Leadership Succession Issues in Church Planting

By Stuart Murray-Williams.

We have often worked alongside Stuart Murray-Williams over the years, and given his wealth of experience in this area we asked him to contribute some thoughts to this Research Bulletin.

Stuart works as a trainer and consultant under the auspices of the Anabaptist Network. Based in Bristol, he travels widely in the UK and overseas and works with local churches, mission agencies, denominational leaders, conferences and individuals.

—–

Questions about leadership succession in church planting contexts arise in various ways:

• If the church is planted by a team deployed by a ‘mother church’, when should the new church appoint its own leaders who are no longer under the supervision of the sending church?
• If the leadership of the ‘mother church’ changes and the new leaders have different expectations of what is being planted, or are opposed to church planting in principle, what can be done to safeguard this venture?
• If the church is planted by a team deployed by a mission agency, should this team at some point withdraw so that indigenous leaders can emerge, and when should this happen? Or can the team evolve into church leadership?
• If the leader of the church planting team is
  primarily gifted at initiating new ventures rather than sustaining and developing them, when and how should this pioneer be encouraged to move on and what kind of leadership is needed in the next phase?
• If the pioneer is operating in a denomination which has a policy of redeploying staff at regular intervals, what steps can be taken to raise up indigenous leaders ready to assume responsibility when this happens? And should this policy be challenged?
• What level of spiritual maturity is required of
  potential leaders? Are they expected to receive training or accreditation? What cultural
  assumptions about the nature of leadership are operative? Are there communities in which it is impossible to find suitable indigenous leaders?
• In traditions or denominations in which certain activities are restricted to ordained and accredited leaders, can church planting experiences encourage reflection on the validity and missional impact of such restrictions?

There is no space in this short article to address all of these questions. But there are some general principles worth considering.

Firstly, it is helpful if these kinds of issues are identified and explored at the outset of a church planting initiative and agreement reached on how leadership succession will be addressed, although not every eventuality can be anticipated. External consultancy may be helpful.

Secondly, care should be taken that the new church does not become unduly dependent on the pioneer and so finds it traumatic when that person withdraws. For this and many other reasons, planting teams are usually preferable to lone pioneers.

Thirdly, ‘indigenous’ leadership means different things in different contexts, but the goal of church planting is for the Christian community that emerges to be deeply rooted in its local context and shaped by members of that locality or people group. This may mean the church turns out differently from what was envisioned, which can be a cause of tension.

Finally, church planters should prioritise the identification, nurture and empowerment of potential indigenous leaders, devoting considerable time to this, but should not rush the process or burden these people with unrealistic expectations. The transition process need not be abrupt and in some situations need not involve the pioneer leaving.