By Sam S. Rainer III

When God guides a church, it’s not a smooth journey. Ministry in a community is stop-and-go. The church is called to go share the only message of hope and stop for those in need.

Many people are aware that something bigger than their personal world exists. They desire to take part in something that makes a difference. In fact, recent research reveals that the majority of churched and unchurched young adults rated the opportunity to meet the needs of others (locally and globally) as extremely important in their lives.

To impact the world, however, God requires the church to stop and go.

The ministry of going

The church’s mission today is the same mission given to Peter, Paul, Silas and Barnabas. We live sent. We live like Christ. The people of the church are described as light and salt, the guide and flavor of culture. In Luke 10, Jesus sends 70 people to an abundant harvest in the surrounding towns. His directive is short and clear, “Go.” Their ministry would not be easy, but they were called to move quickly and impact widely. Jesus made the implications of his mission unmistakable: You cannot go without moving and impacting.

Moving implies that you meet people where they are. The church should be more “go and tell” and less “come and see.” Impact implies that the church changes the community. Our purpose is to make Christ known and to help transform people’s lives.

The ministry of stopping

We hear a lot of church talk about going. Deservedly so, it’s a huge part of the church’s mission. Equally important as going, however, is stopping. And no one better than Jesus demonstrates the importance of stopping. Mark 10 reveals this critical element of Jesus’ mission.

Traveling through Jericho on the road to Jerusalem, Jesus hears a blind beggar named Bartimaeus crying out to him from a large crowd. Jesus was on his way to the cross. The entire redemptive history of humankind was at stake. He was on his death march to save the human race. If anyone ever had an excuse not to stop, it was Jesus at this moment. Jesus did not push forward through the crowd. He did not offer the excuse that he must deny one to save many more. This passage reveals a significant part of Jesus’ ministry in two powerful words: “Jesus stopped.”

In this passage Jesus demonstrates one of the major implications of stopping. To reach those society has labeled the least, we must be willing to put them first. This blind man became a child of God because Jesus took the time to stop and make him the priority.

The church’s mission is stop-and-go. We go to people. We stop for people. We go with urgency. We stop with compassion. Jesus demonstrates both, and we are called to do the same.

Sam S. Rainer III serves as president of Rainer Research (rainerresearch.com), a firm dedicated to providing answers for better church health. He also is the senior pastor at Stevens Street Baptist Church in Cookeville, TN. He writes, speaks, and consults on church health issues. You can connect with Sam at @samrainer or at his blog, samrainer.wordpress.com.

Of the approximately 400,000 churches in the United States, many are dying. Religious rigor mortis has set in these congregations. They are stiff and useless. While God holds the individual responsible for his or her own sins of omission in not following the Great Commission, perhaps one of the more inconspicuous causes of religious rigor mortis in our churches is that of pastor tenure.

Many studies and books cite the significance of leadership in churches. Most pastors will tell you that it takes time for considerable change to occur in the church; even change at the speed of molasses can cause strife within established churches. But, pastors are not staying at churches long enough to affect change. The average pastor tenure is between three and seven years. The outcry from the church is that pastors don’t stay long enough – 87 percent of active churchgoers within my own denomination state that pastor tenure is too short on average.

Cultural change takes time. If pastors are leaving too soon, then the needed change is unlikely to occur. As a result, churches remain in a perpetual state of stagnation. Perhaps this condition is one reason too many churches appear as if nothing has changed since the 1950s.

Clearly all the blame cannot be placed upon the short duration of pastor tenure. Seasons of ministry are just that—they last for a specific time period. Some are shorter; others are longer. And, as believers, we shoulder the burden for our local congregations, regardless of who the pastor is and the duration of their leadership.

But a lack of long-term leadership is a major problem with the church’s obedience to the Great Commission. Without a shepherd encouraging the sheep to share their faith, the church can easily become lackadaisical in spreading the good news. Stiffness can result from a lack of exercising God’s call to share the Gospel, which can eventually lead to religious rigor mortis.

Sam S. Rainer III serves as president of Rainer Research (rainerresearch.com), a firm dedicated to providing answers for better church health. He also is the senior pastor at Stevens Street Baptist Church in Cookeville, TN. He writes, speaks, and consults on church health issues. You can connect with Sam at @samrainer or at his blog, samrainer.wordpress.com.

By Sam S. Rainer III

Why do people return to church? One myth that could be easily dismissed is that they were too angry at the church to return. In fact, in one of our studies, the rechurched told us in overwhelming numbers that anger at the church was not a factor in their departures. Apathy tended to be the trump card over anger.

Surprisingly, the dechurched often just need a gentle nod to become the rechurched. And that gentle nod comes most often from friends and family. Nearly four out ten (39 percent) rechurched told us that parents or other family members were instrumental in their return to church. Another two out of ten (21 percent) said that they returned to church after friends or acquaintances encouraged them to attend.

Eliminating the overlapping responses, we find that exactly one-half (50 percent) of the rechurched are back in church because of the encouragement of a friend or family members. It is easy to pass by the previous sentence with little reaction, but it is a profound reality. The church loses about two-thirds of young adults between the ages of 18 and 22, but we can reclaim half of them with a simple act of encouragement from family and friends.

Sam S. Rainer III serves as president of Rainer Research (rainerresearch.com), a firm dedicated to providing answers for better church health. He also is the senior pastor at Stevens Street Baptist Church in Cookeville, TN. He writes, speaks, and consults on church health issues. You can connect with Sam at @samrainer or at his blog, samrainer.wordpress.com.

Both curious and caring leaders ask about followers or subordinates. Both curious and caring leaders inquire about those who are not acting normally. An illness, family issue or work-related problem should raise a leader’s level of awareness about a particular individual.

Both the curious leader and the caring leader exhibit good management skills when inquiring about followers experiencing difficulties. All leaders should ask about followers. Ignorance from apathy is not only poor leadership, but it’s also how you become a lousy person. So what is the difference between a caring inquiry and a curious inquiry? And why is it better to be caring?

Leaders in large organizations – and leaders in churches of more than a couple hundred people – cannot possibly care for each individual. The issue is not whether a leader personally invests care in each person but rather the default posture and tone of that leader.

Caring leaders desire to serve followers. Curious leaders desire information about a subordinate. The difference between care and curiosity is service. The caring leader asks about a struggling follower in order to understand how better to serve him. The curious leader asks about a struggling follower to understand what work she might not finish. One cares about the individual. The other is concerned about organizational output.

There is a genuine and authentic burden that caring leaders feel for followers. Curious leaders are not necessarily inauthentic, but they simply want to know what is taking place. It’s the difference between “How can I help?” and “Give me information so I can make a decision.”

Caring leaders track follower performance to help them improve. Curious leaders track follower performance to make operational decisions. I believe curiosity is a must-have leadership trait. And all leaders should maintain a high level of curiosity about their organizations. Pastors – even those with long-term tenures – must continue to ask questions. Curiosity drives creativity and informed decisions. Leaders without curiosity rarely learn from failure. Curiosity is important. And most curious leaders do care. But a caring leader, at the core, has a heightened level of concern for each individual.

Good leaders care both for the organization and the individuals in that organization. Even if leaders cannot invest care in each individual, they can still have a default posture of serving. Such is the burden of a caring leader.

Sam S. Rainer III serves as president of Rainer Research rainerresearch.com, a firm dedicated to providing answers for better church health. He also is the senior pastor at Stevens Street Baptist Church in Cookeville, TN. He writes, speaks, and consults on church health issues. You can connect with Sam at @samrainer or at his blog, samrainer.wordpress.com.

By Sam S. Rainer III

Does the established nature of some churches hinder innovation? Is an established structure antithetical to quick, nimble changes? For most established churches, yes, but it does not mean established churches cannot innovate.

A church plant is an innovation. Innovation is the process of successfully establishing something new. To introduce something new—and to get it to work longer than a month—is innovation. Perhaps some luck into the right change at the right time. Perhaps some churches land on the right demographic with the right leadership. Not all innovations are intentional or well-planned. But an effective church plant should be noted as innovation.

As organizations become more established, they tend to be less prone to change. By its nature, an established organization has a system in place that pushes against change. To establish is to create firm stability. Churches need stability. For example, a discipleship process that is not rooted into the culture of the church (or established) is not likely to last long. And it’s only a matter of time before the innovative church plant begins to feel the pull of becoming established. Everything is new only once, after all.

While stability is necessary, every church should also innovate. Established churches, in particular, can take comfort in the establishment. Traditions and history can easily become a guise for complacency. Innovation can take a back seat to the entrenched processes that help create the stability. While most church planters will admit to having many of the same people problems as established churches, church plants do innovate more easily. They have no history pulling them in a certain direction. Everyone is new. The church is new. Each decision is new. In the early days of a church plant, everything feels like an innovation even if it’s not.

So what hurdles to innovation exist in the established church? Here are four examples.

Lack of intentionality. Generally, established churches have more resources than new churches. When resources are limited, churches must be more intentional about innovation. Failure—especially one that is expensive—can quickly derail a church with limited resources. When resources are plentiful, the temptation is to be less intentional. Established churches can generally absorb more failures. But a practice of spaghetti-against-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks is not true innovation. It’s haphazard chaos. Give it a month and see how many people get annoyed.

Lack of originality. Build on your foundation, but don’t slap a new logo on an existing program and call it innovation. Innovation is introducing something new, not introducing something with the façade of newness.

The wrong metrics. What gets measured gets done, and what you measure is typically an indicator of what you value. A mature church will measure different things than a new church. Most church plants are not attempting to track down meeting minutes from a dozen committees for next week’s business meeting. And established churches don’t have to worry about the retention ratio of people from a launch service. However, an overemphasis on the metrics sustaining the establishment will inevitably deemphasize innovation and dissuade team members from attempting innovation.

The ease of appeasement. In an established church some leaders prefer the ease of appeasing members rather than innovating to reach new people. Obviously, a long-term member may not desire to be appeased, but rather challenged. However, most churches have a segment of people who would rather rest in the stability of the establishment. It’s not necessarily a sin issue, and leaders should care about all members whatever their spiritual maturity. Appeasing existing members, however, is much easier than challenging a church to innovate and reach new people.

Even in a healthy established church, one ready to reach outward, innovation is a challenge. The typical established church has several groups of people who joined during different seasons of the church for different reasons. Even when people agree to reach outward, getting them to agree on timing, direction, budgeting, and pace is a challenge. It’s easier to appease. But appeasement is never innovation.

Though established churches are not new, they can still introduce new things. They can innovate. Hurdles exist. These hurdles, however, are surmountable.

Sam S. Rainer III serves as president of Rainer Research rainerresearch.com, a firm dedicated to providing answers for better church health. He also is the senior pastor at Stevens Street Baptist Church in Cookeville, TN. He writes, speaks, and consults on church health issues. You can connect with Sam at @samrainer or at his blog, samrainer.wordpress.com.

Some people are just awkward. Awkward people are in almost every organization. The church – a place for all types – will have, by design, its share of awkward people. As a leader, you might be tempted to avoid them (unless you are among them, but that’s a subject for another post). Too often leaders ignore awkward people in their organizations. We treat them like odd zoo creatures – they are best observed from a distance. So leaders ignore their emails. Leaders find ways to avoid meetings that include the awkward person. Leaders look the other way in the hall to dodge awkward eye contact. If you’re a top leader of an organization, ministry or church, then it’s your prerogative to pick and choose the people you engage, right?

Sure. But awkward people need to be led like everyone else. And when leaders ignore awkwardness, it simply gets redirected at others. Good leaders do not pawn off awkward situations, awkward questions or awkward people on others. Leadership involves delegation, but leaders can be quick to hand over awkwardness to subordinates, which is a form of laziness.

First, let me qualify my post by noting how I define awkward. Awkward people are other leaders or key followers in the organization, so they should not be dismissed entirely. Their awkwardness is neither a sin issue, nor is it a performance issue. They simply have the unfortunate combination of being both odd and high maintenance. And just because they are a less-than-ideal team member does not warrant your avoidance of them. So who are these awkward people? And how do you address them? Below are a few suggestions for leading three types of awkward people in the church context.

The quirky know-it-all. He really does know more than you. She can quote obscurities from all your policy and procedure manuals. He can pull out theological terms only the most seasoned academics have heard. And everyone just might appreciate the know-it-all’s intelligence if it didn’t always come packaged with an ample dose of fantasy literature allusions. One of the best ways to address the know-it-all’s quirks is to first acknowledge he really does know more than everyone else. Second, as a leader, you can be the filter for everyone else. Take the time to meet with the know-it-all, get the important information, and then communicate it to everyone else, while acknowledging the knowledgeable source. Your team is now happy; they’re spared the awkward conversation. The know-it-all is happy. She has received the credit.

The moderate conspiracy theorist. He brought up the Mayan calendar thing a little too much. Her conversations always shift towards a weird branch of eschatology. They aren’t crazy, but they lean a little too far that way. As a leader, you can address this person by finding a common point of agreement and emphasizing it. Coach him to stay focused on the part of his ideas that have value and merit.

The hyper-spiritualist. When the water cooler goes empty, this person finds a spiritual link. She’s a little too much granola-mystical-hipster for the rest of the team. Addressing this person is quite simple: Pray with her. When he gets a little wacky pray with him. As a leader, take the initiative with prayer to help relax the unnecessary fixations of the hyper-spiritualist. Quite frankly, you should be praying with your team anyway. Most likely, the hyper-spiritualist has more trouble finding someone with whom to pray. And don’t be disingenuous. Be authentic. Most people know when you are patronizing them.

If you’re quick to avoid dealing with awkward people, then you’re probably also willing to ignore difficult people, hard situations, and troubling questions. If all followers were ideal, and if the answers were easy, then the need for leadership would not exist. As a leader, however, the responsibility to lead awkward people first resides in you.

Sam S. Rainer III serves as president of Rainer Research (rainerresearch.com), a firm dedicated to providing answers for better church health. He also is the senior pastor at Stevens Street Baptist Church in Cookeville, TN. He writes, speaks, and consults on church health issues. You can connect with Sam at @samrainer or at his blog, samrainer.wordpress.com.

By Sam S. Rainer III

While much power comes from formal positions with legitimate authority, a different kind of power is found in leadership roles with informal authority. How is this power exhibited?

Informal authority allows leaders to raise difficult questions. Leaders without titles and positions can vocalize the questions everyone is thinking. Some questions are so difficult that if top leaders began posing them, people might question the viability of the organization. For instance, imagine the media reaction if our president openly began asking about what’s really going on at Area 51. Whether or not the president really knows the answer, such questions are better suited for people with informal authority.

Informal authority allows leaders to focus on one issue. Top leaders typically deal with a number of issues within an organization. Such is the nature of positions with formal authority. A CEO must be concerned about human resources, cash flow, marketing, and public relations. An individual with informal authority, however, is free to focus on more nuanced and narrow issues, or even a singular issue.

Informal authority allows leaders to break through formal hierarchies, policies and protocols. Formal authority, by design, has a hierarchy with an expected protocol. A leader with informal authority, however, is not bound by the structure of a formal authority system. A school superintendent, for example, must follow certain protocols in dealing with problems. An informal leader at the school, however, has more flexibility in breaking through these formalities and can deal with the problem in a way the superintendent cannot.

Informal authority allows leaders the flexibility not to be a figurehead for all people in the organization. Top leaders with formal authority must act on behalf of all people within an organization. They represent the people. They speak on behalf of the people. Leaders with informal authority do not have to act as figureheads. Unlike formal leaders, informal leaders can offend some and play favorites with others to accomplish a goal.

Informal authority has its limits, but also its advantages. Organizations need both informal and formal leaders in order to keep power and authority balanced.

Sam S. Rainer III serves as president of Rainer Research (rainerresearch.com), a firm dedicated to providing answers for better church health. He also is the senior pastor at Stevens Street Baptist Church in Cookeville, TN. He writes, speaks, and consults on church health issues. You can connect with Sam at @samrainer or at his blog, samrainer.wordpress.com.

By Sam S. Rainer III

Finding the voice in which to communicate content is sometimes just as difficult as determining the content itself. In other words, how you communicate is an important component of what you communicate. Content is critical, but so is delivery.

As a senior pastor, I set the tone of the church. My heart in writing such a statement is not arrogance but rather self-awareness. Of any leader in the church, I know my vision – and  how I communicate it – will affect the church more than any other person. Even though I believe vision is a collective effort of leaders and followers, the communicator of the vision has a special prominence. Since I am often the first to communicate the content of the vision, my delivery of the content will affect the tone of how the church receives it. Therefore, finding my voice as a leader is critical to the actual vision of my church.

How might leaders set the tone in their organizations? What different voices might they use in communicating vision? I’ve listed a few different options for church leaders.

Coach. Use a coach’s voice if you want to get people pumped up about something. This voice works well when you are relaying positive news while attempting to recruit people to serve. An in-your-face-yet-encouraging coach will set the tone of enlistment with excitement.

Theologian. Not all theologians are leaders, but all leaders within the church should be theologians.  Not every church situation, however, requires a leader to communicate as a theologian. A pastor should use this voice when working through difficult biblical issues. How will the church handle the problem of divorce? What is the church going to do about a multiplicity of viewpoints among the congregation on a particular topic? A theological voice helps set the tone of looking at the issue with the proper amount of emotion.

Engineer. Inevitably, most churches will have a group of people who attempt to solve problems from a structural perspective. For them, problems are solved with policies, Visio charts, and spreadsheets. While not all vision needs to be structural in nature, vision does require structure for proper implementation. Leaders should use the voice of an engineer when communicating this structure, especially to the group of people who default to the structural frame.

General. Few want to be on the receiving end of a general barking orders on a regular basis. When a crisis hits, however, someone must step up quickly and take charge. When a vision includes a real sense of urgency, the voice of a general becomes an effective way to set the tone of urgency among followers.

Friend. Some leadership visions require less of an inspiring appeal to the masses and more of a friendly interaction with followers. Using the voice of a friend sets the tone of long term buy-in and loyalty among followers.

Leaders should use different voices in different venues with different groups of people in order to set the proper tone within a church. Followers will respond to the tone of leadership just as much as the actual content of the vision. Match the correct tone with the right content and people will better respond to a leader’s vision.

Sam S. Rainer III is president of Rainer Research and senior pastor of Stevens Street Baptist Church, Cookeville, TN. www.rainerresearch.com, www.stevensstreet.org

By Sam S. Rainer III

Either people are on board with your leadership or not, right? Nope.

There are degrees of influence and different types of followers. The mantra of “get on board or get off” does not take into account the numerous types of followers and differing levels of leadership influence.

Most definitions of leadership allude to influence as the key driver. But I do not believe leadership and influence are synonymous – leader and follower exchanges are more complex than mere influence. However, leaders do influence followers. And the influencing process is made complex because followers are not a monolithic group.

Knowing how to influence begins with an understanding of who is following you. In her work, Followership, Barbara Kellerman identifies five types of followers based on their level of engagement with the leader.

The isolate is completely detached. No influence exists between leader and follower. A formal relationship of power may be in place, such as between a congressman and constituent, but an isolate does not know or care about the leader.

The bystander observes the leader but does not participate in any interaction. These followers make a decision to stand on the sidelines. A small amount of influence occurs in this type of relationship. The bystander’s decision to withdraw, however, points to a position of neutrality about the leader.

The participant is more engaged and clearly favors or disfavors the leader. These followers are willing to invest time and resources in support or opposition of the current leadership.

The activist has strong emotional feelings about the leader. They act on these emotions and work hard to support the leader (or to undermine the leader). These followers are highly engaged with leadership and are often closely connected to many of the activities in which leaders are involved.

The diehard is the most engaged with leaders. These followers are willing to die for the cause of their leaders, often exhibiting deep devotion. Conversely, diehards who oppose the leader would die in order to remove the leader. A diehard forms an all-consuming identity around the leader and his or her causes.

As a leader, I would like to think most of my followers are supportive diehards. But it’s not the case. Most likely, it is not the case in your leadership role either. Understanding the types of followers (and who is in each camp) is critical to knowing how to influence. Believing people are simply on board or not will cause you to place too much distance between bystanders and participants. Focusing too much time on supportive or opposing diehards causes a leader to lose sight of the masses. Good leaders understand that knowing how to influence includes understanding the complexities of who to influence.

Sam S. Rainer III is president of Rainer Research and senior pastor of Stevens Street Baptist Church, Cookeville, TN. (www.rainerresearch.com, www.stevensstreet.org)

By Sam S. Rainer III

Creativity is not necessarily art. Art requires creativity, but not all creative processes produce art. I like to consider myself creative (but not an artist). As a researcher, my creativity is different than an artist’s creativity. My spreadsheets are no works of art. I doubt they will ever be displayed in a museum. But I do take pride in creatively communicating statistics in ways people can grasp.

So an artist I am not, even in my most inspired spreadsheet moment.

But I do pastor several artists in my church, and leading them requires a different approach. Managing creative people is different than managing artists. Artists think differently, not just about what to create but also how to create.

Placing this leadership style within a taxonomy would almost butcher what it is. So rather than attempt to define it rigidly, I’ll describe what I observe in this fluid leadership style with an analogy.

The best analogy I can use is art itself. Leading a group of artists is like having everyone paint the same work on one canvas, all together and at the same time. Each artist has a unique perspective, style, tone and pace (and, inevitably, they will all want their own type of brush). The one leading the artists, however, is responsible for making sure everyone is painting the same work on one canvas, rather than a bunch of individual works on that canvas.

When the work is finished (is art ever finished?), it’s never what the leader would have done as a lone artist. It always looks different, but the leader’s responsibility is to make sure what was painted is cohesive.

The leader of the artists does not mesh all the individual works into one bland blob. The leader of the artists ensures that each artist’s unique contribution is seen within the whole. The leader of the artists figures out ways to manage those who paint a lot with big, bold brushes with those who paint small with tiny brushes. The leader of the artists knows how to gently massage the person painting out of color scheme back into the group. The leader of the artists knows how to incorporate new artists with those who have been painting a long time. The leader of the artists knows how to calm tempers when one artist paints over another artist’s work.

Here’s the catch: the leader of the artists has to be willing to set aside and sacrifice his or her own work to lead the work of others. It’s how an artist becomes a servant-leader.

Sam S. Rainer III is president of Rainer Research and senior pastor of Stevens Street Baptist Church, Cookeville, TN. (www.rainerresearch.com, www.stevensstreet.org)