The Church Health Assessment (CHA) is a resource developed to give church leaders an objective measure of how their church is doing on nine factors. In my first article I outlined some of the trends found in the CHA, in the second article I noted the differences in elder and member perceptions, and in the third article, I looked at generational differences. In this article, I’ll continue to share results from the CHA’s completed thus far by looking at member perceptions of leadership strengths and weaknesses in their congregation.

The leadership factor in the CHA is made up of 19 statements, and respondents indicate how strongly they agree or disagree with the statement. First, let’s start with a broad overview of the leadership factor, and then we’ll break down some of the interesting findings from the individual items that make up that factor. The information presented in this article is drawn from 3,630 respondents representing 23 congregations that have used the CHA. The average score on the leadership scale is 72.46 out of a possible 100 and in our color-coded red, yellow, and green system, that score would be approaching the target for a healthy congregation. Another way of saying this is that the average response on the items is between “neutral” and “agree.” Here is a bar graph showing each of the 19 factors and the average scores (click it to enlarge).

Now, let’s take a look at some of the highs and lows. The highest individual item in the scale is the item “The ministers at this church are friendly” with a score of 84 meaning that, on average, members agree with this statement. The other three items with high levels of agreement are all fairly similar and are about support: “The ministers are connected and show mutual support of one another,” “The ministers are supportive of the elders in the congregation,” and “The elders are supportive of the minister(s).” This is a good trend and this type of mutual support can be an indicator of healthy leadership. However, not all items score so highly and they’re worthy of further investigation.

While none of the items are in the red when we look at the average across all 23 congregations, the items with the lowest averages are telling. The lowest scoring item, at 66, is “The leadership at this church takes the time to really get to know the members” followed by three items that score a 67 and are largely about how the leadership team implements change and handles differing perspectives: “The leaders do well processing different views among members,” “The leadership, when criticized, typically avoids, denies, or silences the critics” (this one is reverse coded so that strongly disagree is given the higher value), and “Church decisions are made and action taken in a timely way.”

When we take these highs and lows together, we get the image of a congregation with friendly ministers and a group of elders who support the ministers and vice versa, but who struggle to make decisions that take into account the various perspectives offered by the congregation, making them appear indecisive and ineffective.

Another area where the CHA addresses leadership is in these two questions: “What do you like most about this church?” and conversely “What do you like least about this church?” Each question includes a menu of options, including the option for respondents to select “other” and type a response.

On the “like most” question, under 5% of respondents selected “Elders are attentive to needs” (2.0%) or “Ministers are attentive to needs” (2.4%). Most people selected items such as “worship” (35.5%) or wrote in comments about relationships and friendships in the congregation (around 10%).

On the second question, 7% of respondents indicated their least favorite thing about their church is either the elders or ministers not being attentive. Additionally, in the “other” option where respondents can write in a response (about 42% of respondents chose this option), about half of the responses mentioned conflict among leaders or decisions made by the leadership team.

Overall, there are strengths and weaknesses to the leadership groups in these 23 churches. The strengths are that they are friendly and generally liked as individuals. The weaknesses are that they can struggle to lead a congregation with diverse thoughts and opinions.

It’s important to note that the leaders of these congregations chose to use the CHA as a part of a larger effort to seek guidance and wisdom from outside of their congregation, and so they aren’t necessarily representative of all Church of Christ congregations. If you’d like more information on using the Church Health Assessment in your congregation visit the CHA page on the Siburt Institute website.