In this post, I would like to share a few observations about alternative leadership training structures within the church. I am not here to “throw stones” at traditional seminaries. As I am currently a student at Southeastern Seminary, it would obviously be hypocritical if I were to do so.

In many cases, traditional seminaries are, in essence, the collaborative efforts of various local congregations to train new leaders beyond a strictly congregational level. Some seminaries are not under the direct supervision of local congregations or a combination of local congregations. The six Southern Baptist seminaries, however, are accountable, to a great extent, to the local congregations that make up the SBC. In principle, I think this is, for the most part, a good thing. The main problem, at least as I see it, is the inherent tendency within the overall seminary approach toward the professionalization of church leadership and Christian ministry. From what I have observed, certain systems and structures of church leadership training tend to accentuate the difference between so-called “clergy” and “laity,” while others tend to magnify the priesthood, and corresponding shared ministry, of all believers.

A basic difference between various leadership training models has to do with the general attitude that underlies them. As a church planting missionary, I felt it was my role, in the churches I was involved in planting, to “work myself out of a job,” freely transferring responsibility over to others within the congregation as soon as practically possible. Other more traditional models of church leadership training, however, tend to promote a “turf protection” mindset, in which pastors feel the need to guard their job security by making themselves “indispensable” to the on-going welfare of the church. Although many churches are no longer associated with the ministry of a founding church planter, I feel they could benefit from maintaining a more missional approach to leadership and leadership training.

Biblically, it seems clear to me that certain men within the church should be designated as elders (or pastors, or overseers). I am definitely not arguing for ecclesiastical anarchy. However, in the NT church, I don’t believe the dividing line between “pastors” and “church members” was quite as marked as it is in many churches today. Though I don’t think it refers specifically to formal church leadership structures, I think the passage in 1 John 2:12-14 that speaks of spiritual “fathers,” “young men,” and “little children,” is instructive in this regard. It seems to me that, ideally, in each local congregation, there should be an equitable allotment of those who might fall into each of these different groupings. And I don’t think we would be stretching Scripture too far to infer a parallel allotment of spiritual “mothers,” “young women,” and “little girls.” Naturally, our goal should be to move as many individuals as possible up the ladder towards greater and greater degrees of spiritual maturity and corresponding leadership in the church. In the case of some, this leadership may never involve a formal “office” per se. But it is spiritual leadership nonetheless.

One of the interesting models I have been able to observe and learn from during my 18 years of missionary service in Spain is the leadership training system of the Spanish Gypsy “Filadelfia Church” denomination. In a country where evangelicals have historically comprised less than 0.5% of the total population, and church growth has generally been painfully slow, in just 40 years of existence, the “Filadelfia Church” has skyrocketed in numerical growth, and, for all practical purposes, succeeded in making the gospel known among the entire Gypsy people group throughout Spain.

In each Filadelfia congregation, the lead pastor is responsible for raising up, taking under his wing, and personally training various ministerial “candidates.” These “candidates” take turns preaching, and fulfilling various leadership roles within the congregation. Sometimes, when they are deemed ready, they are sent out, and designated as pastors in sister congregations. In many cases, they are charged with the responsibility for planting and leading daughter congregations, under the supervision of their home church and pastor.

There are other aspects of the Filadelfia system about which I am not so enthusiastic. For example, a regional supervisor is responsible for moving pastors from congregation to congregation, and the length of local church pastorates is often one year or less. Also, without any formal seminaries, the general academic level of many pastors is not very high, and their depth of understanding of certain aspects of theology not very great. However, I have observed many Filadelfia pastors with a surprisingly good grasp of basic biblical content, a red hot heart for winning souls, and a loving and committed pastoral concern for the members of their congregation. All in all, I am convinced that their unique system of leadership training is one of the most important keys to the extraordinary growth of the Filadelfia movement.

Another interesting church leadership training structure I have been able to observe on the mission field is that of the “Groups of 12″ (or G-12) movement originating in Bogotá, Colombia. In this system, the lead pastor is responsible for raising up 12 disciples he will pour his life into. In turn, each of the 12 is entrusted with the responsibility of raising up their own 12, and discipling them. And, to the degree the system works the way it is supposed to, the chain continues on and on. Additionally, each “group of 12″ member is responsible for planting evangelistic cell groups. There are also local congregation-sponsored “leadership school” classes in which more specialized training is given.

This is not the place to go into more detail on the G-12 system. You can read more about it here if you like. Unfortunately, in some aspects, the G-12 movement has developed some sectarian traits, become overly authoritarian, and not successfully contextualized its structure in other settings outside of the original Misión Carismática Internacional, where it grew into one of the largest and fastest-growing congregations in the world. The important lesson, however, as I see it, is the value of “discipleship chains” as an effective method for raising up and training leaders within the local church.

Carl George, in The Coming Church Revolution, says, “Learn to develop cell-group leaders. That is the most important single thing that you need to do as a leader of a church.” The “Filadelfia Church” and “G-12″ models are only two examples of carrying out this important principle. In some churches, something similar to this occurs through the traditional Sunday School system. It is important, however, that Sunday School teachers and leaders be given ample opportunity to develop their skills in various facets of ministry, and receive personal input and training from those who supervise them. And, as I intimated at the start of this post, I don’t think any of this necessarily negates the importance and validity of traditional seminary education. Actually, from what I have heard, studies have shown that increased efforts at non-traditional, local church-based, and theological education by extension programs, often feed into and increase the demand for more formal training at a seminary level.

I believe that, ultimately, each cultural context and local set of circumstances will call for a somewhat different leadership training structure. In general, however, I think it is a good thing to work towards a greater de-institutionalization and “leveling of the playing field” in the leadership of the church. Ministry leadership is not something to be held on to, but rather given away.

What do you think?

_________________________________________

*After writing this post, I came across the following post which deals with a lot of the same concepts, and links to some important related resources:

9Marks: Seminaries within the Church

Similarly Tagged Posts:

• Men’s Ministry… What Works?
• Leading People to Discipleship through Service
• Random Thoughts on Christian Counseling
• Multiplying Disciples, Multiplying Disciple-Makers
• Ministerial Ordination
• Linear Thinking