prove very problematic in the future. The most obvious of these was the relationship of the incumbent's authority to that of the team. For him, the legal position was paramount - meaning that he retained responsibility and accountability for the affairs of the benefice; and must therefore have a right to exercise a veto on decisions even when in a minority of one. The team members I interviewed, however - though accepting that this veto had only been used on 2 or 3 occasions - nonetheless felt this represented a significantly different position from their own more egalitarian understanding of how such team should work. On one occasion, they had questioned the vicar about his making a particular decision without consulting them beforehand; but even then it appeared that the underlying issue of whether or not he had been within his rights to do so had not really been resolved.
This particular team also revealed a significant difference in perspective between the incumbent and OLM as to the relationship between their two different roles. All were, in fact agreed that it had been right to see the OLM as acting as assistant minister for the whole of the benefice, rather than as a resident minister or 'community president' with full delegated responsibility for one or more of the congregations. Nonetheless, the vicar's perception was that this should mean that an OLM functioned as a curate, accountable to him; whereas the OLM, who was an older man who had held an extremely responsible job, very definitely did not see himself in this role. On the contrary, his understanding was that it was only a matter of time before OLMs assumed the primary leadership role of congregations, with stipendiary clergy acting more in an advisory role over a much broader area. In this situation, both role-holders had the personal maturity and inclination to avoid precipitating overt conflict, and overall the relationship seemed to be good. Nonetheless, if (as I suspect) such differences in perspective are common it is easy to see the potential problems that could lie ahead.
Elsewhere a highly competent OLM appeared to be exercising a more definite leadership than the more recently appointed stipendiary incumbent. Though this situation need not necessarily be problematic, a less tolerant congregation might begin to wonder why they are having to pay and house their incumbent when somebody else is doing most of the hard work. In addition, the appointment of a future incumbent with a stronger desire and ability to lead could create significant tensions.
Relationship to PCC
The introduction of most MLTs has a significant effect on the operation of the PCC.
At St John's Knypersley, where I am vicar, after a slow start, the team began to make some limited progress and its members began to feel very positive about what they were achieving. However a discussion with the other members of the PCC, showed that several held strong reservations about the role that the team was now fulfilling. At least two people felt a frustration that they had not been party to some of the detailed discussions in matters that were of interest to them. A couple of others expressed more general surprise that the team had developed a role in the decision making process; whereas they had understood (rightly or wrongly) the team's purpose to have been mainly to help the incumbent in areas of practical ministry such as pastoral care.
In another church I visited, both the vicar and other MLT members believed that the relationship with the PCC was working reasonably well. I was told that the fact that the group was generally described as 'ministry team' (or sometimes 'staff meeting') rather than using official diocesan title of 'leadership team' meant that it was not seeking to exercise the dominant leadership role. Nonetheless, after probing quite carefully in this area, I was left wondering if this was really the case. To begin with the MLT met far more frequently than the PCCs; and it was also suggested that over worship and 'other spiritual matters,' the PCC was generally content to trust the team. There was a strong feeling too among team members that it was desirable to reach unanimity before going to the PCC - making them rather like a cabinet, which fully expected their corporate view to prevail on the vast majority of occasions. I was unsure whether the other PCC members would have been as content with the situation as the team members were. In contexts where the PCC had previously developed a genuine responsibility for shared leadership in conjunction with the incumbent, an MLT can be seen by some to represent the hasty replacement of an elected democracy with an immovable oligarchy.2
Expectation and roles
In different contexts, MLTs have undertaken a wide variety of roles; and inevitably
their promoters are not slow to advertise the huge variety of achievements.
However, this can create rather unrealistic expectations, and lead to disillusionment
when teams discover that they only have the time or energy to focus on one or two
areas. This problem may be particularly acute when the team is composed of those
who the congregation perceive as their natural leaders -as this may well mean that
those chosen are already undertaking demanding roles in the life of the church.
The result may well be that team members feel overloaded, or be unable to fulfil their other God given responsibilities in the family or workplace properly. I know of one person who was asked to consider going forward for selection as an OLM, but who had been put off by seeing the pressure that such training and ministry had placed on a colleague at work. The rhetoric may have been of 'exercising a priestly ministry in the workplace'; however her resulting inability to do her job to properly made her a very poor witness.
Renewal of Team
In a healthy church, there will be a certain throughput of leaders, allowing each fresh
generation to play their part in the church's decision making. In one church there has
been a de-facto leadership team operating successfully for several years. However,
other than the vicar, it included no-one under 50, despite the fact that there are many
younger people with the gifts and potential for leadership. Enlarging the team, though
un-contentious, would probably lead to a replication of the limitations of a PCC.
However as yet the diocesan guidelines contain no effective system for encouraging
people to stand aside to make room for fresh blood.
Return to Pastoral series
1) Pastoral
If this is to be the MLTs major role, the majority of team members need to have the
potential for pastoral ministry i.e. ability to listen, and to be viewed as a caring
person. However there may be a role for one or two with administrative skills too, to
facilitate meetings and to service any structure that is set up.
2) Mission-oriented
Here, there is a significant body of secular studies emphasising the need for a variety
of personality types to be included. Belbin's analysis identified the need for 7 team
roles of Chairman, Plant (advancing new ideas), Monitor-evaluator, Company Worker
(translating ideas into practical working steps), Team Worker (supporting and helping
others), Resource Investigator and Completer.3 In all but the largest churches it will
of course be impossible to find enough potential team members to follow such
management theory precisely; but nonetheless the principle of the need for a variety
of personality types surely holds good.
A team seeking to operate in this mission-oriented role will also need the majority of its members to have sufficient time to be actively involved in new initiatives. In most contexts those with existing heavy responsibilities, such as wardens and readers, may therefore be best not chosen, unless they have a significant amount of spare capacity, or a willingness to step down from their present roles. In this case, the key question that Lichfield diocese suggests should be asked of the congregation, namely to nominate 'those in whom they would have confidence as members of a team sharing responsibility for the leadership of the church with the incumbent'4 would need to be significantly modified.
3) Heads of Department
In some cases, once this model has been decided upon, the composition of the team
will require little more than confirming which existing office holders will be included
in the MLT. However even where this is the case, a church that is developing new
projects may subsequently consider it appropriate to extend the team to include others
who have taken on oversight of specific ministries.
Where the development of an MLT represents an attempt to introduce oversight roles that did not previously exist (for example in the 4 areas defined by the diocesan strategic plan), considerably more thought will be needed to choose team members for their potential to fulfil a particular role. My impression is that, though initially popular, this model has yet to prove to be workable in many contexts.
4) Think Tank
For this model to function well, there will need to be some of the variety of
personality types suggested for the mission model, most obviously chairman, plant
and resource investigator. If there are group members who do not initially possess the
confidence to participate in discussion, then developing this skill will be an important
first priority too.
5) Liturgical
A MLT aiming to focus primarily on the leading of worship will naturally consist first
and foremost of those who are actively involved as clergy, readers, and music leaders;
or who are in training to take on these roles. Having one or two not directly involved
may complement this by giving a participant's viewpoint; although some may
naturally be over-critical or reluctant to express any opinion.
Return to Pastoral series
The vision of the Local Ministry Scheme is that the leadership of the local church will embrace these characteristics :
The leadership will be:
As Local Ministry matures, we are discovering that Leadership Teams are needing to explore the diversity of leadership roles required by their churches. Experience to date suggests that most teams will need one or more members to fulfil at least the following roles:
Liturgical leader
These will be ordained people, SMs, NSMs or OLMs. Their liturgical role may be
exercised in both the team and the wider church.
Team Leader or Chair
These may be lay or ordained : their role is to ensure that the team is true to its
purpose in terms of its task, integration and membership.
Enabling Leader
These may be lay or ordained, with a central role of discerning and empowering the
ministerial gifts of the whole congregation. This role may be exercised in either an
associational or, more subtly, in a communal context. Without this leadership role,
tile team is in serious danger of becoming a corporate version of a traditional
incumbent.
Project Leader
These may be lay or ordained, called to lead a particular piece of work within the
team or the church for a set period.
Presiding Leader
This person may also take on one or more of the above roles, but will principally be
the focal figure in the church's leadership. For this reason they probably need to be
ordained, although not necessarily stipendiary. They provide not only a visible link
with the leadership of the wider church but also a readily identifiable focus of
leadership for both the congregation and also the wider community. It is important to
emphasise that this is a "gathering" and not an "executive" leadership role.
Some of these roles are interchangeable, with different team members taking up one or more of them at any one time. Alternatively, some roles (eg Enabling) may be shared by several or all people on the team. What is crucial is that team members are aware of and agreed upon the diverse leadership roles they are exercising at any one time.
Robert Daborn, Local Ministry Officer for Lichfield Diocese
2 This view was forcefully expressed by Revd Philip Crowe, speaking at at a seminar at Lichfield Clergy Conference 2001 Back
3 Cited in Adair (1986) p 182. Adair p 208 cites analysis by Margerison, and Krech & Chrutchfield which, though differing significantly in detail, nonetheless make the same basic point about the need for a variety of skills and personality types in teams.Back
4 D Sceats and others, Local Non-Stipendiary ministry in the diocese of Lichfield: a submission to the house of Bishops (Lichfield: Diocesan Board of Ministry, 1995), p 17 Back
Go to Page Two
Return to Pastoral
series