Loading [Contrib]/a11y/accessibility-menu.js
Gospel Leadership
Pratt, Jonathan, and Elliot Ku. 2025. “Look Before You Leap: Training and Developing Future Leaders.” Gospel Leadership, February. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.56505/​001c.129645.
Download all (7)
  • Figure 1. Leader Development Ecosystem
    Download
  • Figure 2. Common Training Strategies and their Relative Difficulty
    Download
  • Figure 3. Average 360 Ratings for Christ College Interns and Coaches
    Download
  • Figure 4. A Framework for Effective Training and Development
    Download
  • Figure 5. Recommended Training Pathway
    Download
  • Figure 8. Coherence of Program Outcomes, Outcome Goals and Evaluation
    Download
  • Figure 9. Program-Level Evaluation of Program Outcome Attainment
    Download

View more stats

Abstract

This paper is our response to common questions from pastoral leaders and future leaders about effective training and development. It begins by identifying five common training strategies adopted by churches. It outlines a research-informed process to select the most appropriate training strategy and program. It then organises this material into an integrated framework for effective training and development. The appendices provide further explanations and examples from our context of Reformed and Presbyterian pastoral ministry in Sydney, Australia.

Rather than follow the conventional advice most commonly given in our wider Evangelical culture of ‘take the next step’ or ‘enrol in the best college’, we recommend strongly that future leaders and pastoral leaders ‘look before you leap’. Analysing stakeholder interests, especially those of the future leader, is the first and most important category impacting on leader development. After this, the merits of various training strategies and programs can be evaluated according to their impact on leader development and difficulty of implementation. Once an appropriate training strategy and program are selected, future leaders can engage in the training and development cycle described in our paper.

INTRODUCTION

"I have a future leader in my church who is interested in taking the next step towards ministry. I don’t have much experience training others. What advice can you give us?"

This paper represents our considered response to common questions that we are asked about effective training and development, like the question above. It aims to serve a wide range of leaders in church and parachurch ministries in Australia and overseas. It begins by identifying five common training strategies adopted by churches. It outlines a research-informed process to select the most appropriate training strategy and program for a particular context based on two critical questions: 1) what impact will it have on leader development?; and 2) how difficult will it be to implement?. It then organises this material into an integrated framework for effective training and development.

We have provided three appendices containing further explanations and illustrative examples of key concepts from our context of Reformed and Presbyterian pastoral ministry in Sydney, Australia. We believe this additional detail will help pastoral leaders and future leaders from a range of denominational backgrounds, ministry contexts and geographical settings understand the practical implications of our recommended process. It should also equip them to answer many of their own questions about training and development.

We are not aware of a similar paper aimed at pastoral leaders (ministers and elders) and future leaders (less experienced leaders) that attempts to integrate research-based insights about training and development from multiple literatures into a sensible decision-making process and integrated developmental framework. We pray that this material serves others inside and outside our defined context, and that it provides a platform for more rigorous and intentional conversations about raising the next generation of pastoral leaders.

COMMON TRAINING STRATEGIES

Pastoral leaders in our theological tradition and wider Evangelical culture tend to adopt one of five training strategies for future leaders in their church or parachurch ministry:

  • Neglect

  • Student pastor

  • Internship

  • Apprenticeship

  • Traineeship

Neglect is a common response to training future leaders, though it is seldom chosen deliberately. Neglect occurs when future leaders are not identified and/or given opportunities for training and development. It is the default strategy when no other training strategy is selected.

A student pastor strategy involves pastoral leaders engaging a seminary or theological college student in a part-time assistant role. This role could be paid or voluntary. This strategy has a long history, takes many forms, and is relatively common among future leaders participating in full- or part-time theological study, especially as they near the end of their studies.

An internship is a training strategy modelled on university-workplace internships that sits in a similar space to the student pastor strategy. These strategies are normally overseen by a university or college. They are designed to give approved students the opportunity to acquire relevant learning experiences in the field, under the supervision of approved coaches, in ways that connect with their university or college studies. Christ College was one of the first to develop a structured three-year internship that integrates field and classroom learning as part of a degree-level qualification for pastoral leaders and deaconesses seeking ordination. Other seminaries and theological colleges have begun developing their own internship strategies.

An apprenticeship is a training strategy that is traditionally used to prepare school leavers for working in trades that involve manual labour. Apprenticeships are full-time paid roles that last three to four years during which apprentices receive on-the-job training from an employer. They also undertake part-time training towards an industry-recognised qualification that prepares and authorises them as a qualified tradesperson.

In Australia, this apprenticeship strategy was reconfigured in the early 1980s to provide paid ministry training opportunities for university graduates and younger workers under approved trainers. They are commonly implemented in churches and university campus ministries over a two-year period. Unlike a traditional apprenticeship strategy, part-time training towards an industry qualification is not required. Many, but not all apprentices, defer their study at a seminary or theological college until after the completion of their apprenticeship. Finally, instead of being paid a wage by their employer, apprentices raise their own funds in partnership with their church and/or parachurch ministry, family and friends. Most apprenticeships are offered in partnership with specialist parachurch organisations like MTS (Ministry Training Strategy) who can provide a broad training framework/curriculum, training resources, and tax-deductible fundraising infrastructure. Apprenticeship strategies are also developed independently by churches and parachurch organisations and therefore take many forms.

A traineeship is a training strategy found across many service industries. Like a traditional apprenticeship, trainees receive a salary from their employer and on-the-job training. They also complete a part-time industry-recognised qualification that prepares and authorises them for relevant work in their industry.

Some traineeships offered by churches and parachurch organisations in Australia are little more than apprenticeship strategies by a different name. Christ College created a new kind of traineeship that combines key elements of apprenticeship, internship and traditional traineeship strategies. Like an apprenticeship, trainees make a full-time commitment over two years to serve and undertake on-the-job training under an approved coach in a ministry context. They are supported financially by various partners and tax-deductible fundraising infrastructure. Like an internship, the Traineeship is overseen by the college and is structured into a comprehensive range of field and classroom learning experiences. And like a traditional traineeship strategy, trainees complete an industry-recognised award[1] part-time. The Traineeship is aligned with ordination training required by the Presbyterian Church of Australia. This enables those who complete the Traineeship to receive credit for the full first year of the required training that prepares and authorises ministers and deaconesses for work in this context. We are not aware of other seminaries, theological colleges, churches or parachurch organisations that have developed a traineeship strategy like this.

The two most critical questions that pastoral leaders and future leaders should ask in relation to any training strategy are:

  1. What impact will it have on leader development?

  2. How difficult will it be to implement?

Variations of these questions are used in the lean management literature to analyse and select strategies.[2] The preferred strategies are generally high in impact with relatively low difficulty to implement. These questions are explored further in the following sections of this paper.

IMPACT ON LEADER DEVELOPMENT

The impact on leader development refers to the estimated value or benefit of the training strategy on the development of the future leader.[3] Therefore to understand how leader development is impacted, it is important to identify the factors that influence said development.

Leader development is defined as the capacity of individuals to be effective in leadership roles and processes.[4] Leader development is distinguished from leader training. Training is focused on offering proven solutions to known problems, such as the teaching of particular techniques. Development, by contrast, focuses on building individual capabilities,[5] especially the capacity to meet unforeseen challenges.[6] It has been argued that the failure to recognise this distinction between development and mere training lies behind the poor outcomes of many leader development programs.[7]

Leader development takes place on three different levels. Like an iceberg submerged in the sea, some developmental changes are easier to perceive than others. At the surface level are observable skills and behaviours[8] such as teaching and leading others. These are enabled at the meso level by less-observable processes of self-regulation[9] and leader identity formation.[10] A common example for many pastoral leaders is discerning a ‘technical call’[11] to serve as an ‘officer’ in Christ’s church.[12] At the foundation level are invisible adult development processes[13] like character formation that build on a moral/ethical foundation.[14] The scope of leader development is therefore as broad as our “life and doctrine” (1 Tim 4:16).

There can be significant variation in the leader development outcomes across and within training strategies. This variation represents a major risk that should be evaluated before selecting the training strategy.

We have distilled what we believe are the most significant influences on leader development outcomes into three distinct categories:

  1. Alignment with stakeholder interests

  2. Coherence of program design

  3. Consistency of leader development outcomes

We recommend strongly that pastoral leaders and future leaders adopt these categories as lenses to evaluate the relative merits of different relevant training strategies before making a decision to pursue a particular strategy.

1. Alignment with Stakeholder Interests

The first and most important category is stakeholder interests. Most frameworks in the training and development literature begin at a similar point but refer to these concerns as ‘needs analysis’.[15] We prefer the language of interests rather than needs, as it captures a wider range of relevant concerns that can influence the outcomes of different training strategies.

Stakeholders are those who are likely to be affected by the training strategy and who can influence the outcomes of it.[16] The most influential stakeholders are those with both a high level of interest in the training strategy, and a high degree of power or influence to “make or break” the change.[17] Stakeholder interests refer to “specific priority preferences at a given time”.[18] They are the things that stakeholders care about most that drive their emotions, motivations and actions.[19]

Stakeholder Levels

It is recommended that stakeholder interest analysis take place at three concurrent levels: mega (societal), macro (organisational),[20] and micro (individual).[21] If pastoral leaders want to make an impact beyond the macro level, they should begin with analysis at the mega level,[22] especially if these interests can impact upon the viability and effectiveness of the training strategy.[23]

A pastoral leader and future leader in a local church are likely to find the following stakeholders to be the most significant:

  • Denomination/network (mega)

  • Elders/staff (macro)

  • Future leader (micro)

Other stakeholders could also be considered at each level. The potential significance of these stakeholders will depend on the extent of their interest in, and influence over, different training strategy choices in their particular context.

Interest Categories

We have observed several common categories of stakeholder interests in relation to training strategies for pastoral leaders and future leaders.[24] Many of these categories operate concurrently at the mega, macro and micro levels. These categories include:

  • Aspirations – vision, calling, hope, goal/s or desired outcomes

  • Role capabilities – relevant attributes, competencies or qualities required to perform effectively in a given role

  • Ministry context/polity – distinctive aspects of the setting where the role is performed, such as culture, geography, organisational structure and critical challenges

  • Confession/convictions – the approved confession of faith and relevant convictions relating to doctrine and ministry practice

  • Regulations – laws and rules that prescribe or limit possible training strategies

  • Resources – various means that enable or limit effective training, such as time, energy, expertise, and funding

For those considering the possibility of pastoral leadership in a local church in Australia, church denominations and ministry networks continue to exert significant influence. Much to the surprise of many future leaders, there are important and particular stakeholder interests across different denominations and non-denominational church networks.[25]

Align Training with Stakeholder Interests

The ideal training strategy for a future leader should align with their stakeholders’ interests, especially their own.[26] Furthermore, careful reflection and the ability to articulate these interests can be advantageous for future leaders before they identify a suitable training strategy.

For example, future leaders interested in ordination in the Anglican Diocese of Sydney must align their training strategy with a number of denominational interests. These include baptism and communicant membership in the Anglican Church of Australia (ministry context/polity), completion of two years of observation and supervision in ministry (role capabilities and requirements), discernment as a candidate for ordination (aspirations, role capabilities and confession/convictions), making Solemn Promises (confession/convictions), and completing required study at Moore Theological College or Youthworks College (regulations).[27] There are similar denominational interests for those interested in ordination with the Christian Reformed Churches of Australia[28] or accreditation with the Baptist Churches of NSW and ACT.[29] Networks like the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches in Australia have their own distinctive aspirations, confession/convictions, polity/governance, regulations and resources.[30] For those interested in serving overseas through a church or parachurch ministry, additional interests should be considered such as those of the partner mission agency.[31] We recognise that there is a possibility that these interests or requirements may be perceived as laborious to some. Yet, we believe that these function like guard rails to clarify and test[32] a future leader’s calling, direct their training pathway in a manner that is doctrinally and historically anchored, and provide the most holistic training possible.

An example of common stakeholder interests for future leaders we have spoken to in our context (the Presbyterian Church of Australia in NSW and the ACT) is outlined in Appendix 1. Our suggestions for clarifying these stakeholder interests, and our recommended training pathways that align mostly closely with these interests, can also be found in Appendix 1.

Our counsel to analyse stakeholder interests prior to selecting the training strategy will appear to be common sense for some, and counter-cultural for others. In our wider church culture, denominational distinctiveness is often smoothed out in favour of a generalised Evangelical identity.[33] As a result, it is not uncommon for us to meet future leaders who aspire to serve as a pastoral leader in our denomination, but failed to investigate their stakeholder interests when they decided on their initial training strategy. We know many future leaders whose training strategy produced a lower than desired impact on their leader development, while simultaneously taking more years to complete at a higher financial cost, compared to other strategies more aligned with their interests. Our hope in raising the issue of stakeholder interests is that it encourages more future leaders and pastoral leaders to ‘look before you leap’ into important training strategy decisions.

2. Coherence of the Program Design

A training strategy alone is not sufficient to deliver leader development outcomes. A particular training program comprised of various elements is also needed to deliver the hoped for outcomes of the training strategy.

We have identified five foundational elements relating to the design of a training program that impact upon the development of a future leader. These elements are:

  1. Target audience

  2. Program outcomes

  3. Development ecosystem

  4. Program evaluation

  5. Resource management

These elements should cohere and work together. There ought to be ‘constructive alignment’[34] between the learning outcomes, learning activities, and assessment/evaluation within coursework and formal training (see further our discussion of the development ecosystem). This same principle of coherence should also operate at the program-level, across the five elements, as well as any partnerships between training organisations and industry partners[35] like churches. An example of coherent program design drawing on the Christ College Traineeship can be found in Appendix 2.

Target Audience

The training program should have a clearly defined target audience it aims to serve.[36] The target audience in our case should be the future leader being trained.[37] For training to be effective, it must be targeted.[38] A good indication of the targeted nature of the program audience is formal entry criteria that communicates the shape of the target audience and restricts entry to those who don’t meet this criteria.

Program Outcomes

There should be explicit program outcomes that the future leaders who join the training program will attain at the completion of their program. It is recommend that these outcomes are learner- or leader-centred, so it is clear how every leader will benefit personally from participating in the program.[39] This normally means defining outcomes in terms of specific leader capabilities[40] that can be observed and measured.[41] This is in contrast to the practice of stating general program objectives that are not leader-centred,[42] and which may prioritise the objectives of the church or parachurch organisation overseeing the program. The most effective learning and development organisations ‘design the complete experience’ from the participant’s perspective rather than the course perspective.[43] Framing leader-centred program outcomes is also more likely to foster transformational learning and teaching experiences,[44] especially when these outcomes inform the rest of the program design.[45]

Development Ecosystem

Every training program assumes their participants will develop within a particular ecosystem or framework comprising of multiple related influences. Whether this ecosystem is made explicit or not, all the parts within it should cohere or align with the program outcomes to cultivate the specific conditions these leaders will need to develop during the program.

According to the research, leaders need three important and related conditions to develop.[46] For the Christian, these conditions are the ‘means’ or ‘second causes’ that God normally uses in his ordinary providence.[47] These conditions are summarised in Figure 1.

Figure 1
Figure 1.Leader Development Ecosystem

Leaders develop over time through experiences,[48] especially when these experiences challenge leaders to struggle and stretch beyond their current capabilities.[49] Cross-cultural analysis of the events that had the greatest impact on the development of leaders has found that challenging experiences are the most frequently cited factor.[50] Engaging personal experiences were also found to be the most important factor in helping Christians to grow spiritually.[51]

The nature of the challenge can arise for multiple reasons such as novelty, difficult goals/tasks, conflict, dealing with adversity,[52] experience in a new culture, early work experiences, short-term and major projects,[53] promotions and postings.[54] The difficulty of the challenge should not be too great and must be accompanied by appropriate feedback.[55] This feedback can be from the leader themselves or others. Its value is to show leaders where they are now and what they need to develop further.[56] Feedback fosters personal goal-setting, learning, and the development of expertise.[57] When this feedback is positive, it motivates and reinforces desired behaviours.[58]

Leaders need more than just challenging experiences and feedback; they must also be willing to reflect on their experiences,[59] and learn from their experiences.[60] Two different kinds of relationships support this process.

Developmental relationships refer to those people who help the leader learn lessons about leadership. These are transmitted through relational feedback such as coaching, one-to-one mentoring, and forms of peer/group mentoring.[61] These relationships create space for leaders to participate in a transformation process by identifying, sharing and examining points of view that promote insights, understanding and new action.[62] Empirical research among Christians has similarly found a transformation ‘sweet spot’ where ‘truth’ is given by a ‘healthy leader’ to someone in a ‘vulnerable position’.[63]

Supportive relationships enable leaders to experience safety and find a new equilibrium.[64] They also help leaders handle the struggle and bear the weight of the challenging experience and development process.[65] This role is often played by supervisors, co-workers, family and friends.[66]

The third important condition for leaders to develop is coursework and formal training.[67] This includes formal leadership development programs, academic programs, study tours, workshops, and action learning.[68] It also includes training towards industry-recognised awards common to many of the prior discussed training strategies. The critical elements that must be ‘constructively aligned’ for effective coursework and formal training are the learning outcomes, learning activities, and assessment tasks.[69] These three elements should also align with the leader’s experiences and social relationships (especially with superiors).[70] Aligning coursework and formal training with real-life challenges is consistent with how adults learn best.[71]

There are different claims in the training and development literature regarding the relative importance and ideal weightings between these three conditions. A popular framework is the 70/20/10 model[72] that recommends the following split for developing leaders:

  • On-the-job experiences (70%)
  • Social sources (20%)
  • Formal training (10%)

This model rightly highlights the significance of challenging experiences and developmental/ supportive relationships, as discussed earlier. But it should not be cited as authority for prescribing their recommended weightings of these elements in a program’s design, especially the minimising of coursework and formal training. This is because the original research was limited in its focus on executive success, not their full range of jobs and skills.[73] Further, other research has found similar rankings of importance, but varying weightings across cultures[74] and industries.[75] For example, one study found the average split across these categories was 55/25/20, with variation observed across industries and organisations.[76] Finally, there are several industries where learning on-the-job cannot take place without the completion of extensive formal training because of the high risk of errors. Commonly cited examples include surgeons, pilots, and accountants.[77] The same rationale can be applied to other kinds of professionals and knowledge workers, such as school teachers, psychologists, and pastoral leaders.

Program evaluation

The training and development of a leader is not complete until they have been evaluated comprehensively. This evaluation should also cohere with other elements in the development program.[78] The design of this evaluation should take place as early as the analysis of stakeholder interests, and the design of the program outcomes and development ecosystem.[79]

Evaluation serves multiple important purposes. It helps the leader to assess their current capabilities and needs, develop a more complex understanding of themselves, and identify gaps between their current state and desired future state.[80] These gaps provide motivation for learning, growth and change.[81] They provide clues regarding how these gaps might be closed.[82] It helps stakeholders, especially the future leader and pastoral leader, determine whether their investment in the program was ultimately worthwhile.[83] Finally, when the evaluation is well-designed and comprehensive, it increases the likelihood that the development program will achieve a high-quality status.[84]

There is a standout framework for evaluation[85] that is used throughout the training and development industry that identifies four related levels of evaluation:

  1. Reaction – how do participants respond initially to the training event?
  2. Learning – do participants develop the intended outcomes during the learning event?
  3. Behaviour – do participants apply what they learned on the job after the learning event?
  4. Results – are organisational outcomes occurring as a result of the learning events and their reinforcement?

The first two levels of evaluation take place within the context of the coursework or formal training. The first level (reaction) can be measured through observation and simple surveys. The second level (learning) can be determined through various informal and formal assessments over the designated training period.[86] This is the level at which evaluation normally ends,[87] especially when it is not integrated thoughtfully into the development ecosystem and wider training program.

The biggest challenge in most training programs is the application of learning from the classroom to the field or workplace (behaviour).[88] Research has found that there is a higher probability of learning transfer when participants are supported by superiors and peers,[89] when they perceive their training to be useful or relevant to their workplace needs (reaction), and when they acquire the intended learning outcomes from their training (learning).[90] As argued already, these outcomes are more likely when analysis of stakeholder interests takes place before the training begins so the training program can match the needs of participants.[91]

The transfer of learning to the field or workplace should lead to behavioural changes that can be observed and measured by others. These are the kind and level of program outcomes we recommended earlier.

A common approach to determine the extent of leader development over time is a pre- and post-program assessment. These work best when specific outcomes are identified and the same raters are involved each time, a 360 survey is used, or raters are asked to assess change they have observed over time.[92] 360 surveys are particularly effective when they are custom-designed, report credible data, promote accountability through a personal development plan, and involve representatives from across the organisation.[93] If 360 surveys are used, their purpose should be communicated clearly, participants ought to be involved in choosing their raters, and care should be taken to avoid ‘rater fatigue’.[94]

In the training and development industry, it is common for employers funding staff training to identify organisational outcomes they hope to achieve through the training. This is the fourth and final level of evaluation (results). This is less relevant for our purposes, and appears to be less common among churches more generally.[95]

In addition to multi-source leader evaluations like 360 surveys, it is also good practice to draw upon a range of other evaluation data to review the training program itself. This could include surveys and interviews with leader participants and their church-based trainers, assessing program-level outcomes across all participants, and tracking the progress of graduates into the future. As part of this review process, program outcomes should be reported to key stakeholders such as the future leader, their pastoral leader coach, and the relevant denominational committees. This evaluation data can then be used to promote continual improvements over time.

Resource Management

The final foundational element is resource management. The most critical resources are the time, effort, expertise and money of major stakeholders, especially the future leader participating in the training program.

The resources of the future leader should be spent wisely. If a future leader is beginning their ‘journey’ towards ordained pastoral ministry in a particular denomination/network, or the future leader and pastoral leader are seeking to test a potential calling to ordained pastoral ministry in this setting, then their initial training strategy and program should align with this ministry end. It should also align with possible future training strategies and programs, such as required ordination training at an approved seminary or theological college.

In our context, we have observed future leaders and pastoral leaders making decisions to start training programs that took more years to complete, and resulted in inferior leader development outcomes, compared to alternative training programs they could have chosen. We also know of future leaders who completed training programs that required part-time study at a seminary or theological college that was not recognised towards required ordination training in their church denomination. This is poor stewardship of the future leader’s time, talents, and treasures.

The total time and financial cost of completing a particular training ‘pathway’ to vocational ministry should be identified as part of the initial analysis of stakeholder interests. We are aware of some future leaders who did not investigate the total financial cost of their training strategies and later ran out of money to pay for their tuition fees, as a result of tuition fee debt from prior university study. More young leaders in the future are likely to require training strategies that provide tax-deductible financial support from partners to contribute to their living and tuition costs associated with their training strategy.

3. Consistency of Leader Development Outcomes

There are another set of important considerations relating to the consistency of the promised leader development outcomes. In our context, apprenticeship and student pastor strategies have impacted positively on the development of many leaders. However, based on our experiences and observations of many apprentices and student pastors, they do not consistently produce positive development outcomes. Variations in development outcomes represent a significant risk that should be considered before making a decision about a training strategy or related program. We have identified four factors that increase the consistency of leader development outcomes. Examples of these factors from the Christ College Traineeship can be found in Appendix 3.

Program Governance

It needs to be clear who is responsible for overseeing the program and all its elements. For internships, it is recommended that the university or college oversee the content[96] and integration of the internship,[97] such as the linking of workplace tasks with theoretical knowledge delivered in the classroom.[98] For programs based wholly in the local church, oversight will normally reside with the elders or church governance team, even if outside teachers are engaged.[99] For leader development programs with developmental experiences taking place outside the local church, there are likely to be other parties delivering significant parts of the program. Oversight of the program and all development experiences should be assigned to one party who has the authority to make binding decisions in relation to the program and those who participate in, or contribute, to the program. The work of this group could be aided by a governing or advisory board made up of academics/trainers and practitioners/pastoral leaders.[100] This important condition enables the possibility of difficult and ongoing changes to be made that can improve the development experiences of future leaders, as well as addressing the interests of other significant stakeholders.

Common Structure

The adoption of a common program structure improves the consistency of leader development outcomes over time. Research on apprenticeships has found that programs that promote “individualised curricula”[101] can fail to develop common and basic skills that apprentices require in order to work effectively in other contexts after their apprenticeship,[102] also known as “labour market integration and mobility”.[103] When this occurs in an internship or student pastor strategy, especially as part of required ordination training, it can result in students graduating from seminary or theological college without all the required attributes for effective pastoral leadership. Programs that are highly customised around particular individuals are also in danger of being abused by workplace supervisors as a “quick-fix solution for short-term recruitment problems”.[104] Alternatively, the research recommends apprenticeships adopt a high level of standardisation in training content and curricula,[105] along with “more academic forms of education that sustain and develop basic skills”.[106] Finally, common pathways for apprentices to pursue higher levels of education and training are also recommended.[107]

We have observed from our experiences that programs with a common and mandatory structure develop their program outcomes more consistently across participants. This limits, without removing entirely, program variation and individual discretion across leaders and delivery locations. By contrast, programs that lack a common and mandatory structure, usually to promote customisation and flexibility around the future leader and/or their coach/trainer, often result in less consistent leader development outcomes over time.

Program Orientation and Resources

Outcome consistency is improved when future leaders and pastoral leaders receive appropriate training that equips them to participate in, and contribute to, the program. This training is ideally provided during an orientation or induction at the beginning of the program.[108] It could also be provided at later dates, as required. Shared training resources provided to future leaders and pastoral leaders, ideally during the program orientation, reduce variation further. These resources could address different aspects of the program, such as expectations for particular program elements, instructions for developing an annual learning contract, training in coaching conversations, instructional content for church-based training between the pastoral leader and future leader, and multi-source evaluation reports like 360 surveys. All of these resources should cohere with the overall program design.

Quality Control

The final element that improves outcome consistency is quality control, such as monitoring and evaluation systems.[109] This is ultimately the responsibility of the group responsible for governing the program. This group should review program evaluation reports regularly, and make necessary changes, to ensure that the outcomes attained by leaders are consistent with the outcomes that were promised.

We have now discussed a range of factors that can impact on leader development outcomes across different training strategies and programs. When these factors are assessed, along with an analysis of the relative difficulty to implement these strategies (discussed next), pastoral leaders and future leaders should have a sound basis for choosing their preferred training strategy and program.

DIFFICULTY OF IMPLEMENTATION

The difficulty of implementation is an important but frequently overlooked issue when evaluating the merits of different training strategies. For our purposes, the difficulty of implementation refers to the time, effort, expertise and financial cost required to implement the chosen strategy.[110] Higher levels of difficulty normally lead to increased costs and risks. Our assessment of the relative difficulty to implement common training strategies is summarised in Figure 2.

Figure 2
Figure 2.Common Training Strategies and their Relative Difficulty

The difficulty of implementation increases when pastoral leaders are responsible for training a future leader several days per week (such as an apprenticeship or traineeship strategy) compared to only one or two days (such as a student pastor or internship strategy). This difficulty grows with the range of training elements that the pastoral leader is responsible for coordinating and implementing.

This difficulty can be reduced when important decisions about the design and delivery of the training strategy are made by another party, such as the structuring of a program into common and mandatory core components. It can decrease further when mandatory training and common resources are provided for their use. And it can be reduced again when other parties deliver key elements of the training strategy within carefully pre-defined parameters.

EVALUATION OF COMMON TRAINING STRATEGIES

The evaluation of which training strategy is ‘best’ for a future leader and pastoral leader depends on a number of prior discussed factors relating to impact on leader development and difficulty of implementation. Although the details of these training strategies and related programs will vary within and across other contexts, we can offer some brief comments about the relative merits of these training strategies from our context.

Unsurprisingly, neglect has the lowest positive impact on the development of future leaders. It persists as a common strategy as it is the least difficult to implement.

The student pastor strategy gives the future leader an opportunity to complete a theological education while gaining on-the-job experience concurrently with, but normally independent of, seminary or theological college. In our experience, the impact on future leaders varies considerably. The inconsistency of leader development outcomes from this training strategy was one of the main reasons that Christ College developed its Internship program.

The student pastor strategy normally requires the pastoral leader to develop a role description, gain the support and approval of other church leaders (especially if it involves funding), plan the future leader’s workload, meet frequently with them, and speak to others about them. Some seminaries and theological colleges may provide training and resources for their students and the leaders responsible for them. In most cases however, the responsibility for the student pastor role is in the hands of the pastoral leader.

Since the start of 2019, we have seen positive and consistent leader development outcomes using an internship strategy, especially compared with our previous student pastor strategy. This has been encouraging for us because we believe that the urgency of raising more leaders has to be accompanied by a training strategy that serves and benefits the future leader and their future ministry contexts.

Figure 3 shows the average 360 survey ratings of Christ College Interns who completed required ordination training and two or more years of Internship, in the recommended order, and within the same church.[111] They were evaluated by nine church-based raters[112] across 50 questions that aligned with five of the six graduate attributes or program outcomes for the Course of Training[113] required for ordination. These questions required raters to respond using a 7-point Likert scale of agreement that were coded with a numerical rating from 1 to 7.[114] To assist with the interpretation of this data, the average 360 survey ratings for ordained pastoral leaders serving as approved Internship Coaches are shown in red as an external benchmark.[115] These Coaches were evaluated using the same 360 survey questions and an almost identical methodology[116] as the Interns.

Figure 3
Figure 3.Average 360 Ratings for Christ College Interns and Coaches

The average ratings for Interns were high across all years, and across all graduate attribute program outcomes, with a range of 6.05 to 6.66 out of 7. These ratings improved across all graduate attributes between the first and second year of the Internship, especially in the category Lead the Church under Christ. The differences between the average scores in the second and third year are marginal and reflect our focus on assuring program outcomes in the final year.

These 360 survey program evaluations were conducted in the same kind of context, and by the same kinds of church members, that these future leaders are likely to serve as ordained ministers as deaconesses. This evaluation data therefore points to high levels of program outcome attainment, enabled by effective training and development, consistent with the prior discussed research.

An internship strategy is more difficult to implement compared to a student pastor strategy as it requires churches to meet objective standards and be approved as a Partner Church,[117] involves a greater breadth and depth of structured learning experiences, and entails regular intern feedback and multisource evaluation from the pastoral leader and other church members. However, we believe that the extent of this additional difficulty is more than offset by the structured shape of the common student program each year, along with multiple custom training resources provided to Interns and their pastoral leaders during the program orientation.

Many apprentices in our wider Evangelical church culture are discouraged from engaging in degree-level study at a seminary or theological college until after the completion of their apprenticeship. In more recent years, some apprenticeship providers have encouraged formal theological training in addition to their training program. For example, Australia’s largest apprenticeship scheme offers prospective apprentices the opportunity to undertake training with at least six well-known training organisations.[118] This reflects a gradual shift and changing attitude in training – one that desires to integrate more coursework and formal training with their field experience. However, we have observed that much of the coursework and formal training that apprentices complete does not cohere with other elements in their training program (at least not explicitly), does not authorise them to serve as a pastoral leader, nor is it recognised by seminaries and theological colleges if apprentices continue training towards ordained pastoral ministry (normally another three to four years full-time study after their apprenticeship).[119]

The apprenticeship strategy is more difficult to implement than the previous strategies as the pastoral leader is responsible for overseeing, designing, implementing and evaluating the training program of a future leader with limited ministry experience or prior training, for more days of the week. The impact of this strategy on the future leader varies significantly, as much of the apprentice’s development depends on decisions made by the pastoral leader regarding the design and delivery of their program. We know several future leaders who have experienced high development outcomes through an apprenticeship strategy, as well as several who have experienced low development outcomes.

The two-year Traineeship has been in operation since 2023. The emerging leader development outcomes are promising, based on 360 surveys conducted at the start, middle and end of their program. Further details relating to the coherent design and consistency of outcomes we anticipate can be found in Appendix 2 and 3. Pastoral leader Coaches have reported that the Traineeship is less difficult to implement compared to their experiences with, and observations of, an apprenticeship strategy. The structured nature of the program design, the shared delivery model with the college, and the provision of training and resources for Coaches and Trainees contributes to this view.

A FRAMEWORK FOR EFFECTIVE TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT

The prior discussed materials can be integrated together into a framework that summarises the cyclical nature of effective training and development (see Figure 4).

Figure 4
Figure 4.A Framework for Effective Training and Development

Future leaders and pastoral leaders should begin their training and development ‘journey’, not by ‘taking the next step’ or ‘enrolling in the best college’,[120] but by ‘looking before you leap’. This process begins with an analysis of stakeholder interests. Relevant training strategies and programs should be evaluated and selected, based on the following previously discussed factors:

  • Alignment with stakeholder interests
  • Coherence of program design
  • Consistency of leader development outcomes
  • Difficulty of implementation

Once a decision is made to select a particular training strategy and program, the future leader and pastoral leader can then engage in the associated training and development. As training and development progresses, leader development outcomes are evaluated. Program-level evaluation should produce reports for relevant stakeholders that inform important decisions and changes to be made in the next cycle of training and development.

CONCLUSION

This paper is our response to common questions from pastoral leaders and future leaders about effective training and development. Our views are shaped by our personal experiences of training and developing future leaders in Reformed and Presbyterian churches. They are informed by our observations of training and development in our wider Evangelical culture. They are supported by relevant research from multiple literatures. And they are embodied in training programs like the Christ College Traineeship and Internship. Although we believe our claims in this paper are true, and our recommendations are wise, their application in other contexts may be more limited.

As we have shared the views expressed in this paper with others, we have noticed two different kinds of reactions. For some, our framework will appear to be common sense. For others, it will be counter-cultural and challenge their assumptions about effective training and development.

Rather than follow the conventional advice most commonly given in our wider Evangelical culture of ‘take the next step’ or ‘enrol in the best college’, we recommend strongly that future leaders and pastoral leaders ‘look before you leap’. As argued earlier, analysing stakeholder interests, beginning with your own, is the first and most important category impacting on leader development. After this, the merits of various training strategies and programs can be evaluated according to their impact on leader development and difficulty of implementation. After an appropriate training strategy and program are selected, they can then engage in the training and development cycle summarised earlier in Figure 4.

For those interested in further detailed explanations and illustrative examples of these core concepts, we encourage you to read our appendices.

Submitted: May 24, 2024 AEST

Accepted: February 11, 2025 AEST

References

“About Us.” 2024. Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches. https:/​/​www.fiec.org.au.
Assembly, The General. 2023. The Code. Sydney: Presbyterian Church of Australia in the State of New South Wales.
Google Scholar
Bavinck, Herman. 2008. “The Church’s Spiritual Government.” In Reformed Dogmatics, edited by John Bolt, translated by John Vriend, 4:326–88. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.
Google Scholar
Beeke, Joel R. 2009. “God-Centred Adult Education.” Puritan Reformed Journal, 159–83.
Google Scholar
Biggs, John. 1996. “Enhancing Teaching through Constructive Alignment.” Higher Education 32 (3): 347–64.
Google Scholar
———. 1999. Teaching for Quality Learning at University: What the Student Does. Philadelphia: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.
Google Scholar
Biggs, John, and Catherine Tang. 2007. Teaching for Quality Learning at University. 3rd ed. Berkshire, England: Open University Press.
Google Scholar
Blume, B. D., J. K. Ford, T. T. Baldwin, and J. L. Huang. 2010. “Transfer of Training: A Meta-Analytic Review.” Journal of Management 36 (4): 1065–1105.
Google Scholar
Bracken, David W., and Dale S. Rose. 2011. “When Does 360-Degree Feedback Create Behavior Change? And How Would We Know It When It Does?” Journal of Business Psychology 26:183–92. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1007/​s10869-011-9218-5.
Google Scholar
Budd, Clair Allen, and Martha S. Bergen. 2020. “Adult Ministry in the Church: A Forty-Year Perspective.” Christian Education Journal 17 (3): 468–87.
Google Scholar
Burns, Bob, Tasha D. Chapman, and Donald C. Guthrie. 2019. The Politics of Ministry: Navigating Power Dynamics and Negotiating Interests. Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Books.
Google Scholar
Calvin, John. 2006. “Chapter Iii.” In Institutes of the Christian Religion, edited by John T. McNeill, translated by Ford Lewis Battles, 2:1053–68. Louisville, Kentucky: The Westminster John Knox Press.
Google Scholar
Carliner, Saul. 2015. Training Design Basics. Alexandria, VA: ATD Press.
Google Scholar
Chester, Tim. 2015. Mission Matters: Love Says Go. Nottingham, England: Inter-Varsity Press.
Google Scholar
Day, D., and L. Dragoni. 2015. “Leadership Development: An Outcome-Orientated Review Based on Time and Levels of Analyses.” Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behaviour 2:133–56. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1146/​annurev-orgpsych-032414-111328.
Google Scholar
Day, D. V., M. Harrison, and S. Halpin. 2009. An Integrative Theory of Leader Development. New York, NY: The Psychology Press. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.4324/​9780203809525.
Google Scholar
Day, David V. 2011. “Leadership Development.” In The Sage Handbook of Leadership, edited by Alan Bryman, David Collinson, Keith Grint, Brad Jackson, and Mary Uhl-Bien, 37–50. LA: Sage.
Google Scholar
Ericsson, K. A., M. J. Prietula, and E. T. Cokely. 2007. “The Making of an Expert.” Harvard Business Review, July–August, 114–21.
Google Scholar
Francis, Leslie J., Simon Forster, David W. Lankshear, and Ian Jones. 2019. “What Helps Christians Grow? An Exploratory Study Distinguishing among Four Distinctive Pathways.” Pastoral Psychology 68 (379–392). https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1007/​s11089-019-00866-5.
Google Scholar
Geiger, Eric, Michael Kelly, and Philip Nation. 2012. Transformation Discipleship: How People Really Grow. Nashville, Tennessee: B&H Publishing Group and Lifeway Research.
Google Scholar
Gercek, Merve, and Cem Guney Ozveren. 2024. “Developing Career Resources through Work-Based Learning: A Qualitative Study of Internship Experiences.” Business and Economics Research Journal 15 (3): 291–307.
Google Scholar
Goia, Simona, Cristian Virgil Marinas, and Ramona Stefania Igret. n.d. “A Plea for Quality in Internship Programmes - Evidence from the Business and Administration Students’ Experience.” Management & Marketing. Challenges for the Knowledge Society 12 (149–60). https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1515/​mmcks-2017-0004.
Google Scholar
Harvey, Dave. 2012. Am I Called? The Summons to Pastoral Ministry. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway.
Google Scholar
Hoeksema, Herman. 1976. Reformed Dogmatics. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Reformed Free Publishing Association.
Google Scholar
Jhaj, Sukhwant. 2019. “Innovation Strategies to Address Challenges Facing Higher Education.” The International Journal of Design in Society 13 (1): 21–33.
Google Scholar
Karlsson, Christer. 2008. “Program Design and Management.” In Teaching and Learning at Business Schools: Transforming Business Education, edited by Par Martensson, Magnus Bild, and Kristina Nilsson, 167–81. Aldershot, Hampshire: Gower Publishing Limited.
Google Scholar
Kaufman, Roger. 2014. “How Do Needs Assessments Align to the Bottom Line?” In Astd Handbook: The Definitive Reference for Training & Development, edited by Elaine Biech, 109–23. Alexandria, VA: ASTD Press.
Google Scholar
Kempster, Stephen. 2006. “Leadership Learning through Lived Experience: A Process of Apprenticeship?” Journal of Management and Organization 12 (1): 4–22.
Google Scholar
Kirkpatrick, Donald. 2006. Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels. 3rd ed. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Google Scholar
Kirkpatrick, Jim, and Wendy Kayser Kirkpatrick. 2014. “Implement the Four Levels of Evaluation to Demonstrate Value.” In Astd Handbook: The Definitive Reference for Training & Development, edited by Elaine Biech, 471–88. Alexandria, VA: ASTD Press.
Google Scholar
Knowles, Malcom S., Elwood F. Holton III, and Richard A. Swanson. 2015. The Adult Learner. London: Routledge. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.4324/​9781315816951.
Google Scholar
Kuczera, Malgorzata. 2017. Striking the Right Balance: Costs and Benefits of Apprenticeship. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Google Scholar
Lawrence, Paul. 2015. “A Best Practice Model for the Effective Deployment of 360 Feedback.” Development and Learning in Organizations 29 (6): 13–16.
Google Scholar
Lombardo, M., and R. Eichinger. 1996. The Career Architect Development Planner. Minneapolis, MN: Lominger.
Google Scholar
Maertz, Carl P., Jr., Phillipp A. Stoeberl, and Jill Marks. 2013. “Building Succesful Internships: Lessons from the Research for Interns, Schools, and Employers.” Career Development International 19 (1): 123–42.
Google Scholar
Martineau, Jennifer W., and Tracey E. Patterson. 2010. “Evaluating Leader Development.” In The Center for Creative Leadership Handbook of Leadership Development, edited by Ellen Van Velsor, Cynthia D. McCauley, and Marian N. Ruderman, 3rd ed., 251–81. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Google Scholar
Master, Jonathan. 2023. Reformed Theology. Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing.
Google Scholar
McCall, M., Jr. 2010. “Recasting Leadership Development.” Industrial and Organizational Psychology 3:3–19. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1111/​j.1754-9434.2009.01189.x.
Google Scholar
McCauley, Cynthia D., Ellen Van Velsor, and Marian N. Ruderman. 2010. “Introduction: Our View of Leadership Development.” In The Center for Creative Leadership Handbook of Leadership Development, edited by Ellen Van Velsor, Cynthia D. McCauley, and Marian N. Ruderman, 3rd ed., 1–26. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
Google Scholar
McClean, John. 2022. “Doctrinal Foundations for Ministry: The Westminster Confession of Faith.” In Effective Eldership: A Handbook for Shepherding God’s Church, edited by Murray Smith, 57–66. Stanhope Gardens, NSW: Eider Books.
Google Scholar
Meller, Bruce. 2022. “How the Presbyterian Church of Australia Works.” In Effective Eldership: A Handbook for Shepherding God’s Church, edited by Murray Smith, 47–56. Stanhope Gardens, NSW: Eider Books.
Google Scholar
Merriam, S. B., and L. L. Bierema. 2014. Adult Learning: Linking Theory and Practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Google Scholar
Milton, Michael A. 2018. Called? Pastoral Guidance for the Divine Call to Gospel Ministry. Geanies House, Fearn, Ross-shire, Scotland: Christian Focus Publications Ltd.
Google Scholar
Mock, Brant, and James T. O’connor. 2019. “High-Value, Low-Effort Industrial Plant Commissioning Solution Strategies.” Construction Innovation 19 (4): 653–71.
Google Scholar
Muehlemann, Samuel, and Stefan C. Wolter. 2014. “Return on Investment of Apprenticeship Systems for Enterprises: Evidence from Cost-Benefit Analyses.” Journal of Labor Policy 3 (25): 1–22.
Google Scholar
Myatt. 2012. The #1 Reason Leadership Development Fails.
Google Scholar
O’reilly, Seamus J., Joe Healy, Tom Murphy, and Ronan O’’Dubhghaill. 2019. “Lean Six Sigma in Higher Education Institutes: An Irish Case Study.” Internal Journal of Lean Six Sigma 10 (4): 948–74.
Google Scholar
Palmer, Ian, Richard Dunford, and David A. Buchanan. 2022. Managing Organizational Change: A Multiple Perspectives Approach. 4th ed. New York: McGraw Hill Education.
Google Scholar
Pollock, Roy V. H., Andrew Mck. Jefferson, and Calhoun W. Wick. 2015. The Six Disciplines of Breakthrough Learning: How to Turn Training and Development into Business Results. 3rd ed. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1002/​9781119153832.
Google Scholar
“Process for Becoming a Candidate for the Ordained Ministry in the Christian Reformed Churches of Australia (Crca).” 2024. Christian Reformed Churches of Australia. https:/​/​crca.org.au/​candidacy/​.
Ramsden, Paul. 2006. Learning to Teach in Higher Education. 2nd ed. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Google Scholar
Roux, Marianne. 2020. “Leadership 4.0.” In Maturing Leadership: How Adult Development Impacts Leadership, edited by Jonathan Reams, 7–35. Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing.
Google Scholar
Schmid, Evi, Ursula Scharnhorst, and Marlise Kammermann. 2021. “Developing Two-Year Apprenticeships in Norway and Switzerland.” Vocations and Learning 14:55–74. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1007/​s12186-020-09254-0.
Google Scholar
Sink, Darryl L. 2014. “Design Models and Learing Theories for Adults.” In Astd Handbook: The Definitive Reference for Training & Development, edited by Elaine Biech, 181–99. Alexandria, VA: ASTD Press.
Google Scholar
Skills Converged. 2016. Train the Trainer: The Art of Training Delivery. North Charleston, South Carolina: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
Google Scholar
Smith, Murray. 2022. “A Biblical Vision of Eldership.” In Effective Eldership: A Handbook for Shepherding God’s Church, edited by Murray Smith, 12–30. Stanhope Gardens, NSW: Eider Books.
Google Scholar
Spurgeon, C. H. 2017. Lectures to My Students. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers.
Google Scholar
Stetzer, Ed, and Andrew Macdonald. 2020. “How Can and Should We Reach and Train Our Future Pastors and Christian Leaders?” Christian Education Journal 17 (1): 160–76.
Google Scholar
Svensson, Lennart, Hanne Randle, and Maria Bennich. 2009. “Organising Workplace Learning: An Inter-Organisational Perspective.” Journal of European Industrial Training 33 (8/9): 771–86. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1108/​03090590910993625.
Google Scholar
Tafvelin, Susanne, Henna Hasson, Karina Nielsen, and Ulrica Von Thiele Schwarz. 2021. “Integrating a Transfer Perspective into Evaluations of Leadership Training.” Leadership & Organization Development Journal 42 (6): 856–68.
Google Scholar
Van Dixhoorn, Chad. 2014. Confessing the Faith: A Reader’s Guide to the Westminster Confession of Faith. Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust.
Google Scholar
Vitale, Connie, Dorothea Bowyer, and Leopold Bayerlein. 2020. “Developing and Presenting a Framework for Meeting Industry, Student and Educator Expectations in University Degrees.” E-Journal of Business Education & Scholarship of Teaching 14 (1): 57–65.
Google Scholar
Waters, Guy Prentiss. 2011. How Jesus Runs the Church. Phillipsburg New Jersey: P&R Publishing.
Google Scholar
Watkins, Karen E., Victorial J. Marsick, and Pierre G. Faller. 2012. “Transformative Learning in the Workplace: Leading Learning for Self and Organizational Change.” In The Handbook of Transformative Learning: Theory, Research and Practice, edited by Edward W. Taylor and Patricia Cranton. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Google Scholar
Weimer, Maryellen. 2012. “Learner-Centred Teaching and Transformative Learning.” In The Handbook of Transformative Learning: Theory, Research, and Practice, edited by Edward W. Taylor and Patricia Cranton, 439–54. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Google Scholar
Westminster Confession of Faith. (1658) 2003. Glasgow: Free Presbyterian Publications.
Google Scholar
Whelan, Robert. 2018. “70-20-10 and the Concept of the Osf Ratio.” Training Industry. 2018. https:/​/​trainingindustry.com/​blog/​strategy-alignment-and-planning/​70-20-10-and-the-concept-of-the-osf-ratio/​.
Whelan, Tom. 2018. “Deconstructing 70-20-10.” Training Industry.
Google Scholar
Witmer, Timothy Z. 2010. The Shepherd Leader: Achieving Effective Shepherding in Your Church. Philipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing.
Google Scholar
Yip, Jeffrey, and Meena S. Wilson. 2010. “Learning from Experience.” In The Center for Creative Leadership Handbook of Leadership Development, edited by Ellen Van Velsor, Cynthia D. McCauley, and Marian N. Ruderman, 3rd ed., 63–95. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley and Sons.
Google Scholar

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1

EXAMPLE OF COMMON STAKEHOLDER INTERESTS

For the sake of illustration, we have assumed the future leader and their pastoral leader are part of a local congregation within the Presbyterian Church of Australia (PCA) in the state of NSW or the ACT (PCNSW).

Mega: Presbyterian Church of Australia[121]
  • Aspirations: there is an identified need and ongoing prayer for more and better trained ordained ministers who can lead new and existing PCA congregations, especially as the current generation of leaders begin to retire.
  • Role capabilities – the ministers and elders of a congregation are its shepherds who co-operate in the oversight and government of the congregation to promote the congregation’s maturity in Christ and mission in the world. They shepherd and serve the congregation by leading, praying, teaching, caring, and modelling life in Christ.
  • Confession/convictions: the Subordinate Standard for the PCA, under the Bible as the Supreme Standard, is the Westminster Confession of Faith as amended by the General Assembly of Australia and read in the light of the Declaratory Statement contained in the Basis of Union. Every minister and elder is required to sign the formula declaring that this Subordinate Standard is the sense in which they understand the Scriptures and is a confession of their own faith. Furthermore, they promise to assert, maintain and defend the doctrine, worship and government of this Church.
  • Regulations: ministers must be approved as Candidates by their presbytery, and complete the course of training, prior to being ordained by presbytery. The course of training is approved by the General Assembly of Australia, and is delivered through the denomination’s theological colleges for each state (Christ College for NSW and the ACT).
  • Resources: denominationally-funded scholarships may be awarded to future leaders who are approved entry into a recognised traineeship or apprenticeship program. Scholarships may also be awarded to Candidates completing the course of training.
Macro level: elders/staff
  • Aspirations: the Session (leadership team) determined that the identification and development of future leaders as pastoral leaders (ministers and elders) is one of their strategic priorities for the next five years.
  • Role capabilities: in addition to the role capabilities determined by the PCA in The Code, the Session is wanting to develop pastoral leaders with strong teaching and leadership skills to rebalance the current capabilities of Session.
  • Ministry context/polity: the congregation is located in a multicultural and growing city. The congregation is part of the PCA and practises shared leadership through teams of elders, deacons, and members.
  • Confession/convictions: see further the Subordinate Standard for the PCA. The particular shape of this congregation’s ministries are shaped by Reformed theological convictions and deep reflection on the cultural values of their local community.
  • Resources: the Session have approved a staff member being released one day a week to train and develop leaders. This staff member is motivated but has little prior experience training others. $3,000 was allocated in the church budget for training expenses. Some members are likely to give regularly to support future leaders-in-training, if asked.
Micro level: future leader
  • Aspirations: they hope to serve in the future as a minister in a local church.
  • Role capabilities: they are a university graduate and have helped lead the high school youth for two years. They appear to have teaching and leading gifts, however neither are well-developed. They are not sure of the particular capabilities required of local church ministers generally, or a minister in a particular ministry context/polity.
  • Ministry context/polity: they feel comfortable in a presbyterian congregation, and like the accountability of leaders in presbyterian polity. They are open to serving in other ministry contexts, including other cities and cultures.
  • Confession/convictions: They like the preaching and teaching of their leaders. But they’ve never considered how their developing theological convictions align with the convictions of their leaders, or the confessions of other denominations and networks.
  • Resources: they are working full-time in a graduate role and are prepared to leave their current employment to undertake further training. If they left this role to undertake further training, they would require regular financial support to cover their living costs. They may be eligible for additional government assistance through AUSTUDY (to support living costs). They have already incurred a modest FEE-HELP debt (a government loan facility to support student tuition costs) of $40,000 from previous university study. If they undertake further training that involves tuition fees that can be deferred to FEE-HELP, their FEE-HELP ‘ceiling’ or limit in 2025 is $126,839. This means the maximum additional tuition fees they could defer to FEE-HELP is $86,839. Tuition fees in excess of this sum would need to be paid upfront to complete their training.

RECOMMENDATIONS TO CLARIFY STAKEHOLDER INTERESTS

We would advise future leaders in this common situation to begin by seeking further clarity regarding their stakeholder interests, especially their own, before making a decision about a training strategy. We would suggest that this future leader purchase or borrow several of the recommended book titles that follow. This small investment in time and money will inform their critical reflections and give them confidence in their final decision. It will also contribute to their development as a leader as they grow in their self-awareness regarding their “life and doctrine” (1 Tim 4:16).

The category of confession/convictions requires the most work. We would suggest they read through the formal confessions and doctrinal statements of relevant denominations/ networks to determine which one/s align best with their emerging doctrinal convictions. Given their starting point and openness to serving in a presbyterian congregation, we suggest they read Confessing the Faith[122] and Doctrinal Foundations for Ministry: The Westminster Confession of Faith[123] as they work through the Westminster Confession of Faith. To determine the shape of their theological convictions, especially the extent to which they are Reformed like their pastoral leaders, and not merely Evangelical as per our wider church culture, we recommend they read Reformed Theology.[124]

We would encourage them to investigate further the theological foundations and practical significance of different forms of church polity. We would recommend they read How Jesus Runs the Church,[125] A Biblical Vision of Eldership,[126] and How the Presbyterian Church of Australia Works.[127]

We would suggest they reflect prayerfully on their capacity to serve in different cultural and geographical contexts, including serving as an ordained pastor in a local church overseas (God’s plan to reach the world is through the church according to Eph 3:10). To this end they might consider such factors as their ability to speak other languages, prior experience relating to particular cultural groups, responsibilities for their household and immediate family (1 Tim 5:8), and any particular convictions they might have regarding serving in a particular cultural setting. We would recommend they read Mission Matters: Love Says Go.[128]

Finally, we would encourage them to identify the general and specific capabilities required to serve effectively as a local church pastor. Beyond the denominational summary provided in The Code,[129] an excellent starting point would be The Calling and Qualifications of Elders[130], The Pastoral Charge: 'Shepherd God’s Church!’[131] and The Shepherd Leader.[132] These capabilities could be sharpened further with additional information relating to the future leader’s emerging confession/convictions and preferred ministry context/polity.

Once the nature and content of these stakeholder interests are clarified further, relevant training strategies and programs could be evaluated according to their alignment with these particular interests.

If a future leader hoped to pursue ordination or pastoral ministry in the PCNSW, but wanted to test their calling to pastoral leadership with their pastoral leaders before progressing too far down this path, we would recommend the Traineeship through Christ College. If the future leader and their pastoral leaders believe already that God is calling them into pastoral leadership, we would recommend that they become a Candidate through their presbytery and enrol full time in the Course of Training (inclusive of the Internship) at Christ College. As a university graduate, we would encourage them to complete their training at a masters level. With the two-year Traineeship, this training pathway would take five years to complete full-time and would enable approved future leaders to begin serving as an ordained minister at the start of the next year. The total tuition costs for this training pathway are $107,459 in 2025 of which $101,184 could potentially be deferred to FEE-HELP and $6,275 would be paid upfront. Given our future leader already has a modest FEE-HELP debt of $40,000 from previous university study, they would hit their FEE-HELP ‘ceiling’ before the end of their training and would therefore need to pay a further $14,345 upfront. Financial support is likely to be needed from partners. Training and tax-deductible fundraising infrastructure is provided by the college to approved students in the Traineeship and Course of Training. This training strategy is summarised in Figure 5 below

Figure 5
Figure 5.Recommended Training Pathway

We encourage groups, organisations, churches, and denominations to consider carefully a more intentional and integrated training ecosystem such as this.

An apprenticeship strategy could potentially be used in place of the Traineeship prior to starting the Course of Training at Christ College. This pathway will produce different leader development outcomes and would take a total of six years to complete full-time. This is because the apprentice strategy is not aligned with the training required for ordination, especially the first year of the Course of Training, compared to the Traineeship. The total tuition costs for tuition fees at an Australian University of Theology approved institution like Christ College are $105,177 in 2025 of which $101,184 could potentially be deferred to FEE-HELP and $3,993 must be paid upfront. The total cost of their two-year apprenticeship strategy should be added to this total. If the apprenticeship involves coursework and formal training that does not align with the Course of Training at Christ College, it is unlikely to be recognised and will result in additional financial costs for the future leader.

APPENDIX 2

EXAMPLE OF COHERENCE OF PROGRAM DESIGN

The following materials are based on the Christ College Traineeship and provide a detailed example of coherent program design.

Target audience

The target audience for the Traineeship are men and women identified by their church or parachurch leaders as future leaders. These church and parachurch ministries hold doctrinally to the Reformed Christian faith as articulated in a published historical or contemporary confession or doctrinal statement. Different versions of the Traineeship are available for future leaders pursing church ministry, campus ministry, and cross cultural missionary work.

There are formal entry criteria for the future leader as well as their church or parachurch ministry. The future leader’s current minister and current/previous ministry leader must complete a reference indicating the extent to which the future leader meets each of the below entry criterion:

  1. The applicant has a real faith in Christ and enjoys studying the Bible
  2. The applicant is respected by their peers and leaders as a godly example of the Christian faith
  3. The applicant has demonstrated basic competence in teaching, leading, and praying with others
  4. The applicant has sufficiently developed interpersonal skills to work effectively with others
  5. The applicant has a positive attitude towards people from other cultural groups
  6. The applicant has sufficiently developed interpersonal skills to communicate effectively with others
  7. The applicant has a desire to serve Christ as a church ministry leader, campus ministry leader, or cross cultural missionary
  8. The applicant’s life circumstances, especially the responsibility to provide for their family, allow them to participate in the Traineeship full-time (5 days a week)
  9. The applicant is disciplined and can work effectively by themselves
  10. The applicant shows promise as a future leader and would benefit from participating in this Traineeship

A final condition of entry (11) is the applicant is eligible to start a degree-level academic program at Christ College. This final entry criteria is assessed separately in the application process.

Program outcomes

There are 10 Bible-based program outcomes around which the two-year program is designed. Figure 6 shows the alignment of these program outcomes with our stakeholder interest categories and prior entry criteria.

Figure 6.Coherence of Program Outcomes, Stakeholder Interests and Entry Criteria
Program
Outcome		 Biblical
Basis		 Stakeholder
Interests		 Entry
Criteria
1. Confession Pastoral leaders must have a living faith in Christ and hold firmly to the truths of the faith (Tit 1:9; 1 Tim 3:6; Acts 20:28) Confession/ convictions 1
2. Character Pastoral leaders must have exemplary Christ-like character (1 Tim 3:1-7; Tit. 1:5-9; 1 Pet 5:3) Role capabilities 2
3. Competence Pastoral leaders must be able to teach (1 Tim 3:2; Tit 1:9), lead (1 Tim 3:4-5; 5:17; Tit 1:6) and pray with and for God’s people (Jam 5:14-15) Role capabilities 3
4. Collaboration Pastoral leaders work effectively with diverse individuals (Tit 2:2-9) and other leaders (Acts 14:23; Tit 1:5; Phil 1:1; Jam 5:14) Role capabilities
Ministry context/ polity		 4
5. Cultural sensitivity Pastoral leaders build healthy relationships that bear witness to Christ among individuals and groups from different cultures (Matt 28:19-20; 1 Cor 9:19-23) Role capabilities
Ministry context/ polity		 5
6. Communication Pastoral leaders listen effectively (Jas. 1:19), speak the truth in love (Eph 4:15, 25, 29), and share the gospel faithfully when opportunities arise (1 Pet 3:15) Role capabilities 6
7. Conviction Pastoral leaders must desire the noble task and undertake it willingly (1 Tim 3:1; 1 Pet 5:2) Aspirations 7
8. Circumstances Pastoral leaders must be in such life circumstances that allow them to take up the role, especially providing for their family (1 Tim 5:8) Resources 8
9. Capacity Pastoral leaders are self-controlled and disciplined (1 Tim 3:2, Tit 1:8), and work steadfastly (1 Cor 15:58, 1 Tim 6:11; 2 Pet 1:6) and effectively by themselves Role capabilities 9
10. Confirmation Pastoral leaders must be duly appointed by God through the church (Acts 13:1-3; 20:28; 1 Tim 4:14; 5:22; Tit 1:5; Heb 5:4-10) Regulations 10

To promote clear alignment with other parts of the program, we created three specific outcome goals for each program outcome (30 in total). These outcome goals enable us to develop detailed development strategies that are implemented in our development ecosystem. Figure 7 summarises the outcome goals and development strategies for our first program outcome.

Figure 7.Coherence of Program Outcomes and Development Strategies
Program Outcome Outcome Goals Development Strategies
1. Confession 1.1 He/she has a mature faith in Christ
  • Participates regularly in their church and college community, especially gathered worship
  • Meets regularly with their church Coach
  • Meets regularly with their college Pastoral Care Group and Faculty member
1.2 He/she delights in studying the Bible
  • Reads through the whole Bible
  • Completes SLT Module God’s Word and the Gospel
1.3 He/she understands how the story of the Bible fits together and points to Christ
  • Completes degree-level units in biblical and systematic theology
  • Completes SLT Module Truths We Confess

*SLT Module refers to a unit from the Shepherd Leader Training program developed by Christ College Faculty to support pastoral leaders training future leaders in their own congregation.

Development Ecosystem

The shape of the Traineeship ecosystem is structured around the three required conditions for future leaders to develop, and the specific development strategies aligned with each outcome goal.

A range of challenging experiences and feedback are provided to every Trainee. These are structured by the college and made explicit through an annual learning contract that is approved at the start of each year. Trainees engage in several different kinds of experiences, such as mission and evangelism, teaching and leading, and observing pastoral leadership at multiple levels. Some experiences are overseen by the church or parachurch ministry while others are overseen by the college.

There are multiple developmental and supportive relationships in the program. The church or parachurch Coach is normally the most significant. Trainees also develop relationships with other pastoral leaders they observe regularly in meetings and ministries. They develop relationships with Faculty members through classes, mission teams and pastoral care groups. They also develop supportive peer relationships with other college students and Trainees through classes, mission trips and Traineeship Retreats.

The final condition of coursework and formal training has a unique shape in this program as the responsibility for delivery is shared between the college and church/parachurch organisation. Degree-level units are delivered by Faculty in face-to-face and distance modes (for future leaders in regional areas). Shepherd Leader Training Modules were developed by Faculty as an additional formal training program for pastoral leaders to deliver to future leaders in their own congregation. These materials require little to no preparation (i.e. low difficulty of implementation). Each module has its own learning outcomes, detailed notes, video material, discussion questions, further reading recommendations and an optional assessment.

Program evaluation

Trainees are evaluated at multiple points in time, at multiple levels of the program, and with multiple instruments. Program-level evaluation takes place for future leaders through a 360 survey report. Other program-level quality data is provided to Faculty who oversee the Traineeship.

The custom-designed 360 survey is the centre piece of our evaluation. Trainees complete the survey at the start, middle, and end of their two-year program so their developmental progress can be tracked and reported over time. There are 30 survey questions, each one designed to evaluate a particular outcome goal. The survey is completed by the Trainee, Coach, ministry leaders, peers, and other church/parachurch members. The findings are aggregated into various graphs and tables, and combined with rater recommendations in a consolidated report. Trainees reflect on this report with their Coach and then complete a Personal Development Plan that builds on relevant strengths and addresses relevant weaknesses for the year ahead.

Figure 8 is an excerpt from a sample Trainee 360 report that highlights the coherence between program outcomes, outcome goals, and evaluation. Figure 9 is another except from this same report that illustrates program-level evaluation of the program outcomes for individual Trainees and the wider cohort.

Figure 8
Figure 8.Coherence of Program Outcomes, Outcome Goals and Evaluation
Figure 9
Figure 9.Program-Level Evaluation of Program Outcome Attainment
Resource management

The Traineeship is designed to align with common stakeholder interests for our target audience. Compared to apprenticeship strategies in our context, the Traineeship is unique in the way that it aligns with ordination training required of future pastoral leaders by denominational stakeholders.

As discussed earlier, it is common for future leaders to complete an apprenticeship strategy prior to studying full-time at a seminary or theological college towards a future vocational ministry role. The combined training pathway of a two-year apprenticeship and four-year Course of Training at Christ College takes a minimum[133] of six years to complete. If these apprentices complete a degree at another seminary or theological college that is not aligned with our denomination, it is likely to take them longer.[134]

The Traineeship, although a discrete program in its own right, is designed to dovetail into required ordination training. Those who complete the Traineeship can continue into the second year of the Course of Training at Christ College. This means they can complete the Traineeship and Course of Training in only five years. This significant time saving comes without compromising any leader development outcomes, especially when the Traineeship is compared side-by-side with an apprenticeship strategy.

The Traineeship provides Trainees with training and access to tax-deductible fundraising infrastructure to help them raise prayer and financial support for their time in both the Traineeship and Course of Training.

APPENDIX 3

EXAMPLE OF PREDICTABLE DEVELOPMENT OUTCOMES

The Christ College Traineeship is cited again to illustrate four important elements that improve the consistency of leader development outcomes.

Program Governance

Governance for the Traineeship belongs to the Faculty who oversee other college programs. The Faculty is comprised of the Principal, the chair of the college board, full-time teaching staff, and approved part-time staff and church ministers. This clear governance structure enables the college to make ongoing changes for the sake of future leader development and other stakeholder interests.

Common Structure

The Traineeship is a structured program involving a broad range of common and mandatory experiences, relationships, coursework and formal training. An example of the common structure for Trainees in the Church Ministry Traineeship is summarised in Figure 10.

The annual Learning Contract regulates Trainee and Coach changes within pre-approved boundaries. This ensures that every Trainee has the same opportunities to develop across all program outcomes, while allowing for these Trainees to ‘fit in’ with the regular ministry rhythms of their local church or parachurch ministry.

Orientation and Resources

Mandatory training is provided for new Trainees and their Coaches at the orientation prior to the start of the next calendar year. The focus of this training is explaining how the traineeship will work in their context, developing partnerships for prayer and financial support, and coaching conversations. This orientation also fosters the development of new relationships with peers and Faculty. A second orientation for Trainees takes place around the start of the semester in the new calendar year and provides further training in writing essays, using the library, and developing as a new student. Finally, additional training seminars for Trainees are scheduled in the first weeks of the first Semester to equip them for teaching and discipling others, personal productivity, and effective communication.

Churches who participate in the Traineeship are given a license to access the Shepherd Leader Training program resources. These provide pastoral leaders with high-quality pre-prepared training materials they can work through with their Trainee and other future leaders in their church. A range of other training resources are also provided, such as learning contract templates, preaching frameworks and evaluation reports.

Figure 10.Common Structure for Trainees in the Church Ministry Traineeship
Trainee Commitments Average Days per Week
Church:
  • Read through the whole Bible and maintain a prayer diary
  • Local church mission initiative
  • Regular personal witness and discipleship
  • Sermons/Bible talks
  • Co-lead a teaching ministry
  • Lead gathered worship and/or specialised ministry events
  • Observe Christian leadership in action
  • Shepherd Leader Training (with their Coach)
  • Regular meetings with their Coach
  • Camp, conference or ministry training event
  • Partner development
  • Other relevant fellowship and church events
 3
Christ College:
  • AUTa units (classes, assessments and private study)
  • College community commitments (on-campus students only)
  • Christ College Weekend Away
  • Christ College Cross Cultural Mission
  • Traineeship Skills Seminars and Retreat
 2
Personal renewal:
  • Gathered worship in their church
  • Regular full day and evenings to rest
  • Regular recreational activities that promote ‘recharging’
  • Personal/family holiday leave
 1-2

aAustralian University of Theology.

Quality Control

The Faculty monitor the quality of all their programs regularly. They review a range of metrics such as enrolment data, class attendance, student assessment grades, student feedback surveys, 360 survey reports, and occasional focus groups. Program-level evaluation reports are tabled and discussed at Faculty meetings.

The Faculty works within a wider quality assurance framework from the Australian University of Theology. They also provide several metrics and processes for evaluating programs.

As a result of these quality controls, some students who begin a Traineeship may not be permitted to continue if they fail to meet important quality indicators, such attending and passing required degree-level units, or completing required work in their church at a standard judged to be satisfactory by their pastoral leader Coach. Similarly, some church or parachurch groups may not be allowed to continue partnering with the college if they do not operate within our approved policies.

  1. Normally a Diploma of Theology or Graduate Diploma of Divinity from the Australian University of Theology (formerly the Australian College of Theology).

  2. These questions are sometimes used to construct a two-by-two PICK Chart or Impact-Effort matrix. For examples of a PICK Chart being used in higher education, see further Seamus J. O’Reilly, Joe Healy, Tom Murphy and Ronan O’'Dubhghaill, ‘Lean Six Sigma in Higher Education Institutes: An Irish Case Study’, Internal Journal of Lean Six Sigma 10, no. 4 (2019);Sukhwant Jhaj, ‘Innovation Strategies to Address Challenges Facing Higher Education’, The International Journal of Design in Society 13, no. 1 (2019): 21-33.

  3. For a similar definition, see further Brant Mock and James T. O’Connor, ‘High-Value, Low-Effort Industrial Plant Commissioning Solution Strategies’, Construction Innovation 19, no. 4 (2019): 659.

  4. D Day and L Dragoni, ‘Leadership Development: An Outcome-Orientated Review Based on Time and Levels of Analyses’, Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behaviour 2 (2015): 134.

  5. David V. Day, ‘Leadership Development’, The Sage Handbook of Leadership, eds Alan Bryman, David Collinson, Keith Grint, Brad Jackson and Mary Uhl-Bien (LA: Sage, 2011), 38.

  6. For more information relating to the distinction between training and development, and leaders and leadership, see further Day, ‘Leadership Development’.

  7. Myatt, The #1 Reason Leadership Development Fails 2012) https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikemyatt/2012/12/19/the-1-reason-leadership-development-fails/

  8. Marianne Roux, ‘Leadership 4.0’, Maturing Leadership: How Adult Development Impacts Leadership, ed. Jonathan Reams (Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing, 2020), 18.

  9. Roux, ‘Leadership 4.0’," 18.

  10. Day, ‘Leadership Development’ 42. Stephen Kempster, ‘Leadership Learning through Lived Experience: A Process of Apprenticeship?’, Journal of Management and Organization 12, no. 1 (2006): 4-22.

  11. Michael A. Milton, Called? Pastoral Guidance for the Divine Call to Gospel Ministry (Geanies House, Fearn, Ross-shire, Scotland: Christian Focus Publications Ltd, 2018), 25.

  12. ------, Westminster Confession of Faith (Glasgow: Free Presbyterian Publications, 1658/2003), 31.1; John Calvin, ‘Chapter Iii’, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battlesvol. Two (Louisville, Kentucky: The Westminster John Knox Press, 2006), 1062; Herman Hoeksema, Reformed Dogmatics (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Reformed Free Publishing Association, 1976), 629; C. H. Spurgeon, Lectures to My Students (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2017), 25.

  13. See further the model developed by D.V. Day, M. Harrison and S. Halpin, An Integrative Theory of Leader Development (New York, NY: The Psychology Press, 2009).

  14. Roux, ‘Leadership 4.0’," 18, 28-29.

  15. These frameworks will tend to use the language of ‘needs analysis’. See further Darryl L. Sink, ‘Design Models and Learing Theories for Adults’, Astd Handbook: The Definitive Reference for Training & Development, ed. Elaine Biech (Alexandria, VA: ASTD Press, 2014), 181-199.

  16. Ian Palmer, Richard Dunford and David A. Buchanan, Managing Organizational Change: A Multiple Perspectives Approach, fourth edition edn (New York: McGraw Hill Education, 2022), 124.

  17. Palmer, et al., Managing Organizational Change: A Multiple Perspectives Approach, 125.

  18. Bob Burns, Tasha D. Chapman and Donald C. Guthrie, The Politics of Ministry: Navigating Power Dynamics and Negotiating Interests (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Books, 2019).

  19. Burns, et al., The Politics of Ministry: Navigating Power Dynamics and Negotiating Interests

  20. Saul Carliner, Training Design Basics (Alexandria, VA: ATD Press, 2015), 40.

  21. Roger Kaufman, ‘How Do Needs Assessments Align to the Bottom Line?’, Astd Handbook: The Definitive Reference for Training & Development, ed. Elaine Biech (Alexandria, VA: ASTD Press, 2014), 110.

  22. Kaufman, ‘How Do Needs Assessments Align to the Bottom Line?’ 111.

  23. Kaufman, ‘How Do Needs Assessments Align to the Bottom Line?’ 117.

  24. For further information relating to other common categories see further Jennifer W. Martineau and Tracey E. Patterson, ‘Evaluating Leader Development’, The Center for Creative Leadership Handbook of Leadership Development, Third edn, eds Ellen Van Velsor, Cynthia D. McCauley and Marian N. Ruderman (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2010), 255.

  25. It is common for these churches to form networks of likeminded churches that, over time, can take on denomination-like qualities.

  26. Adult learners tend to be driven by internal and not external sources of motivation. If the program is linked to the content of their interests, it is more likely to help their motivation. See further S.B. Merriam and L.L Bierema, Adult Learning: Linking Theory and Practice (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2014), 55.

  27. See further Ministry Training and Development, “Ordination in the Diocese of Sydney,” Ministry Training and Development, updated July 2024, https://www.mtd.org.au/considering-ordination/policy/

  28. ------, ‘Process for Becoming a Candidate for the Ordained Ministry in the Christian Reformed Churches of Australia (Crca)’, Christian Reformed Churches of Australia, 2024, https://crca.org.au/candidacy/, accessed 6 May 2024.

  29. Baptist Churches of NSW & ACT, Affirmation of Ministry Guidelines (Macquarie Park, NSW: Baptist Churches of NSW & ACT, 2022).

  30. ------, ‘About Us’, Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches, 2024, https://www.fiec.org.au, accessed 3 May 2024.

  31. For an example of similar interest categories for Overseas Mission Fellowship (OMF), see further OMF International, “Joining, Serving & Partnering with OMF International,” OMF UK, last modified October 1, 2021, https://omf.org/uk/resource/joining-serving-partnering-with-omf-international/

  32. Herman Bavinck, ‘The Church’s Spiritual Government’, Reformed Dogmatics, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriendvol. Volume 4 (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 380; Dave Harvey, Am I Called? The Summons to Pastoral Ministry (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2012), 170.

  33. Ed Stetzer and Andrew MacDonald, ‘How Can and Should We Reach and Train Our Future Pastors and Christian Leaders?’, Christian Education Journal 17, no. 1 (2020): 161.

  34. John Biggs, ‘Enhancing Teaching through Constructive Alignment’, Higher Education 32, no. 3 (1996);John Biggs, Teaching for Quality Learning at University: What the Student Does (Philadelphia: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press, 1999);John Biggs and Catherine Tang, Teaching for Quality Learning at University, 3rd edn (Berkshire, England: Open University Press, 2007).

  35. Connie Vitale, Dorothea Bowyer and Leopold Bayerlein, ‘Developing and Presenting a Framework for Meeting Industry, Student and Educator Expectations in University Degrees’, e-Journal of Business Education & Scholarship of Teaching 14, no. 1 (2020): 57-65.

  36. Carliner, Training Design Basics, 51-52.

  37. Christer Karlsson, ‘Program Design and Management’, Teaching and Learning at Business Schools: Transforming Business Education, eds Par Martensson, Magnus Bild and Kristina Nilsson (Aldershot, Hampshire: Gower Publishing Limited, 2008), 168.

  38. Skills Converged, Train the Trainer: The Art of Training Delivery (North Charleston, South Carolina: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2016), 39.

  39. Carliner, Training Design Basics, 6.

  40. Martineau and Patterson, ‘Evaluating Leader Development’ 258.

  41. Carliner, Training Design Basics, 66.

  42. Carliner, Training Design Basics, 4-5.

  43. Roy V.H. Pollock, Andrew McK. Jefferson and Calhoun W. Wick, The Six Disciplines of Breakthrough Learning: How to Turn Training and Development into Business Results, Third edn (Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, 2015), 24.

  44. Maryellen Weimer, ‘Learner-Centred Teaching and Transformative Learning’, The Handbook of Transformative Learning: Theory, Research, and Practice, eds Edward W. Taylor and Patricia Cranton (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2012), 439.

  45. Pollock, et al., The Six Disciplines of Breakthrough Learning: How to Turn Training and Development into Business Results, 49.

  46. See especially Day, ‘Leadership Development’;Day and Dragoni, ‘Leadership Development: An Outcome-Orientated Review Based on Time and Levels of Analyses’;Cynthia D. McCauley, Ellen Van Velsor and Marian N. Ruderman, ‘Introduction: Our View of Leadership Development’, The Center for Creative Leadership Handbook of Leadership Development, Third edn, eds Ellen Van Velsor, Cynthia D. McCauley and Marian N. Ruderman (San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, 2010);Jeffrey Yip and Meena S. Wilson, ‘Learning from Experience’, The Center for Creative Leadership Handbook of Leadership Development, Third edn, eds Ellen Van Velsor, Cynthia D. McCauley and Marian N. Ruderman (San Francisco, CA: John Wiley and Sons, 2010);M. McCall Jr., ‘Recasting Leadership Development’, Industrial and Organizational Psychology 3 (2010), 3-19.

  47. See further 5.2 and 5.3 in ------, Westminster Confession of Faith.

  48. Studies of twins has found that 70% of their leadership variance is based on experience, and only 30% is genetic. See further McCall Jr., ‘Recasting Leadership Development’," 3-4.

  49. Yip and Wilson, ‘Learning from Experience’," 69.

  50. Yip and Wilson, ‘Learning from Experience’," 68.

  51. Leslie J. Francis, Simon Forster, David W. Lankshear and Ian Jones, ‘What Helps Christians Grow? An Exploratory Study Distinguishing among Four Distinctive Pathways’, Pastoral Psychology 68, no. 379-392 (2019): 379-392.

  52. McCauley, et al., ‘Introduction: Our View of Leadership Development’," 8-12.

  53. McCall Jr., ‘Recasting Leadership Development’ 4.

  54. Yip and Wilson, ‘Learning from Experience’," 69.

  55. Day, ‘Leadership Development’ 41-45.

  56. McCauley, et al., ‘Introduction: Our View of Leadership Development’," 11.

  57. Day, ‘Leadership Development’ 44; K.A. Ericsson, M.J. Prietula and E.T. Cokely, ‘The Making of an Expert’, Harvard Business Review July-August (2007): 114-121.

  58. Day, ‘Leadership Development’ 44.

  59. Merriam and Bierema, Adult Learning: Linking Theory and Practice, 107.

  60. Day, ‘Leadership Development’ 38.

  61. Yip and Wilson, ‘Learning from Experience’," 73-79.

  62. Karen E. Watkins, Victorial J. Marsick and Pierre G. Faller, ‘Transformative Learning in the Workplace: Leading Learning for Self and Organizational Change’, The Handbook of Transformative Learning: Theory, Research and Practice, eds Edward W. Taylor and Patricia Cranton (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2012), 380.

  63. This research was carried out by Lifeway Research and is cited in Eric Geiger, Michael Kelly and Philip Nation, Transformation Discipleship: How People Really Grow (Nashville, Tennessee: B&H Publishing Group and Lifeway Research, 2012), 61.

  64. McCauley, et al., ‘Introduction: Our View of Leadership Development’," 12-14.

  65. McCauley, et al., ‘Introduction: Our View of Leadership Development’," 12-14.

  66. McCauley, et al., ‘Introduction: Our View of Leadership Development’," 12-14.

  67. Day and Dragoni, “Leadership Development: An Outcome-Orientated Review Based on Time and Levels of Analyses,” 144.

  68. Yip and Wilson, ‘Learning from Experience’," 80.

  69. From the perspective of the student-leader, assessment is what drives the curriculum. See further Paul Ramsden, Learning to Teach in Higher Education, 2nd edition edn (London: RoutledgeFalmer, 2006), 182.

  70. Yip and Wilson, ‘Learning from Experience’," 80.

  71. For more information relating to an andragogical framework for learning, see further Malcom S. Knowles, Elwood F. Holton III and Richard A. Swanson, The Adult Learner (London: Routledge, 2015).

  72. M. Lombardo and R. Eichinger, The Career Architect Development Planner (Minneapolis, MN: Lominger, 1996).

  73. Pollock, et al., The Six Disciplines of Breakthrough Learning: How to Turn Training and Development into Business Results, 4-5.

  74. Yip and Wilson, ‘Learning from Experience’," 63-95.

  75. Tom Whelan, Decontstructing 70-20-10 Training Industry, 2018).

  76. Whelan, Decontstructing 70-20-10.

  77. Robert Whelan, ‘70-20-10 and the Concept of the Osf Ratio’, Training Industry, 2018, https://trainingindustry.com/blog/strategy-alignment-and-planning/70-20-10-and-the-concept-of-the-osf-ratio/, accessed 4 April 2024.

  78. Martineau and Patterson, ‘Evaluating Leader Development’ 252.

  79. Martineau and Patterson, ‘Evaluating Leader Development’ 253.

  80. McCauley, et al., ‘Introduction: Our View of Leadership Development’," 7.

  81. McCauley, et al., ‘Introduction: Our View of Leadership Development’," 7.

  82. McCauley, et al., ‘Introduction: Our View of Leadership Development’," 7.

  83. Martineau and Patterson, ‘Evaluating Leader Development’ 251.

  84. Day, ‘Leadership Development’ 46.

  85. Jim Kirkpatrick and Wendy Kayser Kirkpatrick, ‘Implement the Four Levels of Evaluation to Demonstrate Value’, Astd Handbook: The Definitive Reference for Training & Development, ed. Elaine Biech (Alexandria, VA: ASTD Press, 2014);Donald Kirkpatrick, Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels, 3rd edn (San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler, 2006).

  86. For example, a teacher can determine informally whether students are meeting their learning outcomes by assessing their responses to assigned teaching activities over the semester. These could range from fun team games to public presentations to formal exams.

  87. Day, ‘Leadership Development’ 46.

  88. Pollock, et al., The Six Disciplines of Breakthrough Learning: How to Turn Training and Development into Business Results, 16.

  89. B.D. Blume, J.K. Ford, T.T. Baldwin and J.L. Huang, ‘Transfer of Training: A Meta-Analytic Review’, Journal of Management 36, no. 4 (2010): 1065-1105.

  90. Susanne Tafvelin, Henna Hasson, Karina Nielsen and Ulrica von Thiele Schwarz, ‘Integrating a Transfer Perspective into Evaluations of Leadership Training’, Leadership & Organization Development Journal 42, no. 6 (2021): 856-868.

  91. Tafvelin, et al., ‘Integrating a Transfer Perspective into Evaluations of Leadership Training’ 865.

  92. Martineau and Patterson, ‘Evaluating Leader Development’ 261.

  93. David W. Bracken and Dale S. Rose, ‘When Does 360-Degree Feedback Create Behavior Change? And How Would We Know It When It Does?’, Journal of Business Psychology 26 (2011): 183-192.

  94. Paul Lawrence, ‘A Best Practice Model for the Effective Deployment of 360 Feedback’, Development and Learning in Organizations 29, no. 6 (2015): 14-15.

  95. Clair Allen Budd and Martha S. Bergen, ‘Adult Ministry in the Church: A Forty-Year Perspective’, Christian Education Journal 17, no. 3 (2020): 482.

  96. Simona Goia, Cristian Virgil Marinas and Ramona Stefania Igret, ‘A Plea for Quality in Internship Programmes - Evidence from the Business and Administration Students’ Experience’, Management & Marketing. Challenges for the Knowledge Society 12, no. 1 (2017): 58.

  97. Merve Gercek and Cem Guney Ozveren, ‘Developing Career Resources through Work-Based Learning: A Qualitative Study of Internship Experiences’, Business and Economics Research Journal 15, no. 3 (2024): 302.

  98. Goia, et al., ‘A Plea for Quality in Internship Programmes - Evidence from the Business and Administration Students’ Experience’," 58.

  99. Joel R. Beeke, ‘God-Centred Adult Education’, Puritan Reformed Journal (2009): 163.

  100. Karlsson, ‘Program Design and Management’," 169.

  101. Evi Schmid, Ursula Scharnhorst and Marlise Kammermann, ‘Developing Two-Year Apprenticeships in Norway and Switzerland’, Vocations and Learning 14 (2021): 70.

  102. Samuel Muehlemann and Stefan C Wolter, ‘Return on Investment of Apprenticeship Systems for Enterprises: Evidence from Cost-Benefit Analyses’, Journal of Labor Policy 3, no. 25 (2014): 18.

  103. Schmid, et al., ‘Developing Two-Year Apprenticeships in Norway and Switzerland’," 70.

  104. Lennart Svensson, Hanne Randle and Maria Bennich, ‘Organising Workplace Learning: An Inter-Organisational Perspective’, Journal of European Industrial Training 33, no. 8/9 (2009): 782.

  105. Muehlemann and Wolter, ‘Return on Investment of Apprenticeship Systems for Enterprises: Evidence from Cost-Benefit Analyses’," 18.

  106. Malgorzata Kuczera, Striking the Right Balance: Costs and Benefits of Apprenticeship (Paris: OECD Publishing, 2017), 11.

  107. Kuczera, Striking the Right Balance: Costs and Benefits of Apprenticeship, 11.

  108. Carl P. Maertz Jr, Phillipp A. Stoeberl and Jill Marks, ‘Building Succesful Internships: Lessons from the Research for Interns, Schools, and Employers’, Career Development International 19, no. 1 (2013): 132.

  109. Gercek and Ozveren, ‘Developing Career Resources through Work-Based Learning: A Qualitative Study of Internship Experiences’," 302.

  110. For a similar definition, see further Jhaj, ‘Innovation Strategies to Address Challenges Facing Higher Education’," 25.

  111. This is a subset of our wider pool of Interns, as Interns are permitted to change churches during their Internship to gain further experience. 360 survey results are also more difficult to compare across different churches as each church has a unique ministry context and raters.

  112. In most cases this included their pastoral leader Coach, two church elders, three peers inclusive of their spouse (if married), and three other church members.

  113. These graduate attributes are as follows: Knows God in Christ, Loves God in Christ, Knows Self in Christ, Cares for People like Christ, Leads the Church under Christ, and Preaches and Teaches Christ from the Scriptures. These attributes align directly with the role capabilities required of pastoral leaders in the PCA.

  114. 1 = “Strongly Disagree”, 2 = “Disagree”, 3 = “Tend to Disagree”, 4 = “Neither Agree nor Disagree”, 5 = “Tend to Agree”, 6 = “Agree”, and 7 = “Strongly Agree”. The collection, analysis and reporting of 360 survey data was completed by expert staff in Church Offices for Christ College.

  115. All approved Coaches were invited to participate in this 360 survey.

  116. The Coaches who completed this survey did not have a Coach of their own like the Interns. Nevertheless, they were evaluated by nine other raters including elders, peers and other church members, just like the Interns.

  117. We currently have 38 Coaches in 25 approved Partner Churches in city and regional areas. This gives us capacity to serve as many as 58 Interns at any given time. These Coaches and churches completed a PCNSW Church Health Survey and submitted an approved application to our Faculty subcommittee. The criteria for approval requires Partner Churches to model healthy pastoral leadership by meeting objective standards across specified metrics, as evaluated by their own church attenders. These metrics are grouped into four areas related to the development of Graduate Attribute program outcomes in our Interns: Christian living, pastoral care, leadership, preaching and teaching. The inclusion of transparent and objective standards relating to healthy pastoral leadership practice in our approval process has addressed a major weakness in our previous student pastor strategy that led to inconsistent leader development outcomes. We found that the modelling and consequences of unhealthy pastoral leadership had a greater negative influence on the formation of our student pastors than the positive influence of our coursework and formal training. This is consistent with our earlier discussions regarding the significant influence of experiences and relationships in leader formation, and the need for coherence with coursework and formal training, as well as with broader program outcomes and program evaluation, in the overall design of a training program.

  118. These include organisations like Youthworks, MTW at Christ College, Wycliffe Bible Translators, Generate Ministries for Chaplaincy, Cornhill Training Program, and the Timothy Partnership. See further https://mts.com.au/for-apprentices/enquiry/what-apprenticeship-pathways-does-mts-offer/

  119. For those aspiring to ordination in the Presbyterian Church of Australia, or the Anglican Diocese of Sydney, at least four years full-time study is required.

  120. These particular phrases are used frequently in our wider Evangelical culture.

  121. For more information regarding to the role capabilities, confession/convictions and regulations summarised above, see further The General Assembly, The Code (Sydney: Presbyterian Church of Australia in the State of New South Wales, 2023).

  122. Chad Van Dixhoorn, Confessing the Faith: A Reader’s Guide to the Westminster Confession of Faith (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2014).

  123. John McClean, ‘Doctrinal Foundations for Ministry: The Westminster Confession of Faith’, Effective Eldership: A Handbook for Shepherding God’s Church, ed. Murray Smith (Stanhope Gardens, NSW: Eider Books, 2022), 57-66.

  124. Jonathan Master, Reformed Theology (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing, 2023).

  125. Guy Prentiss Waters, How Jesus Runs the Church (Phillipsburg New Jersey: P&R Publishing, 2011).

  126. Murray Smith, ‘A Biblical Vision of Eldership’, Effective Eldership: A Handbook for Shepherding God’s Church, ed. Murray Smith (Stanhope Gardens, NSW: Eider Books, 2022), 12-30.

  127. Bruce Meller, ‘How the Presbyterian Church of Australia Works’, Effective Eldership: A Handbook for Shepherding God’s Church, ed. Murray Smith (Stanhope Gardens, NSW: Eider Books, 2022), 47-56.

  128. Tim Chester, Mission Matters: Love Says Go (Nottingham, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 2015).

  129. As noted earlier, shepherding and serving the congregation by leading, praying, teaching, caring, and modelling life in Christ.

  130. Smith, ‘A Biblical Vision of Eldership’, 31-37.

  131. Smith, ‘A Biblical Vision of Eldership’, 38-46.

  132. Timothy Z. Witmer, The Shepherd Leader: Achieving Effective Shepherding in Your Church (Philipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing, 2010).

  133. Some students take longer than the minimum if they don’t complete all the required units every semester.

  134. Some students may finish earlier or later than this, depending on their circumstances.