What do you think?
Rate this book
Leading the Team-Based Church: How Pastors and Church Staffs Can Grow Together into a Powerful Fellowship of Leaders A Leadership Network Publication
A Leadership Network Publication
In Leading the Team-Based Church, George Cladis issues a clarioncall for ministry teams to embrace a fresh leadership model that isnot based on hierarchy, but on a process of collaboration thatmirrors the relationship of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Hereminds us that today's cultural environment--where authority hasbasis in trust, innovation reaps rewards, and spirituality takesroot in life and work--has matured past the need for the hierarchyof traditional church leadership where the pastor had the finalsay. Through down-to-earth stories from his own experience andthose of clergy in both mainline and evangelical churches, Cladisoffers an exciting alternative to the traditional forms of churchleadership, enabling pastors, congregational leaders, and staff tobreathe new life into their ministries and unleash the fullpotential of the entire ministry team.
Cladis, pastor of a fast-growing mainline congregation,demonstrates how cultural changes affecting all ourinstitutions--not just the church--are making it easier to adoptthis new model of leadership. Cladis's practical advice will enableministry teams to work together in ways that both embody theChristian message and call forth the full creativity and love ofthe entire team.
"Just when it seems that all that can be said has been said on thesubject of 'teams', just when one has tired of the gumming of thelabel 'team' on everything in sight, along comes perhaps the mostsignificant religious book on teams yet published. Cladisjuxtaposes the theological and cultural context for team-basedministry in a model presentation of what a conversation betweenBible, theology, and culture should look like."--Leonard Sweet,dean, The Theological School and vice president, Drew University
In Leading the Team-Based Church, George Cladis issues a clarioncall for ministry teams to embrace a fresh leadership model that isnot based on hierarchy, but on a process of collaboration thatmirrors the relationship of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Hereminds us that today's cultural environment--where authority hasbasis in trust, innovation reaps rewards, and spirituality takesroot in life and work--has matured past the need for the hierarchyof traditional church leadership where the pastor had the finalsay. Through down-to-earth stories from his own experience andthose of clergy in both mainline and evangelical churches, Cladisoffers an exciting alternative to the traditional forms of churchleadership, enabling pastors, congregational leaders, and staff tobreathe new life into their ministries and unleash the fullpotential of the entire ministry team.
Cladis, pastor of a fast-growing mainline congregation,demonstrates how cultural changes affecting all ourinstitutions--not just the church--are making it easier to adoptthis new model of leadership. Cladis's practical advice will enableministry teams to work together in ways that both embody theChristian message and call forth the full creativity and love ofthe entire team.
"Just when it seems that all that can be said has been said on thesubject of 'teams', just when one has tired of the gumming of thelabel 'team' on everything in sight, along comes perhaps the mostsignificant religious book on teams yet published. Cladisjuxtaposes the theological and cultural context for team-basedministry in a model presentation of what a conversation betweenBible, theology, and culture should look like."--Leonard Sweet,dean, The Theological School and vice president, Drew University
208 pages, Hardcover
First published April 2, 1999
20 people are currently reading
53 people want to read
About the author
George Cladis
1 book36 followersI have had many roles in the church: pastor, executive pastor, seminary instructor; and also in nonprofit social service administration; and also in business (COO of mid-size company). I am curious about what makes for good management of people in organizational life and I approach this as a person of faith.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
April 29, 2013
Have you ever read a book and found a really blatant error on the first few pages, then found yourself turned off from the rest of the book and getting nothing out of it? This unfortunately happens to me a lot, it’s a tendency I have to fight a lot. This was largely my experience with reading the book Leading the Team-Based Church by George Cladis. Unfortunately in this book the error wasn’t a menial point that I was nit-picking, it wasn’t a statement that had nothing to do with the fulfillment of the thesis of the book; it was the entire spine of the book.
In this book Cladis writes about team-based church ministry from his experience as a Presbyterian minister. Throughout the book he explains what team-based ministry looks like and attempts to show the accuracy of his thesis, that "Team-based ministry is the most effective model for leading and organizing Christian ministry for the twenty-first century” (xi). On page one he writes; “The concepts and techniques for building effective church teams must first have a biblical and theological model that gives spiritual direction to team formation. Chapter One provides such a model and gives the theological grounding for everything that follows. It is the linchpin for the whole book” (1). It is this linchpin, the first chapter—his “theological” model—that undermines the entire book.
In the first chapter he outlines his biblical case for the model of team-based leadership; it is based on the word Perichoresis. This is a Greek word used by the early church father John of Damascus to describe the relationship between the different Persons of the Trinity. Cladis explains that this word literally means “circle-dance” and describes a dynamic relationship between the Trinity that “implies intimacy, equality, unity yet distinction, and love” (4). This model of relationship is the foundation for Cladis’ model; a model based of a loving, leveled (in the sense of authority), covenanting, and equal team. This model right here, the Perichoresis model for team leadership, is where the problems arise. Cladis writes in the introduction to part one that a model for effective leadership must have a biblical and theological framework to give direction to team formation (1). This was a very promising start for me as I read the book, but from the first chapter I was turned off from the content of the book because of, what I believe, to be a failure to meet this criterion. Cladis does not cite any Scripture to support the ideas he presents in the first chapter. He presents the idea of Perichoresis used by John of Damascus as an accurate description of the Trinity without looking to Scripture to confirm this. He cites only two Scriptures in this chapter (at least in his explanation of Perichoresis).
He claims that 1 Cor. 12-14 supports the perichoretic idea of a flattened structure for church (i.e. no hierarchy) (pg. 5). This Scripture is not talking about hierarchies at all; what 1 Cor. 12-14 is saying is that we are all equal in worth and value to the Church. As believers each of us has been gifted in such a way to be unique and invaluable ministers in the Church; we are not to envy each other’s gifts because we each have been gifted in a unique way solely on the basis of the Spirit’s sovereign will (1 Cor. 12:11, 14-20). We are each invaluable for ministry, but this does not mean that there is no hierarchy of leadership or authority (not value) in the Church. The second Scripture is from Matthew 28, all Cladis is using this verse for is to make a point that the Trinity is central to Christian worship, creeds, and benedictions; therefore it must make a great theological model for leadership in the Church (4-5). For all the weight that Cladis puts on the word “Perichoresis,” building his model on the supposed etymological meaning of this word, it is interesting to note that it does not actually occur once in the Greek of the Bible.
It’s not just that Perichoresis is not found in Scripture, for we use the word “Trinity” to describe our sovereign and glorious LORD and it is not found in Scripture either. The problem would enter the picture if we started to make arguments and points from the inherent meaning of the word “Trinity” and not from the Scriptures and theological truth that we are describing by using the word “Trinity. It’s not just that Cladis builds his model off of a theological model nowhere found in Scripture, but that his model also seems to misrepresent the historical meaning of perichoresis and draws meaning out of it that seems to be, frankly, inconsistent with the Scriptural description of the Trinity. One of the first warning bells that went off in my head is when Cladis writes “Perichoresis means literally “circle dance”” and then goes on to explain how he this “literal” meaning comes from the constituent parts of this word; the Greek words χορευω (choreuō, to dance) and περι (peri, which is a preposition which could mean many things in many contexts, but often “around”). What he is doing here is defining the word according to its etymology, which is dangerous and often considered and exegetical fallacy (the Root Fallacy). The problem is that often words acquire a meaning radically different from their constituent parts. Let’s look at an example in English; if we were to look at the word “butterfly” etymologically we would conclude that a butter-fly was a fly made out of butter, a fly that ate butter, or something equally ridiculous that has nothing to do with the actual nature of the creature it describes. To make matters worse, if we were to take an etymological route (which can sometimes be valid if it sheds light on the primary method for determining meaning, which is the use of a word in context) Περιχώρησις (perichōrēsis) is probably not derived from χoρεύω and περι but περι and χωρέω (chōreō, which means “contain, have room”). Even if it was derived from χορεύω the historical usage of his word departs radically from the meaning that Cladis (echoing Guthrie) is attributing to it. John of Damascus’ use of this word is in reference to the interpenetration of the different members of the Trinity as described in John 14:11 (“I am in the Father and the Father is in me”). It was used to describe a relationship testified to in Scripture that was not truly understand, and still isn’t today. I mentioned that Cladis’ model is also inconsistent with what the few things that Scripture actually has to say on the interpersonal relationship within the Trinity, let’s look at that now.
Cladis sees in this perichōrētic relationship an implication of complete leveling in any seemingly hierarchical structure of roles within Trinity. It is true that within the Trinity each Person is completely equal in value and deity, but Scriptures teaches a difference in roles. Throughout the NT it is always the Father who “initiates and commissions” while the Son carries out the “commission” and the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son. These relationships stretch beyond a simple economic relationship between creation and the Trinity to the eternal relationship of the members of the Trinity. Within Scripture there seems to be a pretty clear teaching that there is functional (not ontological [which leads to Arianism or a similar heresy]) subordination within the Trinity. The Son submits to the will of the Father and the Spirit proceeds from both of them; we neglect this truth then many of Jesus’ words about His relationship with God the Father would lead to the conclusion of an ontological difference. Some have suggested that Christ took on a subordinate role only in the incarnation, but this doesn’t do full justice to the texts involved (that being said, in the incarnation His functional role did change, Philippians 2:8 says that He emptied Himself and took on the very nature [role] of a servant; but his does not imply that there was not subordination before the incarnation). There are also clear Scriptures that talk of functional distinction between believers (even though we are all equal in value, Gal. 3:23-29). Some of these include the leadership roles of the elders, deacons, and apostles (e.g. 1 Timothy 2-3) as well as the instructions for wives to submit to husbands, children to parents, and slaves to masters (Ephesians 5:21-30).
There are simply no biblical, theological, or historical grounds for Cladis model and this eviscerates the spine of his book, the part that he himself calls the “linchpin” (1). This trend of building models for relationships and ecclesiological structures out of what is perceived to be the interworking of the Trinitarian relationship has been common in the last 20 or so years. These “Social Trinitarian” models are unfortunate because they divert studies from what Scripture actually has to say about both these relationships and the Trinity to flimsy models built from extreme stretches of supposed implications in Scripture. This made it really hard for me to accept a model based off of this understanding of the Trinity.
Despite all of this, I did learn a little bit from reading this book that will help me in my future. First, reading this book helped me see how my ideas of church ministry were based on bringing myself glory and fame and not building a healthy church that glorifies God. This was a sobering realization and has given me a lot to pray and think about recently. I also found a quote on page 98, about the realization that Eph. 4 teaches the equipping of others for their ministry and not looking at them as team members for my work of ministry, to be very applicable to my thought process and any future ministry I may be involved with. I struggled a lot with this book, but God used it to show me a major weakness in my thinking and hopefully with His help I can work through it and come back to a Christ-, and not self-, centered understanding of ministry.
This book gets a rating of 1/5
Cladis loses one star for the fact that his entire supposedly “theological” and “biblical” model (1-2) is lacking any good exegetical or even historical evidence.
Actually, he loses the next two stars for the same reason; he fails to meet his thesis and support is model.
Lastly, he loses a star because even beyond this failure to provide a sufficient foundation for his model the book was very dry and lacked any profound or even enlightening tips on church structure, leadership, or teams that are not found in other books where they are presented and defended in a much more satisfactory way.
(There are footnotes and a bibliography for this review, see them here: http://allforthegloryofhiskingdom.wor...)
In this book Cladis writes about team-based church ministry from his experience as a Presbyterian minister. Throughout the book he explains what team-based ministry looks like and attempts to show the accuracy of his thesis, that "Team-based ministry is the most effective model for leading and organizing Christian ministry for the twenty-first century” (xi). On page one he writes; “The concepts and techniques for building effective church teams must first have a biblical and theological model that gives spiritual direction to team formation. Chapter One provides such a model and gives the theological grounding for everything that follows. It is the linchpin for the whole book” (1). It is this linchpin, the first chapter—his “theological” model—that undermines the entire book.
In the first chapter he outlines his biblical case for the model of team-based leadership; it is based on the word Perichoresis. This is a Greek word used by the early church father John of Damascus to describe the relationship between the different Persons of the Trinity. Cladis explains that this word literally means “circle-dance” and describes a dynamic relationship between the Trinity that “implies intimacy, equality, unity yet distinction, and love” (4). This model of relationship is the foundation for Cladis’ model; a model based of a loving, leveled (in the sense of authority), covenanting, and equal team. This model right here, the Perichoresis model for team leadership, is where the problems arise. Cladis writes in the introduction to part one that a model for effective leadership must have a biblical and theological framework to give direction to team formation (1). This was a very promising start for me as I read the book, but from the first chapter I was turned off from the content of the book because of, what I believe, to be a failure to meet this criterion. Cladis does not cite any Scripture to support the ideas he presents in the first chapter. He presents the idea of Perichoresis used by John of Damascus as an accurate description of the Trinity without looking to Scripture to confirm this. He cites only two Scriptures in this chapter (at least in his explanation of Perichoresis).
He claims that 1 Cor. 12-14 supports the perichoretic idea of a flattened structure for church (i.e. no hierarchy) (pg. 5). This Scripture is not talking about hierarchies at all; what 1 Cor. 12-14 is saying is that we are all equal in worth and value to the Church. As believers each of us has been gifted in such a way to be unique and invaluable ministers in the Church; we are not to envy each other’s gifts because we each have been gifted in a unique way solely on the basis of the Spirit’s sovereign will (1 Cor. 12:11, 14-20). We are each invaluable for ministry, but this does not mean that there is no hierarchy of leadership or authority (not value) in the Church. The second Scripture is from Matthew 28, all Cladis is using this verse for is to make a point that the Trinity is central to Christian worship, creeds, and benedictions; therefore it must make a great theological model for leadership in the Church (4-5). For all the weight that Cladis puts on the word “Perichoresis,” building his model on the supposed etymological meaning of this word, it is interesting to note that it does not actually occur once in the Greek of the Bible.
It’s not just that Perichoresis is not found in Scripture, for we use the word “Trinity” to describe our sovereign and glorious LORD and it is not found in Scripture either. The problem would enter the picture if we started to make arguments and points from the inherent meaning of the word “Trinity” and not from the Scriptures and theological truth that we are describing by using the word “Trinity. It’s not just that Cladis builds his model off of a theological model nowhere found in Scripture, but that his model also seems to misrepresent the historical meaning of perichoresis and draws meaning out of it that seems to be, frankly, inconsistent with the Scriptural description of the Trinity. One of the first warning bells that went off in my head is when Cladis writes “Perichoresis means literally “circle dance”” and then goes on to explain how he this “literal” meaning comes from the constituent parts of this word; the Greek words χορευω (choreuō, to dance) and περι (peri, which is a preposition which could mean many things in many contexts, but often “around”). What he is doing here is defining the word according to its etymology, which is dangerous and often considered and exegetical fallacy (the Root Fallacy). The problem is that often words acquire a meaning radically different from their constituent parts. Let’s look at an example in English; if we were to look at the word “butterfly” etymologically we would conclude that a butter-fly was a fly made out of butter, a fly that ate butter, or something equally ridiculous that has nothing to do with the actual nature of the creature it describes. To make matters worse, if we were to take an etymological route (which can sometimes be valid if it sheds light on the primary method for determining meaning, which is the use of a word in context) Περιχώρησις (perichōrēsis) is probably not derived from χoρεύω and περι but περι and χωρέω (chōreō, which means “contain, have room”). Even if it was derived from χορεύω the historical usage of his word departs radically from the meaning that Cladis (echoing Guthrie) is attributing to it. John of Damascus’ use of this word is in reference to the interpenetration of the different members of the Trinity as described in John 14:11 (“I am in the Father and the Father is in me”). It was used to describe a relationship testified to in Scripture that was not truly understand, and still isn’t today. I mentioned that Cladis’ model is also inconsistent with what the few things that Scripture actually has to say on the interpersonal relationship within the Trinity, let’s look at that now.
Cladis sees in this perichōrētic relationship an implication of complete leveling in any seemingly hierarchical structure of roles within Trinity. It is true that within the Trinity each Person is completely equal in value and deity, but Scriptures teaches a difference in roles. Throughout the NT it is always the Father who “initiates and commissions” while the Son carries out the “commission” and the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son. These relationships stretch beyond a simple economic relationship between creation and the Trinity to the eternal relationship of the members of the Trinity. Within Scripture there seems to be a pretty clear teaching that there is functional (not ontological [which leads to Arianism or a similar heresy]) subordination within the Trinity. The Son submits to the will of the Father and the Spirit proceeds from both of them; we neglect this truth then many of Jesus’ words about His relationship with God the Father would lead to the conclusion of an ontological difference. Some have suggested that Christ took on a subordinate role only in the incarnation, but this doesn’t do full justice to the texts involved (that being said, in the incarnation His functional role did change, Philippians 2:8 says that He emptied Himself and took on the very nature [role] of a servant; but his does not imply that there was not subordination before the incarnation). There are also clear Scriptures that talk of functional distinction between believers (even though we are all equal in value, Gal. 3:23-29). Some of these include the leadership roles of the elders, deacons, and apostles (e.g. 1 Timothy 2-3) as well as the instructions for wives to submit to husbands, children to parents, and slaves to masters (Ephesians 5:21-30).
There are simply no biblical, theological, or historical grounds for Cladis model and this eviscerates the spine of his book, the part that he himself calls the “linchpin” (1). This trend of building models for relationships and ecclesiological structures out of what is perceived to be the interworking of the Trinitarian relationship has been common in the last 20 or so years. These “Social Trinitarian” models are unfortunate because they divert studies from what Scripture actually has to say about both these relationships and the Trinity to flimsy models built from extreme stretches of supposed implications in Scripture. This made it really hard for me to accept a model based off of this understanding of the Trinity.
Despite all of this, I did learn a little bit from reading this book that will help me in my future. First, reading this book helped me see how my ideas of church ministry were based on bringing myself glory and fame and not building a healthy church that glorifies God. This was a sobering realization and has given me a lot to pray and think about recently. I also found a quote on page 98, about the realization that Eph. 4 teaches the equipping of others for their ministry and not looking at them as team members for my work of ministry, to be very applicable to my thought process and any future ministry I may be involved with. I struggled a lot with this book, but God used it to show me a major weakness in my thinking and hopefully with His help I can work through it and come back to a Christ-, and not self-, centered understanding of ministry.
This book gets a rating of 1/5
Cladis loses one star for the fact that his entire supposedly “theological” and “biblical” model (1-2) is lacking any good exegetical or even historical evidence.
Actually, he loses the next two stars for the same reason; he fails to meet his thesis and support is model.
Lastly, he loses a star because even beyond this failure to provide a sufficient foundation for his model the book was very dry and lacked any profound or even enlightening tips on church structure, leadership, or teams that are not found in other books where they are presented and defended in a much more satisfactory way.
(There are footnotes and a bibliography for this review, see them here: http://allforthegloryofhiskingdom.wor...)
September 4, 2025
I had read a quote by George Cladis in an online devotional about the nature of a "paraclete" and, in the hopes that there would be more in this book, I ordered it and quickly read through it. While there was nothing on "paraclete", there was plenty on the Trinity and, in particular, looking at it through the lens of "perichoresis", an ancient term to describe its nature.
Now "perichoresis" isn't a term used in Scripture, but then neither is "trinity". It means circle dance and, already, that's a description that puts some people off. Is it implied, however? Is it like the "hora" that, in a Jewish wedding where the bride and groom are lifted up on chairs by the dancers, is all about mutual uplift and connection? Cladis doesn't mention the "hora", but I went into this book with the mindset focussed on looking for the wider nuances of "paraclete", so I couldn't avoid the ideas of uplift that permeated this book, even if they were rarely explicit.
One of the most interesting comments cites Richard Hays, who points out that, when Paul talked about the church as the Body of Christ, he was not using a metaphor that was unfamiliar to hhis audience. The ancient world often employed the body as a symbol for society; it was regularly used to emphasise that slaves needed to be kept in their place—subservient to their masters. Paul completely overturns this idea in his discussion of the Body of Christ. (p92)
Now "perichoresis" isn't a term used in Scripture, but then neither is "trinity". It means circle dance and, already, that's a description that puts some people off. Is it implied, however? Is it like the "hora" that, in a Jewish wedding where the bride and groom are lifted up on chairs by the dancers, is all about mutual uplift and connection? Cladis doesn't mention the "hora", but I went into this book with the mindset focussed on looking for the wider nuances of "paraclete", so I couldn't avoid the ideas of uplift that permeated this book, even if they were rarely explicit.
One of the most interesting comments cites Richard Hays, who points out that, when Paul talked about the church as the Body of Christ, he was not using a metaphor that was unfamiliar to hhis audience. The ancient world often employed the body as a symbol for society; it was regularly used to emphasise that slaves needed to be kept in their place—subservient to their masters. Paul completely overturns this idea in his discussion of the Body of Christ. (p92)
June 17, 2020
I LOVED this book! I learned more than I would have believed possible about healthy, successful team-based church leadership. The seven types of team leadership models described would function very well as sequential steps to creating a team unsurpassable in its capability of leading a church in today's postmodern world.
Besides the descriptions of each type of team, I particularly appreciated the clear distinctions made about the paradigm shift from modernism to postmodernism in the decades of my life (!) and how the latter has drastically influenced mainline church domination. The author, Dr. George Cladis, states that "Those once invincible orders of the mainline churches are in serious decline, and some observers question whether they will survive the next century." HOWEVER, he has solid, understandable, workable ideas about how to fix the issues that have caused incredible numbers of people to leave the church over the years, and adds that the new paradigm churches are doing a better job at this time of responding to congregational needs.
Most of all (for me), the author wove the concept of the Greek word "perichoresis" throughout the book, and linked it as well with "pros." The "Dancing God" grabbed my heart and the entire concept increased my faith. I was reminded of The Great Dance in C. S. Lewis's Perelandra....
Thanks to Dr. Cladis for this book! I am inspired and grateful.
Besides the descriptions of each type of team, I particularly appreciated the clear distinctions made about the paradigm shift from modernism to postmodernism in the decades of my life (!) and how the latter has drastically influenced mainline church domination. The author, Dr. George Cladis, states that "Those once invincible orders of the mainline churches are in serious decline, and some observers question whether they will survive the next century." HOWEVER, he has solid, understandable, workable ideas about how to fix the issues that have caused incredible numbers of people to leave the church over the years, and adds that the new paradigm churches are doing a better job at this time of responding to congregational needs.
Most of all (for me), the author wove the concept of the Greek word "perichoresis" throughout the book, and linked it as well with "pros." The "Dancing God" grabbed my heart and the entire concept increased my faith. I was reminded of The Great Dance in C. S. Lewis's Perelandra....
Thanks to Dr. Cladis for this book! I am inspired and grateful.
February 27, 2024
This is a really solid book that gives practical advice for creating a leveled church where the whole body is serving and ministering to one another.
Fair warning, it was written in 1999 so it loses a bit because of its dated references to technology.
A core part of the book is how the theology of the Trinity is used as the basis for the leadership model Cladis outlines. While I think the model presented is a good one for churches to follow, it becomes clear when reading the book that it is really hard to pull examples from the Bible for how the Trinity teaches the principles laid out in the book. Cladis had to rely more on art and assumptions in order to make most of the connections. The trinity is a tricky doctrine and there is just an inherent tension within it. So while I can still recommend this book for the wisdom it holds, I don't exactly think the way Cladis reaches his conclusions are as strong as they could have been had he started with a different model (i.e. how Jesus related to his disciples).
Fair warning, it was written in 1999 so it loses a bit because of its dated references to technology.
A core part of the book is how the theology of the Trinity is used as the basis for the leadership model Cladis outlines. While I think the model presented is a good one for churches to follow, it becomes clear when reading the book that it is really hard to pull examples from the Bible for how the Trinity teaches the principles laid out in the book. Cladis had to rely more on art and assumptions in order to make most of the connections. The trinity is a tricky doctrine and there is just an inherent tension within it. So while I can still recommend this book for the wisdom it holds, I don't exactly think the way Cladis reaches his conclusions are as strong as they could have been had he started with a different model (i.e. how Jesus related to his disciples).
January 10, 2015
Interesting and applicable read!
Cladis, George. Leading the Team-Based Church: How Pastors and Church Staffs Can Grow Together into a Powerful Fellowship of Leaders. San-Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1999.
Trinity: Cladis describes the Trinity (first alluded to Gen 1:26) as the master image for team-based leadership. St John of Damascus, described the relationship of the persons of God (Trinity) as perichoresis, (from Greek peri-, “around”, chorein, “to contain”) and suggests “circle dance”(p3).
There is much said about current theory on skills needed for effective team leadership, because as Cladis states, “We need today strong, steady, biblical, theologically sound, and culturally appropriate models of church leadership that work.” (p.x)
Cladis describes seven characteristics of effective team-based leaderships. These teams make a group covenant, are visionary, create a culture rather than formed by an existing culture, collaborate together, display trust within the team, empower others, and continue to learn and expand their knowledge resources. By “collaboration” he means employing the multiple gifts and differences of opinions from the various personalities on the team. When trust exists amongst members the team grows quickly and overall confidence soars. This helps to heal the scars of past relational breakdowns. Empowerment happens when power is spread out and celebrations are shared. Learning takes place through collective experiences and the creative innovation that arises. (Cladis, p13-16, 33, 48, 66, 88, 107, 123, 141.)
Cladis, George. Leading the Team-Based Church: How Pastors and Church Staffs Can Grow Together into a Powerful Fellowship of Leaders. San-Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1999.
Trinity: Cladis describes the Trinity (first alluded to Gen 1:26) as the master image for team-based leadership. St John of Damascus, described the relationship of the persons of God (Trinity) as perichoresis, (from Greek peri-, “around”, chorein, “to contain”) and suggests “circle dance”(p3).
There is much said about current theory on skills needed for effective team leadership, because as Cladis states, “We need today strong, steady, biblical, theologically sound, and culturally appropriate models of church leadership that work.” (p.x)
Cladis describes seven characteristics of effective team-based leaderships. These teams make a group covenant, are visionary, create a culture rather than formed by an existing culture, collaborate together, display trust within the team, empower others, and continue to learn and expand their knowledge resources. By “collaboration” he means employing the multiple gifts and differences of opinions from the various personalities on the team. When trust exists amongst members the team grows quickly and overall confidence soars. This helps to heal the scars of past relational breakdowns. Empowerment happens when power is spread out and celebrations are shared. Learning takes place through collective experiences and the creative innovation that arises. (Cladis, p13-16, 33, 48, 66, 88, 107, 123, 141.)
January 21, 2008
Reflecting on the communal nature of God, Cladis directly addresses the tensions between pragmatic and biblical church leadership. While scripture must serve as the ultimate authority, the church should not hesitate to recognize the truth and applicability of certain contemporary leadership models. Leading the Team-Based Church suggests seven principles of team leadership that reflect the nature of God (triune) and address the nature of culture (postmodern): covenanting, visionary, culture-creating, collaborative, trusting, empowering, and learning. Cladis demonstrates these characteristics in leadership culture (secular and church) and the nature of God as “perichoresis” (or communal “circle dance”). An engaging and useful book – A-
August 30, 2016
This is an excellent resource to guide churches in leading as a team instead of an individual. There were many times in this book, I thought...That is exactly right! That's what we need to do!
This book is a bit dated now, but I think it is still a resource well worth reading for anyone who is working on a church staff or elder board and wants to function as a team.
It is also a helpful resource to those who oversee a ministry team and how to develop them better.
Highly recommend1
This book is a bit dated now, but I think it is still a resource well worth reading for anyone who is working on a church staff or elder board and wants to function as a team.
It is also a helpful resource to those who oversee a ministry team and how to develop them better.
Highly recommend1
July 4, 2009
I read this book back in 1999 as part of a self-directed whirlwind primer on church governance, leadership, and vision, and it was one of the better ones. Cladis's thesis -- church leadership teams should self-consciously act as intentional learning communities -- has much to commend it. Recommended read for elders and deacons and anyone aspiring to the same.
November 9, 2013
This book is consistent with so many of his exhausting sermons about himself at Noroton Presbyterian church in Darien. Too many people drop out of church because we are sick of the uninspired dogma that they hear and George's book is a perfect example. For really good reading, find out why he left Noroton church in Darien.
March 1, 2016
Okay, probably some new concepts at the time that it was written but nothing notable now. The accountability chapter was interesting, but could have used a little bit more how to. I was disappointed that more of the principles discussed did not have a stronger biblical foundation. This should be read with Andy Stanley's Deep and Wide.
July 31, 2011
This was a great book for anyone in pastoral ministries. With practical steps for each of his supporting theories - Cladis does a great job utilizing previous success and failures to cheer you on toward a team-based ministry.
April 22, 2015
Skimmed for class. Seems like a good book to go back to, but don't need it for now.
February 6, 2016
read for school
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews