Christianity is the fastest growing religion in the world.  Yet, very little of that growth is in Europe or North America.  Very little of that growth is in mainline or traditional evangelical denominations.  Very little of that growth is in cultures rooted in Modernity.  Rather, Christianity is exploding in the developing world, among the poor, almost pre-modern people who are open to fresh and unusual winds of faith.  The center of Christianity is shifting geographically southeast and toward Pentecostal and charismatic expressions.  This shift has been documented in both scholarly articles and reported in popular media outlets such as Newsweek and The Atlantic Monthly.  As these reports demonstrate, the Christianity of the developing world is mostly unlike anything seen in Western churches.   

 American church leaders who seek to implement lessons learned from third-world churches should find many lessons that will apply to the American context.  One of the greatest lessons for us is a focused cognizance of God’s activity in contexts that are neither Western, Modern, nor mainline.  God’s movement in these contexts offers lessons that impact both our understanding and our practice of Christianity in many ways.  I believe the implications will revolve around two foci – how we measure success and how we develop leaders.

Changing Our Categories for Measuring Success

Churches in the developing world are pursuing success in categories that differ from those used by most American congregations.  It seems that these developing world believers are focused on proclaiming the gospel so that spiritual, emotional, and physical healing can occur through persons’ supernatural encounters with God.  Much of what has happened in and through these churches has gone unnoticed by Westerners not because we were incognizant, but because these churches have succeeded in categories that we do not evaluate.  

Churches in the developing world help us to reconsider our ministry success in terms of social impact and personal spiritual transformation by bringing a balanced approach to these two important factors.  American churches often find themselves out of kilter by exaggerating the importance of one of these factors over the other.  Pentecostal and evangelical congregations tend to stress personal transformation to the neglect of social impact, while mainline and liberal churches go to the opposite extreme.  As we witness congregations in the developing world find a balance of these Gospel expressions, we can better define success in our own contexts according to both/and categories rather that either/or dichotomies. 

The success of churches in the developing world can also shift us away from an overemphasis on financial success.  In my work with new churches planted in the Southeastern U.S., a recurring theme is the need for more money.  As a leader of a new church, I also find myself measuring our congregation’s success by our bank account, offering receipts, and financial gifts from partnering churches.  The emphasis on money certainly is not unique to new churches.  Most likely, a congregation’s interest in dollars rests dually on the need for staff salaries and the fact that many Americans gauge our personal well being according to financial standards.  But the success of very poor people in experiencing the good news of God’s love forces us to rethink the central role of money in our church lives.  More money will not necessarily result in more ministry, more life change, or more spiritual renewal.  Like some of the people described in Acts, we may need to learn that God’s healing, resurrecting, and forgiving Spirit cannot be bought.  

Another current category for measuring success is acclaim from other American church leaders.  We cannot deny that God is at work among and through the churches in the developing world.  Not only is God at work in these churches, but also the level of divine impact in these areas is stunning.  And this success has largely gone unnoticed by the majority of American churches.  It seems that every American congregation with a few thousand members warrants the title “teaching congregation.”  The leaders of these churches write books, speak at seminars, and are held in high regard by their peers.  I am not saying that the attention and commendations are unwarranted, but they should not be confused for success or even as a sign of success.  The stealth success of churches in the developing world forces us to reconsider whether praise from our peers has anything to do with Gospel success.

Finally, the churches of the emerging world can aid us in rethinking the limits of theological orthodoxy as a measurement of success.  In a post-Christendom and postmodern context, theological minimalism may be the grandest of theological developments.  Emerging world churches appear to be more passionate about expressing God’s love, power, and purpose than about fully understanding God or these expressions.  Perhaps their penchant for such passion rests not in their postmodernity, but in their pre-modernity.  As Westerners try to wrestle free from the strictures placed on the Spirit by our Modern mindsets, we can take our cues from people who are not yet bound by Enlightenment thinking.  Pre-modern people are not busy formulating the details of God into nice categories and managable systems.  They are being pushed, pulled, healed, and thrilled by a wiley Spirit.  They do not even imagine trying to contain this unruly Spirit of God through detailed theologies.  Rather, they hold firm to a few basic beliefs and allow freedom through this minimalism.  Popular American writers and thinkers such as Leonard Sweet, Tom Bandy, and Brian McLaren are already ushering in a minimalist approach among mainline and evangelical church leaders.  They are doing so in an effort to help us deal with a context in which our ability to minister effectively as Christ’s ambassadors rests more on our participation in a unique community (with a few important beliefs) than on nuanced belief branding that serves to distinguish various tribes within the larger family of faith.  With the added voices of developing world churches, American church leaders may find that ever-expanding systematic theologies are unnecessary baggage for a missional context in which it is better to travel light. 

Changing How We Develop Leaders

The success of churches in the developing world seems entwined to their unique approaches to leadership.  Rather than formal seminary training, most of the developing world church leaders are nurtured within a local congregational setting.  Their gifts and calling to leadership are first ascertained within the cell group context.  If they can lead a small group effectively, they are considered candidates to be congregational leaders.  Since developing world churches grow through church planting, there is a constant need for planters.  And almost all of these planters come from out of the sponsoring church and have proven to be very effective cell group leaders in the home congregation.  These leaders are nurtured and mentored by their home pastor, who serves as a ready coach for the first years of the plant’s existence.  

Should these leadership practices gain currency among American believers, the implications are manifold – especially for theological training.  Based on the vitality of these emerging churches, we Westerners will be well-served to consider whether to supplement, discard, or reinforce our various leadership development experiences.  Training that is scholastic, short-term, and static pales in comparison to the leadership development models of these churches.  An entire report could be written on how these developing world churches and their methods for raising up leaders can impact American seminaries.  To put it briefly, the impact is at least threefold.  

First, I believe that seminaries will lose status as the centerpieces for preparing men and women to be successful congregational leaders.  I do not think I am overstating this implication, and in fact this reality is already being felt.  In many evangelical, Pentecostal, and independent churches in America, seminary training is far less important a criterion for becoming a church leader than is proven giftedness and humility.  I believe this has much to do with the move toward theological minimalism mentioned earlier.  The context for doing ministry in America will more and more resemble that of the developing world in that churches will become more pragmatically focused on expanding the kingdom and less interested in academic discussions about ministry.  It is easy to imagine the pendulum swinging too far in the pragmatic direction, but that does not change the pendulum’s momentum.  As believers continue to put more stock in clergy’s demonstrated ability to lead, less weight will be given to academic degrees and formal theological training.  The question of “How has God empowered you to lead us to accomplish the mission God has given us?” will replace “Are you trained and well-versed in the distinctions of our particular tradition?”  In some contexts, this shift will make seminary training an accessory at best or a liability at worst.  

Second, seminary leaders who take the developing world model seriously will strive to help students better integrate academic training and real-world ministry experiences so that leadership potential is incubated by the seminary experience.  Most seminaries make some attempts at this already.  However, these efforts typically result in ministry experiences that are minor supplements to classroom-based curricula.  In programs seeking to prepare men and women to be successful church leaders, Church Ministry courses might move from being a discipline within the larger M.Div. curricula to being the framework for the entire program.  This shift in focus means that Biblical Studies, Theology, and Church History courses will be judged on how well they actually prepare students to do ministry in a real-world context.  Along with curriculum changes, seminaries will want to spend vast amounts of time, energy, and other resources helping students scrutinize their ministry experiences (experiences that will take place concurrently with classes).  In addition, new systems for accepting, matriculating, grading, and ordaining students will be needed in order to build a seminary culture focused on fostering leadership growth as opposed to rewarding academic achievement.  Already, students know that grade performance in seminary has little correlation with post-seminary leadership success.  The schools that acknowledge this disparity and begin to overhaul their approach will succeed in the theological training marketplace of the next century.

Third, seminaries will become involved in learning/training triads.  As the developing world churches demonstrate, each leader-in-training has ministry specific needs.  Also, because leaders are attracted to leadership roles, young leaders will likely serve a congregation while receiving theological training.  For these reasons, schools might consider partnering with students and congregations to design learning experiences that more deeply reflect the unique needs of each student and the congregation she serves.  The development of learning/training triads will mean that seminaries have less voice in dictating what a student shall learn. In this sense, the seminary will become the agent to whom a congregation outsources one aspect of a developing leader’s training program and each student will have a unique training experience both in content and in length.  This approach will have uncertain implications for degree programs.  It may mean that more clergy will seek certificates or issue-specific courses as opposed to completing full-fledged degree programs.  Also, if students and congregations have increased input into what happens at the seminary, the seminary will need to have reciprocal input into the training that occurs within the ministry setting.  Congregations who train leaders through internships, learning communities, and shadowing experiences will want to invite seminaries into the conversations that determine what these parish-based learning experiences look like.

Conclusion

 These trends are already impacting us.  Among a growing number of American congregations I have observed many aspects of what is happening among Christians of the developing world.  In my opinion, the hope for implementing lessons from the developing world rests with the innovators and early adapters within the American church leadership population.  This new generation of leaders, who Robert Webber refers to as “Younger Evangelicals,” seems to carry a discontent with typical American Christianity that opens them to findings such as Miller’s.  These leaders are both young and old and they are in the minority of leaders in Western Christianity.  It is within such groups that new models of leadership will most likely take root.  Leaders of more mainstream churches will likely be second and third generation implementers of these lessons – if they choose to take lessons from third-world contexts at all.

The third world is not as far away from mainline America as one might think.  Certainly not every characteristic of Christianity in the developing world will replicate itself among American congregations, but as the Church leans more heavily toward the South and East, toward postmodernity, and toward charismatic Christianity, American congregations will be impacted.  Perhaps the most important decision we face is whether to brace for these shifts, embrace these shifts, or do both.

This article is an adaptation of a response to Emerging Patterns of Leadership by Don Miller (Professor of Sociology of Religion at University of Southern California).  Miller’s report and this response were written as a part of the Pulpit and Pew Research on Pastoral Leadership project being conducted by Duke Divinity School (www.pulpitandpew.duke.edu).