In the Golden Rule Leadership book, we focused more on the broad-brush principles of team building than on some of the more practical applications. Our thought was that one must buy into the philosophy before he will take the practicals seriously. In many ways, this is a reasonable assumption, but some people are able to process the philosophy effectively only by visualizing the practicals from the beginning. This approach may also be helpful for those who are somewhat uncomfortable with a philosophical change in the first place. For those needing more practical applications, especially in the topic of team building, our book fell short.

The purpose of this article is to fill in some of these applications, particularly as they relate to how teams can be developed at different stages and ages of churches or ministry groups. Being "age appropriate" in building team is obviously needed, but figuring out just what that means is more an art form than a science. However, I think we can come up with some very helpful ideas to help us move in the right directions without making huge mistakes as we go.

In the early planting stage of a church, the evangelistic focus will in some ways slow down the development of a consensus leadership group. In the interest of building wisely for the long haul, the focus should be on building the campus ministry first, singles second, young marrieds third and older marrieds last. Several reasons lie behind this suggestion: one, the most viable future leaders of a church will most likely come from the campus ministry; two, you want to convert people first who are less encumbered with life issues and who can thus spend more time evangelizing in the early stages; third, those who are younger with less life responsibilities generally will not have as many counseling needs as those who are further along in life, allowing leaders to continue concentrating on leading the charge. Simply stated, the conversions of younger people in early plantings will provide ultimately a better foundation for the church.

From the beginning of the planting, it is important to start identifying those with good leadership potential and begin pulling them in to some planning sessions with the leaders. These people may be a part of the planting team or even chosen from the new converts. The leader's goal is to start training them to think critically and creatively, to help develop plans and to gradually become a part of a decision making process. Asking the right kinds of questions will lead them into this learning process. For example, in a meeting session, you could say "Here is what I see as our needs and what I think could be done to meet them," and then ask "How does that sound to you, and what are you seeing?" Our standard "thoughts and comments" follow-up to our lessons is limited, even if it is encouraging as leaders to hear only positive remarks. Ask questions about what they think may help complete or balance your ideas and what the potential for weakness may be in applying your lesson. Participation is a valid part of getting people to buy in emotionally to your leadership, and this need is huge even in a campus setting where you are necessarily more directive. Your ultimate goal in developing a team is in helping them learn to think more deeply about ministry strategy and organization.

Once a church grows and ages, in what we might call the second stage, you will have some members who are older spiritually and chronologically. Those in this category with the most leadership potential should be a regular part of discussions with leaders, who in the beginning may do no more than give input about what they are seeing and hearing from the grassroots membership. Selecting young leaders is likewise essential, but including newer Christians who are more mature in life is equally important in developing a leadership team. For example, I remember using Helen Devlin as a young disciple to "meet the press" for an interview to be shown on national TV. Because of her age and life experiences, she did much better than most of our younger staff members could have done. Certainly the spiritual inexperience of such people has to be taken into consideration, but their level of common sense can really save younger staff members from making serious mistakes of judgment.

When Andy Fleming planted the Moscow church, he figured out pretty quickly that he needed a lot of input from these more mature converts. In time, he selected a consensus group of people not on the ministry staff to help the staff (who were mostly foreigners) understand the cultural issues. He asked them to help set the salary levels of the staff, and to help make decisions about potentially sensitive issues, such as whether to buy pagers for the staff. The value of including those with more life experiences who are not on the staff should not be overlooked. By this point in the development of a church, the church leader should have found both older and younger leaders to be peers and to help disciple him in natural peer relationships. Looking only to a discipler in another city to help with emotional needs is a recipe for disaster.

When we reach the third stage of an older, larger church, two distinct phases of leadership groups are possibilities. In phase one, you have a consensus group that represents several components of a more mature ministry: elders or shepherd types, evangelists, and administrators. By now, you have identified and trained some on staff to be a part of a consensus group, and you may have some non-staff on the team as well. This group of mature individuals is still small enough to function as one group, a top leadership consensus team. They are the decision makers, and as such, are fairly directive in approach. However, it is essential for them to pull staff and non-staff members into discussions and decisions in appropriate ways. Without doubt, non-staff leaders must continually be identified, trained and empowered. A significant part of such empowering is to not only give them responsibility, but sufficient authority to make decisions in their realm to carry out that responsibility.

Phase two of leadership structure in a larger, older church is reached when you have a large enough pool of mature leaders of all types to have multiple types of groups, especially an evangelists group and an elder group. How you structure your groups at this stage is a matter of choice, depending on the numbers of people of both types and the maturity level in the evangelist group. Bottom line, you have a sufficient number of mature leaders to provide more possibilities of organization. Two key issues help determine that structure: the size of a leadership group (or groups); and, the need to keep the focus directed in the most productive ways.

If all of the most mature leaders are put into one top leadership group, it may be so large that both fellowship and discussions will be limited in ways that are not optimal. Further, the leadership needs of a large church are such that top leaders cannot focus effectively on both shepherding and evangelistic needs at the same time. (Shepherding needs including staff needs, which in a large church, can be quite time consuming.) Of course, with such a mature leadership pool, the elders have most often led evangelistic ministries and many of the most experienced evangelists are old enough to be seen as elder types. Hence, the qualifications of those in both roles overlap a lot. However, in our largest churches, we are most effective when the same leadership group doesn't try to focus on both the inner and outer needs.

It is essential to understand that the elder type group does not function as the consensus group in smaller churches does. In the former, decisions come from that group. In the latter, both groups are decision making groups with somewhat of a different focus. The elder group focuses more on meeting the general needs of the membership, while the top evangelists group focuses more on training, organizing and moving them in evangelistic outreach. Of course, neither group has an exclusive focus, but they do have a key focus. Both groups must have regularly scheduled meetings together, and neither group finalizes major decisions that affect everyone without such discussions. Further, major issues are brought into that larger group for discussion much nearer the beginning of forging a new direction than near the end of the process, especially if the topic relates directly to the key focus of the other group. Because of past failures to be inclusive, this point is very important in how the elder group is viewed. Bottom line, neither group passes down decisions independently, but are quite interdependent on one another.

When you have these two decision making groups that work together closely, the elder group has two additional functions in relation to the evangelists group: one, they ultimately help that group solve any impasses in their own process; and two, they do have a modified right of veto -- modified in the sense that such would be rare and never without discussion with the evangelists group. In either case, the elder group deals with these two potential situations only in discussions with both groups present. While the elder group does have this tie-breaking function, it should avoid the "exercising of authority" (Matthew 20:25-26) just as carefully as a husband should avoid it with his wife. Any individual who is overly impressed with himself, or who glories in having authority, has a significant spiritual problem. The same exact statement can be made regarding any group. Decision making is a matter of building team, not exercising authority. Humility is the most essential ingredient in leadership. We work in harmony with others because we value them and their input, and because we see our own limitations. May God grant us all such hearts, for then he can use us mightily and receive all the glory himself!