Messing with the DNA

The dangers of new church leadership

I collected the instruments of life around me, that I might infuse a spark of being into the lifeless thing that lay at my feet. Oh! No mortal could support the horror of that countenance. A mummy again endued with animation could not be so hideous as that and joints were rendered capable of motion, it became a thing such as even Dante could not have conceived.
Frankenstein by Mary Shelley

Horror stories often illustrate the inherent danger of cobbling bits of a body together or messing around with essential DNA. As a result, a monster is usually created which eventually gets out of control, wreaks havoc, destroys original intentions and lives in the process. And so it can happen in church planting.

Planting a church is a complicated and many faceted experience, but I observe there is a constant. In an ideal world everyone who got involved either by choice or appointment would be “on the same page” but unfortunately that often is not the case.

The Reverend Colin Stoodley (a former SA officer, very successful Baptist pastor, church planting expert at Pines College, Queensland, Australia) talks a lot about the importance of determining the initial, God inspired DNA of a church plant and staying true to it.

DNA … contains the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of … living organisms. DNA is often compared to a set of blueprints or a recipe, or a code, since it contains the instructions needed | Wikipedia

I have seen examples over the past decade where a church was planted by lay, bi-vocational, incarnational people who intimately understood the demographic and the spiritual and physical needs of a potential congregation in a specific area. They faithfully slogged it out to make the vision a reality, only to then have the project hijacked by the THQ/DHQ appointment of an outside team leader or officer just as things were starting to succeed. In many cases this imposition destroyed the original vision and the essential DNA.

As recently as last month some colleagues, who had built a church plant from their lounge room to a full corps, have chosen to retreat from the plant out of absolute frustration after an officer was appointed without any consultation. In spite of countless hours of briefing and seeing the plant process work firsthand it has become obvious that the officer just “doesn’t get it”.

The officer feels it necessary to create the place in their own image rather than take time to understand the DNA and establish how they could use their own training, experience, personality and full time position to take this church to a new level while maintaining the essence of why people started attending in the first place.

The fact that the appointed officer has very little in personal “skill base” to offer this congregation, and very little desire to meet them where they are, is a tragedy that is all too common. Unfortunately the place is now crashing and burning and I suspect that soon the officer will be discreetly moved away, quite probably apportioning blame to the team for their incompetence and non-stickability (have you heard this before?).

The visionaries who laid the foundation of the plant have now linked with the Pentecostals who, for their many and varied faults, reverently respect a God-directed vision from the laity and willingly provide oxygen to the flickering flame: TLC, resources and prayer. It’s possible that at least half of the plant will go with them.

Another example is of a young person whose vision for an inner-city youth based ministry inspired many others to move into the area and to commence a community of Christians. An external leader was appointed to the project. The eventual collapse of this ministry (within a very short time) resulted in many disillusioned and economically affected people. There are a number of now obvious factors that contributed to the demise but it could be argued that it was mostly due to the DNA being messed with again.

We would be naïve not to realise that some people have their own agenda in starting a church plant, and that this needs to be called to account. But I believe it is essential to church plant health to respect the original dreamers (as we so often do with the Booths) and allow them (if appropriate) to be “custodians of the vision”. I have seen this “custodian” attitude work very well with respect to rural-based churches, mission plants and culturally specific ministries.

Appointed officers or imposed leaders should be allowed to lead from the front but they must be sensitively aware of the blood, sweat and tears of those who have blazed the trail. If the new leaders come stomping into the appointment in virtual jackboots and arrogantly claim that they are “anointed” specifically for the task, the plant is doomed to failure.

Staying true to the DNA does not mean being stuck with the initial idea. We do have to be flexible to changing conditions and resource levels as they fluctuate. It is about feeding the original passion and inspiration and passing that along to each person who jumps on board. It’s not about shaping things to a precept learned in Training College or from a suspect one-day course developed by a mega-church.

Church planting cannot be done by a “join the dots” colouring scheme because we are dealing with unpredictable people. There are individual spiritual experiences, personal circumstances and agendas, egos, visions and dreams to be balanced as we try and meet the needs of the community by introducing them to Christ through us. Thank God it is not impossible!

8 Comments to Messing with the DNA

1. Perhaps a tool in a uniform is still a tool…..hopefully not a tool of the devil though
Tim the Thinker on May 25th, 2009

2. Man … that is heavy duty stuff. I’m not sure why the SA doesn’t trust its own people and more importantly the Holy Spirit.

   That whole thing about officers being somehow a different spiritual class is distrurbing and really against what we were originally all about.

   Is there any hope when those who get into power are ultimately corrupted by it in many cases? It’s human nature I suppose but shouldn’t we be better somehow???
Shalom on May 26th, 2009

3. Well said, Bruce. I would contend, however that what you write is not only indicative of church planting. Existing congregations need the same type of leadership that allows DNA to stay in tact. Many of our exitings corps do need a period of healing and even perhaps a restart that could mimic a “plant” scenario, but the DNA must be respected by incoming officers and leaders.
Rob on May 28th, 2009

4. Oh dear, you’ve been a naughty boy again, upsetting the captains and the kings. But I do find this a really powerful piece.

   What you have done is take the metaphor of DNA, a very well understood modern metaphor, and used it in place of scriptural metaphor, “the pneuma” or the breath of God; the activity of the Holy Spirit.

   More to the point, you also say that the action of the Holy Spirit is not limited to the lives of the ordained, or the commissioned, or the appointed; and that the Spirit of God can work through the lives of any of the baptized; of any believer, or of any group of the believers.

   It is very apposite, my friend, that Sunday is the Feast of Pentecost, wherein we celebrate the coming of the Holy Spirit of the whole people of God (not just to the clergy).

   The Apostles, and our Protestant forefathers after them, have always proclaimed the ‘priesthood of all believers’, which is essentially the argument you are putting here.

   The work of the Holy Spirit is not limited to or limited by those who, for whatever reason, have positions of authority in the church, and to maintain otherwise, is in fact, a heresy. Can we not trust the Spirit to raise up leaders without having all these human processes of recruitment, selection and training overlaid on top?
John Harrison on May 29th, 2009

5. I know exactly what you mean. But is it really as cut and dry as the short contrast below?

   Bridge Builders and Ladder Climbers
   Spirit Filled and Full of Self
   Relational and Regimented
   Ministers and Administrators
   Scriptural and Traditional
   Anointed and Appointed
   Yes Lord and Yes Sir

   We have both in the Army. I have noticed a pattern in the moves that looks like this: minister, administrator, minister, administrator.

   Seldom does an administrator build upon the work of a minister. They often lack the desire and skill set to do so. Both administrator and minister are needed, but often they find themselves at odds with one another. One will discredit the other saying things like, “who couldn’t get those kind of numbers when they spend, spend, spend…” Whereas, the other will respond with “All the care about is money…they think they are in the $alvation Army”

   Neither is fair to the other. Both gifts are needed. For the minister, stewardship is a discipline that must be exercised. The Administrator on the other hand must reach out of their comfort zone and make Salvation a priority.

   Each has something to offer the other and so we must not discredit people whose gifts differ from our own. I need an administrator to help me make the dreams a reality and God has blessed me with one in my wife. She has helped me to understand administrators and how to communicate in a way they understand. I could not do what I do without what she does and therefore one is not greater than the other.

   There are things they know that I do not and vice-versa. If I get stuck thinking…why don’t they get it? I’m missing the point. They don’t get it because it was given to me to share with them and they with me. Giving and receiving is a major part of maturity and we need each other in order to grow.

   Be Blessed and Be a Blessing!!!

   Robyn Bridgeo, USA Western Territory
Robyn Bridgeo on May 29th, 2009

6. Why do we always find it neccessary to mess up the good SA things just to satisfy the ambitions of some middle management DC? Control is a problem for many of these people and it seems to usually be at the expense of the dreamers and the do-ers.

   Shame really.
Peter B on June 4th, 2009

7. Bruce, for the second time today I heartily agree with you. I am wondering if this will become an increasingly regular thing!

   It would be wrong of me to comment on specific situations, seeing as I am a corps officer, however I’ve observed this kind of behaviour, not only in new plants, but in re-starts, and in transitioning corps. And, truth be told, in established corps too.

   We were once a daring, pioneering, adventurous, apostolically charged movement. We lost a good bit of that. Now, in our day when some of that is being re-discovered, we run into what can only be called phariseeism of our day.

   In dealing with phariseeism, I believe we have to look at the Master of dealing with pharisees and gain some motivation and guidance from him on how we respond.

   Dangerous ground, isn’t it? Do we go there? Well, we can’t stay away because otherwise we take part in sinful atrocities that begin to stifle the work of God’s glorious Kingdom adcancing with force.

   God help us.

   Andrew C
Andrew Clark on June 4th, 2009

8. Robyn — YES!! Love your comments about the “gifting” of Administrator and Minister. WE DO NEED BOTH!

   Oh… and Bruce… love your stuff (grin)… no really… great post!!

   imMEDIAtely yours,

   Errin Hogan
   Postmodern Storyteller
Errin Hogan on June 26th, 2009

Leave a comment