Nigel Ajay Kumar wrote an article that compares three models of leadership training for grassroots churches. He calls these models church-based, church-centric and church-housed training. The article helps curriculum developers think about who owns the training and where it takes place. It also helps them think about who teaches and who assesses the learners. GAAMT builds its accreditation on the first of these models, church-based training. This post summarises the article and links to the full text.
Why the Distinction Matters
The article grew out of the author's work with a team of Majority World practitioners. The team was developing ministry training content for grassroots pastors and leaders. Its aim was to help local churches take ownership of their own learning and ministry.
The team also saw a risk in this work. Trainers could act as outside specialists who overlook the local church or even bypass it. To guard against this risk, the team went back to the meaning of church-based training. They found that the three models differ in where training happens and in who owns the content. The models also differ in who teaches and who assesses the learners.
Church-Based Training
In church-based training, the local church is the owner of the training. The church is also the setting where training happens and the main agent that carries it out.
The church stays responsible for its training even when the curriculum comes from outside. It adapts the training to fit its own needs and mission. Training takes place within the everyday life of the church, through teaching and mentoring and through practical ministry. Local pastors and elders are the main trainers. The article points to 2 Timothy 2, where mature leaders pass on teaching to reliable people who will then teach others.
In the article's example, the local church works in a similar way to a Bible college. It develops or adapts its own curriculum. Its own leaders then teach and assess the students.
Church-Centric Training
In church-centric training, the local church is the focus and the beneficiary of the training. The curriculum and teaching usually come from outside institutions, such as seminaries or parachurch organisations. These institutions also provide the oversight.
Church-centric training may take place in or near a church building, and it is designed with the church's needs in mind. Pastors may support the training. However, outside trainers usually do the teaching and mentoring.
In the article's example, church leaders take part in a curriculum designed for their needs, and outside experts teach it.
Church-Housed Training
In church-housed training, the church provides the venue for the training. An outside organisation, such as a seminary or Bible college, sets the curriculum and does the teaching. The same organisation oversees and assesses the students.
Students in church-housed training do not need to belong to the host church. The program follows the policies and standards of the outside institution, and accountability lies with that institution. In the article's example, people from many backgrounds gather in a church building, or online, to learn from experts.
The Connection with GAAMT
GAAMT accredits programs that are church-owned, church-based and church-located. These three terms describe the church-based model in this article. The church owns and governs the training, and local pastors and experienced believers do the teaching. Students learn in the places where they live and serve.
Church-centric and church-housed programs can serve the church in valuable ways. GAAMT's accreditation focuses on church-based programs, because these programs keep the local church responsible for forming its own members for ministry.
Read the Full Article
The full article was published on 23 April 2025 on the Regeneration NAyK blog. You can read it here: Church-Based Leadership Training Is Different from Church-Centric and Church-Housed Leadership Training.
