Updated quick links and index to all of my blogs on church boards and governance
Showing posts with label church leadership. Show all posts
Showing posts with label church leadership. Show all posts
Thursday, September 6, 2018
Friday, August 31, 2018
Policy governance in the church: An Overview
Boards are notoriously poor at doing effective board work. For instance, boards often:
- Rehash decisions endlessly
- Make decisions that others in the organization could make faster and better
- Focus on the small rocks rather than the big rocks
- Are unable to prioritize their work
- Control the leader of the organization rather than releasing him/her
- Routinely get into staff issues
- Do not have defined boundaries between staff and board roles
All of these hinder the organization (in this case the church) from being as effective as it could be and it discourages good leaders both on the board and outside the board. Policy governance is meant to cut through the clutter of poor board work, release the leader within boundaries and create a framework for how the board operates. Here are the basics of policy governance.
The board operates with four sets of policies which cover their work
The first set of policies is called Executive Limitations. These lay out what the senior leader of the organization cannot do without the permission of the board. Anything that is not prohibited in these policies the senior leader can do and he/she is expected to use reasonable interpretation of the policies in making leadership decisions. In the event that the senior leader is out of compliance with any of these policies they must inform the board of their lack of compliance and their plan to get back into compliance.
The second set of policies is called Linkage which is the relationship between the board and the staff of the organization. It is common for boards to get into staff decisions below their senior leader (who presumably everyone reports to). In policy governance there is only one employee of the board and that is the senior leader. Boards are not to get into other staff issues as their linkage to the staff is through the senior executive or pastor. While this policy is often misinterpreted in the church (and can be misused by the senior leader) it clarifies the reporting role of the staff to the senior leader and prevents the board from giving direction to staff apart from the senior leader.
The third set of policies is called Board Policies which define how the board operates, what the qualifications for board members are, how they make decisions, resolve conflict and all issues related to board work. Since church boards are notorious for not defining many aspects of their work, the Board Policies force the board to define their work. In addition, things like Mission, Vision, Guiding Principles and other key church health commitments are found in the Board Policies.
The fourth set of policies is called Ends Policies, which describe what the goals of the ministry are, or what the board is holding the senior leader accountable for accomplishing. This goes back to the vision and mission of the church and clearly defines the ends that the board is committed to. This is the hardest set of policies to write but one of the most important as churches often cannot define the target that they are working toward. They operate like Charlie Brown who never used a target when using is bow and arrow. When asked why he answered, "Because this way I hit it every time."
The board can change policies at any time
In Policy Governance, the policies are a living document that the board can change at its discretion. For leaders who lead well they may broaden the range of freedom given that leader. For leaders who have challenges in certain areas, they may contract the freedom in those areas. Thus, the board is able to redraw the lines for the senior leader, for itself (Board policies) or its ends as it deems helpful and necessary.
The board governs through policy
Many boards waste inordinate amounts of time dealing with individual situations which may be revisited numerous times. In policy governance the board focuses on general or specific policies so that as like circumstances arise the policy is in place and the board need not again address the issue. This forces the board to focus on the principle behind a policy rather than individual situations.
Policy Governance forces boards to address and clarify fundamentally important issues in the church, its mission, vision and desired outcomes. It raises the bar for what the board does as well as for the senior leader. It clearly delineates the boundaries between staff and board and who is responsible for what. And it frees senior leaders to lead without board interference in those areas where the board has not placed limitations.
Caveats
I believe that Policy Governance as practiced by non-profits generally need to be modified for church use and I will address this in the near future. I also believe that policy governance can by misused by leaders if not carefully overseen by governing boards. Boards and leaders who do not have a solid grasp of policy governance can do a great deal of harm to a congregation which I will explain in subsequent blogs. Done right it can expedite decisions and ministry effectiveness.Thursday, August 9, 2018
Willow Creek and governance lessons: A watershed moment
One: Boards exist to protect the church as a whole and not one individual.
For several years as allegations have swirled around their senior leader the board tried to protect him even though many credible individuals came forward either who had been abused by him or knew of abuses. Yet the board chose to try to protect their senior leader rather than to uncover the truth of the claims even to the point of suggesting that the victims were lying and calling their character into question.
This is not unusual. I once did an intervention in a church fraught with conflict. There had been a string of resignations over a three year period of staff. When I asked the board why their staff members had resigned they said they didn't know. So I interviewed every one of them and it always came back to abuse by the senior pastor. When I reported my findings back to the board they hung their heads in shame. Of course they knew something but they had chosen to ignore the obvious, not ask the relevant questions and protect their pastor while painting the victims as the villains. Subsequently for this and other governance failures I recommended that the entire board resign which they did.
Boards exist to protect the health, financial stewardship and direction of the church. They are responsible to ensure that the congregation is taught, led well, protected, released into ministry and that the spiritual temperature is kept vital. They may not do it themselves but they ensure this happens. This did not happen at Willow. Actions show that through a several year period the board chose to protect their pastor over dealing with issues they knew to be present. It was a classic failure of governance which will damage the church for years and possibly threaten its existence in its present form.
Two: Boards that are intimidated and manipulated by their senior leader cannot govern - period.
Some churches have such strong leaders that it is almost impossible for a board to hold them accountable and the board ends up working for the senior leader rather than the senior leader being accountable to the board. Whenever this happens alarm bells need to sound because boards that are intimidated or manipulated by their senior leader cannot govern. Rather they end up serving the agenda of their senior organizational leader.
This is why executive sessions are vitally important for any board even if there are no significant issues to discuss. It provides a forum where sensitive issues can be put on the table and candid discussion can take place outside the influence of the senior leader who is accountable to them. Even if this is resisted by the senior leader it should happen on a regular basis because many boards will not bring up sensitive issues in the presence of their senior leader.
Three. Individuals who cannot deal with conflict should not be put on a church board.
With leadership there is always conflict. Issues within a church that must be dealt with, differences of opinion on boards and sometimes relationships with senior leaders. Where I used to live we called the conflict resistant culture "Minnesota nice." This is the tendency not to deal with conflict. There is a lot of "church nice" on leadership boards where we don't have courageous enough people to put issues on the table and insist that the board look honestly at them. If someone cannot deal with conflict they should not serve on a church board.
Many congregations suffer for years without good leadership or pastors without adequate accountability because of "church nice" boards. Who suffers? The congregation!
This also has implications for who ought to serve as the chair of a board. It takes a strong and independent individual to serve well as a board chair. They must be able to graciously police the board, interact with the senior leader, keep the board on track and in cases such as what happened at Willow Creek, lead the board in critical conversations. When this does not happen board chairpersons need to be challenged and/or replaced.
Four. When serious issues occur the board must find the truth and speak the truth regardless of the consequences.
Christian organizations generally have a poor track record of transparency around such issues as financial impropriety, sexual abuse, leadership abuse and issues that might impact their reputation. Unfortunately, when organizations try to hide issues it causes more damage then when they admit and deal with issues.
Outsiders looking in on the actions of the board at Willow Creek have wondered about their actions during this period especially in the face of very credible individuals who have come forward with their story. Why did they not deal with issues that many others saw? The answer is simple: they were trying to protect their leader and the reputation of the church rather than trying to find the truth if it hurt either of these. In the process they destroyed their leadership (hence their resignation), hurt the church beyond what the senior pastor is responsible for and set the church up for trauma for years to come. Their "independent outside investigation" was not designed to find the truth but to protect their interests.
Five: Church boards must understand their role as a governance board.
I have to conclude that the board at Willow did not understand their role as a governance board. But they are in good company as many church boards do not. If they did, the story would have played out much differently than it did. They did not safeguard the health of the church. They did not protect the flock (or the abused). They did not listen to credible voices. They allowed their leader to manipulate them and the process. They protected the guilty rather than the hurt. They did not truly seek truth but sought to protect. In the end they caused more damage than they did to resolve their issues.
All of this to suggest that this episode ought to be a wake up call for the evangelical church regarding what good governance looks like. For the sake of the church - the Bride of Jesus.
Wednesday, June 10, 2015
A YouTube video that illustrates much church leadership
TJ Addington of Addington Consulting has a passion to help individuals and organizations maximize their impact and go to the next level of effectiveness. He can be reached at tjaddington@gmail.com.
Sunday, April 19, 2015
Humble and collaborative church leadership
I just returned from Santiago Chile and saw firsthand a rare phenomenon. A senior church team that displays huge humility and collaboration. The senior leader is 67, another is 35, and another 49. Together they lead a church of 500+. Rarely have I seen a team that is as non-competitive, open to one another's counsel and opinions and the ability to work collaboratively for kingdom objectives. They are an example in a country that is full of authoritarian leadership and an example to many in our own country where hubris, power and a need to get our own way is all too common.
The senior leader has deeply empowered the other two. He knows his paradigms are different from theirs and is unfazed by it. He knows that transition must come and is unfazed by that. He is a great leader who cares more about the kingdom than his kingdom. The other two senior leaders have very different gifts and yet they are noncompetitive (even about who takes over if it is one of them), understand their own gifting and how much they need one another. Nor are they anxious to lose their senior leader although they know his role will change in the future. In addition their spouses have the same attitudes.
It is a church that has a history of conflict as many do. Yet that is now absent in their close teamwork. Their example is infecting other churches in Santiago where such a model is rare. Yet it is the model that Jesus would endorse.
One of my greatest joys is to meet and get to know leaders who display the mind and attitude of Jesus. I long for this to be the case in the church at large. I wish there were more of this in the United States. We have a lot to learn from others. Especially humble and collaborative leadership in the church.
Posted from Oakdale, MN
All of T.J. Addington's books including his latest, Deep Influence, are available from the author for the lowest prices and a $2.00 per book discount on orders of ten or more.
The senior leader has deeply empowered the other two. He knows his paradigms are different from theirs and is unfazed by it. He knows that transition must come and is unfazed by that. He is a great leader who cares more about the kingdom than his kingdom. The other two senior leaders have very different gifts and yet they are noncompetitive (even about who takes over if it is one of them), understand their own gifting and how much they need one another. Nor are they anxious to lose their senior leader although they know his role will change in the future. In addition their spouses have the same attitudes.
It is a church that has a history of conflict as many do. Yet that is now absent in their close teamwork. Their example is infecting other churches in Santiago where such a model is rare. Yet it is the model that Jesus would endorse.
One of my greatest joys is to meet and get to know leaders who display the mind and attitude of Jesus. I long for this to be the case in the church at large. I wish there were more of this in the United States. We have a lot to learn from others. Especially humble and collaborative leadership in the church.
Posted from Oakdale, MN
All of T.J. Addington's books including his latest, Deep Influence, are available from the author for the lowest prices and a $2.00 per book discount on orders of ten or more.
Wednesday, April 1, 2015
Ten things that Christian leaders must guard against
There are many temptations that Christian leaders face and which if not guarded against will hurt their ministry. Here are ten that I often think of which are often not paid adequate attention to.
One: Starting to coast on past development in the the middle and later years of ministry. When leaders don't stay sharp and when they don't have an intentional development plan they not only hurt themselves but they hurt the team they lead. If anything, intentionality must be ramped up in the middle and later years if we are going to stay in the game.
Two: Becoming set in our paradigms and losing the necessary flexibility leaders need. The world changes quickly and unless we continue to understand those changes and stay flexible in our ministry approaches we lose our ability to stay relevant. If anything, we ought to become more flexible as the years go by.
Three: Becoming less receptive to the ideas and feedback from others because we feel we have the knowledge base we need. When we stop listening to others, stop asking questions and stop inviting input we become less and less effective.
Four: Getting into a rut by staying too long in the role we are in. This does not mean we necessarily need to change jobs but it does mean that we constantly need to be looking for new challenges that cause us to think, grow and learn new things.
Five: Allowing our time with Jesus to become professional (related only to our work) rather than personal and intimate (related to our heart and life). It is an easy trap to fall into and one that we must constantly fight if we are going to allow Jesus to continuously transform our lives.
Six: Taking too little time for reflection and thinking. Leadership means responsibility and it is easy for the activities we have to crowd out the reflection we need. When we are young we run on energy to a great extent. As we mature we need a whole lot of wisdom but wisdom comes through having the time to think and reflect.
Seven: Taking our staff for granted rather than realizing that they are one of our highest priorities. No matter how good our team, unless we are building into them, encouraging them and helping them grow we lose critical influence not only with them but with the organization.
Eight: Allowing ourselves to become disengaged from the leadership work we do. This may reflect, deficits in some of the issues above but disengagement and autopilot are always a threat to good leadership.
Nine: Not developing outside interests that can feed our lives. All of us need things that allow us to become refreshed and which bring delight to our lives. Leadership is hard. Having other interests actually refreshes us for better leadership.
Ten: Allowing our identity to be defined by our role in ministry rather than by our personhood and identity in Jesus. Leadership is a role we play in ministry but it should not define who we are personally. We are people like everyone else and need to be comfortable outside of our leadership role. It also helps us to not take ourselves too seriously.
Posted from Oakdale, MN
All of T.J. Addington's books including his latest, Deep Influence, are available from the author for the lowest prices and a $2.00 per book discount on orders of ten or more.
One: Starting to coast on past development in the the middle and later years of ministry. When leaders don't stay sharp and when they don't have an intentional development plan they not only hurt themselves but they hurt the team they lead. If anything, intentionality must be ramped up in the middle and later years if we are going to stay in the game.
Two: Becoming set in our paradigms and losing the necessary flexibility leaders need. The world changes quickly and unless we continue to understand those changes and stay flexible in our ministry approaches we lose our ability to stay relevant. If anything, we ought to become more flexible as the years go by.
Three: Becoming less receptive to the ideas and feedback from others because we feel we have the knowledge base we need. When we stop listening to others, stop asking questions and stop inviting input we become less and less effective.
Four: Getting into a rut by staying too long in the role we are in. This does not mean we necessarily need to change jobs but it does mean that we constantly need to be looking for new challenges that cause us to think, grow and learn new things.
Five: Allowing our time with Jesus to become professional (related only to our work) rather than personal and intimate (related to our heart and life). It is an easy trap to fall into and one that we must constantly fight if we are going to allow Jesus to continuously transform our lives.
Six: Taking too little time for reflection and thinking. Leadership means responsibility and it is easy for the activities we have to crowd out the reflection we need. When we are young we run on energy to a great extent. As we mature we need a whole lot of wisdom but wisdom comes through having the time to think and reflect.
Seven: Taking our staff for granted rather than realizing that they are one of our highest priorities. No matter how good our team, unless we are building into them, encouraging them and helping them grow we lose critical influence not only with them but with the organization.
Eight: Allowing ourselves to become disengaged from the leadership work we do. This may reflect, deficits in some of the issues above but disengagement and autopilot are always a threat to good leadership.
Nine: Not developing outside interests that can feed our lives. All of us need things that allow us to become refreshed and which bring delight to our lives. Leadership is hard. Having other interests actually refreshes us for better leadership.
Ten: Allowing our identity to be defined by our role in ministry rather than by our personhood and identity in Jesus. Leadership is a role we play in ministry but it should not define who we are personally. We are people like everyone else and need to be comfortable outside of our leadership role. It also helps us to not take ourselves too seriously.
Posted from Oakdale, MN
All of T.J. Addington's books including his latest, Deep Influence, are available from the author for the lowest prices and a $2.00 per book discount on orders of ten or more.
Monday, March 30, 2015
Saturday, February 14, 2015
Quick links and index to all of my blogs on church boards and governance
High Impact Church Boards and Leading From The Sandbox are both back in print
For organizations or churches who order either of these books for their board or staff I offer a free Skype meeting to discuss questions or principles.
Church boards who live with their heads in the sand
Pastors, staff and board members who use inappropriate language, emotions and actions
Eight reasons that boards do not address known issues of a senior leader
A dialogue between TJ Addington and Tony Morgan of the Unstuck Group on church governance
Signs that leaders are leading from a posture of fear and insecurity
A YouTube video that illustrates much church leadership
Some of the worst things leaders can do when there is controversy or conflict in the church
Congregational meetings and church health
The use of church discipline to control people or shut down discussion in the church
Nine church board mistakes I have been seeing lately - from Tony Morgan
15 unfortunate things boards do
Why boards can be so frustrating to serve on and how to solve it
Passive boards and controlling boards: Both are dangerous
Dumb things church boards do
Practices of healthy boards
Big rocks, pebbles and sand
Signs of a dysfunctional church board
Signs of healthy and unhealthy boards
When board members don't get their way
When boards are unable to police their own
Conflict and problem avoidance create sick churches
Choosing and preparing new board members
Church board development
The failure of church boards to realistically evaluate ministries they oversee
Church boards and church culture
Violations of good board behavior that kill good governance
Healthy board/pastor relationships in the church
Church renovation
Undiscerning church boards: A case study
Should a church be run like a business
Church boards and fear
Church culture trumps everything
Church boards and failure of courage
Staff and board relationships in the local church: What is healthy and what is unhealthy
Split boards, split congregations
The profile of an effective church leader
9 Principles for healthy governance in the church
Eight kinds of people who should not serve on a church board
Every congregation is one leadership board away from trouble and decline
When leadership boards become the barrier to church growth
Rethinking leadership selection in the church
Church board self assessment: 15 questions
Guard the gate to your church leadership
Boards that are not united and don't face reality
Antiquated church governance systems that hurt the mission of the church
Our church governance systems do matter!
Four key church board documents
What boards and pastors need to know about each other
Operate without a church board covenant at your risk
A failure of nerve
Bold or timid church leadership
When board members allow friendship and relationship to overshadow their governance role
When should a church change their governance system?
Board members and their intellectual capacity
Courageous church leaders
Church leadership and trust
Effective churches have pastors and boards with a bias toward strategic action
Empowering pastors
Spiritual discernment in ministry leadership
Signs that your church board needs renovation
When elephants fight the grass gets trampled
Ten marks of a united church leadership board
The five dysfunctions of ministry organizations
When everyone is in charge no one is in charge
Should church staff serve on the elder/leadership board?
Why boards must always speak with one voice
Interminable board meetings
Churches and group think
Paying greater attention to gifting when it comes to those we put into church leadership
Not ready, proceed slow, lets go: When leaders resist change!
Is your church more missional or institutional?
Board evaluation
Toxic team and board members
I cannot find good leaders for my church
Unspoken board discussions
Checks and balances in church leadership
Proactive or reactive leadership
Ministry accelerators and anchors
"I knew I should have said something."
The dysfunction of control in ministry organizations
Leadership board time outs for reflection
Dealing with organizational elephants
Choosing the right leaders in your church: You get what you deserve.
The biggest favor you can do for your pastor and your church
Want to grow your staff/leadership board?
Candid discourse among church leaders
Four skill sets every team and board can profit from
Who is best qualified to serve as an elder or church leader?
Rethinking the relationship between pastors and lay leaders
Continuing the question as to whether staff should serve on the elder board
Does your church have a meaningful job description for your senior pastor?
Policy governance in the church: An overview
Willow Creek and governance lessons: A watershed moment
Help your board do self-evaluation of their work with seven evaluative statements
Seven personal behaviors for the best board work
Why boards need to change as an organization grows
How do you measure the success of your organization?
If your board needs help, I can help
Five simple principles for governance in churches and non-profits
With over thirty years of working with boards I am available to help your board be the best they can be. Whether remotely using technology or in person, together we can make substantial strides toward healthier and more missional board work.
As the author of High Impact Church Boards I have worked with thousands of board members to ensure that the right people end up on an organizations board, that the board is intentional in its work and that the culture of the leadership system is empowering rather than controlling. Cost is kept to a minimum by using technology like Go To Meeting, or I can join you in person for governance training or retreats.
I can be contacted at tjaddington@gmail.com or 615.840.1676. I look forward to talking to and working with those who desire to raise the level of their board's effectiveness.
Thursday, January 1, 2015
Nine ways that pastors create conflict in the church
Senior leaders are fully capable of creating unnecessary conflict in their churches. There is enough opportunity for conflict in the church without pastors contributing to it. Here are some ways that pastors contribute to conflict and therefor ways we can avoid doing so.
One: Being defensive with staff and boards. Defensiveness shuts down discussion which inevitably creates conflict as real issues cannot be openly discussed and resolved. When pastors are insecure and therefore not open to robust dialogue, conflict becomes inevitable. The more open we are the less opportunity there is for conflict to germinate.
Two: Making unilateral decisions without the input of stakeholders. Nobody likes surprises - not boards, not staff or congregations.When pastors do not engage stakeholders, whoever they are, they create the seeds of conflict. Key decisions need to be processed with those who are impacted.
Three: Being inflexible. We may be clear where we want to go but flexibility is usually necessary in order to get there. Often we cannot get everything we desire to get at once. Wise leaders are flexible in how they get to where they are going so that those we lead will actually go with us.
Four: Not running process. This is related to the above. All change requires a process in order to help those we lead go with us. When leaders make decisions that surprise stakeholders and do not run adequate process to explain their rationale for change, conflict inevitably occurs. Often we are too impatient to go where we want to go rather than take the time to run process and it results in conflict.
Five: Not being clear on where we are going and how we are going to get there. Ambiguity over direction and strategy creates insecurity and questions among those we lead. Clarity over both are critical to a healthy congregation. Often when these are absent dysfunction is the result.
Six: Marginalizing those who disagree with us. This is always a sign of poor EQ and insecurity but it is not uncommon among senior pastors. We too often equate loyalty with agreeing with us and when someone disagrees there is a tendency to see them as bad or disloyal or even "agents of the evil one." Disagreement is not bad but our response to it can be. When we marginalize those who disagree with us we naturally create conflict because we now have those who are "in" and those who are "out."
Seven: Using the pulpit to take shots at our detractors. All pastors have detractors - it is the nature of the job. But when we start using the pulpit (which is a powerful platform) we naturally create an us and them mentality. The pulpit is for the untainted truth of God from Scripture, not a platform for us to take shots at our detractors. They deserve our love and maybe our candid thoughts but not from the pulpit.
Eight: Dividing the board from the staff. I call this "leadership default." Pastors never play their board against their staff for it inevitably creates an "us/them" mentality and creates distrust between two groups which must work in coordination with one another. The senior team the pastor is on is always his board and it is his responsibility to create partnership rather than tension between his staff and his board.
Nine: Using the church for one's own agenda rather than for a corporate agenda that is agreed to by staff and board. Churches can be a platform for our personal agendas in leadership or they can be a platform for God's agenda which is agreed to by leadership, staff and ultimately the congregation. When we use it for our own agenda without the agreement of others who make up our leadership team and the congregation as a whole (remember the priesthood of believers) we will inevitably create conflict.
As leaders, we often are critical of those who create conflict in the local church. We need to remember that we can do the same - and often do if we are not careful.
One: Being defensive with staff and boards. Defensiveness shuts down discussion which inevitably creates conflict as real issues cannot be openly discussed and resolved. When pastors are insecure and therefore not open to robust dialogue, conflict becomes inevitable. The more open we are the less opportunity there is for conflict to germinate.
Two: Making unilateral decisions without the input of stakeholders. Nobody likes surprises - not boards, not staff or congregations.When pastors do not engage stakeholders, whoever they are, they create the seeds of conflict. Key decisions need to be processed with those who are impacted.
Three: Being inflexible. We may be clear where we want to go but flexibility is usually necessary in order to get there. Often we cannot get everything we desire to get at once. Wise leaders are flexible in how they get to where they are going so that those we lead will actually go with us.
Four: Not running process. This is related to the above. All change requires a process in order to help those we lead go with us. When leaders make decisions that surprise stakeholders and do not run adequate process to explain their rationale for change, conflict inevitably occurs. Often we are too impatient to go where we want to go rather than take the time to run process and it results in conflict.
Five: Not being clear on where we are going and how we are going to get there. Ambiguity over direction and strategy creates insecurity and questions among those we lead. Clarity over both are critical to a healthy congregation. Often when these are absent dysfunction is the result.
Six: Marginalizing those who disagree with us. This is always a sign of poor EQ and insecurity but it is not uncommon among senior pastors. We too often equate loyalty with agreeing with us and when someone disagrees there is a tendency to see them as bad or disloyal or even "agents of the evil one." Disagreement is not bad but our response to it can be. When we marginalize those who disagree with us we naturally create conflict because we now have those who are "in" and those who are "out."
Seven: Using the pulpit to take shots at our detractors. All pastors have detractors - it is the nature of the job. But when we start using the pulpit (which is a powerful platform) we naturally create an us and them mentality. The pulpit is for the untainted truth of God from Scripture, not a platform for us to take shots at our detractors. They deserve our love and maybe our candid thoughts but not from the pulpit.
Eight: Dividing the board from the staff. I call this "leadership default." Pastors never play their board against their staff for it inevitably creates an "us/them" mentality and creates distrust between two groups which must work in coordination with one another. The senior team the pastor is on is always his board and it is his responsibility to create partnership rather than tension between his staff and his board.
Nine: Using the church for one's own agenda rather than for a corporate agenda that is agreed to by staff and board. Churches can be a platform for our personal agendas in leadership or they can be a platform for God's agenda which is agreed to by leadership, staff and ultimately the congregation. When we use it for our own agenda without the agreement of others who make up our leadership team and the congregation as a whole (remember the priesthood of believers) we will inevitably create conflict.
As leaders, we often are critical of those who create conflict in the local church. We need to remember that we can do the same - and often do if we are not careful.
Sunday, May 11, 2014
Who is best qualified to be an elder or church leader?
I am in a friendly dialogue with a large church regarding the qualifications of those who would serve on the elder board (the leadership board) of the church.
They have traditionally taken the posture that anyone who meets the Biblical qualifications of an elder is eligible to serve on the leadership board. These are the character qualifications spelled out in the New Testament. When I suggested that there are some other issues that need to be considered, the suggestion was made that these are "extra biblical" qualifications. I do not agree with that assessment.
While the Scriptures are clear on the character and spiritual qualifications of church leaders there are in fact other implicit or explicit issues that are laid out in the New Testament. For instance there are six responsibilities that leaders are given in the Scriptures. They are to keep the spiritual temperature of the congregation high, ensure that the congregation is taught well, that they are cared for, protected from the wolves of division, heresy and serious ongoing sin, that people are released into meaningful ministry and led well.
There are many Godly people who by character and spiritual health are qualified to serve as elders but who are not necessarily be qualified to carry out these responsibilities. For instance, there are many conflict avoidant individuals who do not like to confront problematic behaviors. There are people who do not have a leadership bone in their body but simply love others. There are many who cannot think systems which is how you carry out some of these responsibilities in a larger church. There are others who can only drill down to tactics but who cannot think big picture.
My point is that character and spiritual qualifications are fundamental but that there are other characteristics of good leaders that must be taken into account. The very reason that the vast majority of churches in the United States are plateaued or in decline goes to the heart of this issue of leadership. Leadership requires a skill set and not all Godly individuals have the skill set.
If the above are the six key responsibilities of church leaders, what is the personal profile of a good church leader? If we look at the New Testament for its explicit and implicit statements on the matter we see 13 non-negotiable characteristics of an effective church leader.
Eight kinds of people who should not serve on a church board
Choosing the right leaders in your church: You get what you choose
Rethinking leadership selection for the church
Choosing and preparing new board members
Toxic team and board members
They have traditionally taken the posture that anyone who meets the Biblical qualifications of an elder is eligible to serve on the leadership board. These are the character qualifications spelled out in the New Testament. When I suggested that there are some other issues that need to be considered, the suggestion was made that these are "extra biblical" qualifications. I do not agree with that assessment.
While the Scriptures are clear on the character and spiritual qualifications of church leaders there are in fact other implicit or explicit issues that are laid out in the New Testament. For instance there are six responsibilities that leaders are given in the Scriptures. They are to keep the spiritual temperature of the congregation high, ensure that the congregation is taught well, that they are cared for, protected from the wolves of division, heresy and serious ongoing sin, that people are released into meaningful ministry and led well.
There are many Godly people who by character and spiritual health are qualified to serve as elders but who are not necessarily be qualified to carry out these responsibilities. For instance, there are many conflict avoidant individuals who do not like to confront problematic behaviors. There are people who do not have a leadership bone in their body but simply love others. There are many who cannot think systems which is how you carry out some of these responsibilities in a larger church. There are others who can only drill down to tactics but who cannot think big picture.
My point is that character and spiritual qualifications are fundamental but that there are other characteristics of good leaders that must be taken into account. The very reason that the vast majority of churches in the United States are plateaued or in decline goes to the heart of this issue of leadership. Leadership requires a skill set and not all Godly individuals have the skill set.
If the above are the six key responsibilities of church leaders, what is the personal profile of a good church leader? If we look at the New Testament for its explicit and implicit statements on the matter we see 13 non-negotiable characteristics of an effective church leader.
- They exhibit a Godly character and lifestyle
- They have a deep passion for Jesus
- They exhibit personal humility
- They love people
- They are life long learners
- They agree with God's leadership assignment for church leaders
- They are able and willing to grapple with the future
- They are team focused
- They are a willing leader
- They have a positive influence on others
- They are purveyors of hope
- They have an action bias
- They have good emotional intelligence
We are frankly naive to believe that just because someone is Godly means they can lead well. It simply is not true. I encounter many church leaders who are Godly but who cannot lead effectively and it hurts the church. Just look at the state of many churches today and you realize that unless you guard the gate of church leadership you pay a high price! The larger the church the more complex leadership becomes and the more expertise that is required to lead well.
The most powerful group in any church are those who choose who will be in leadership because the quality, skill, wisdom and discernment of leaders will either contribute to church health or to dysfunctional and unhealthy ministry. As one who consults with many churches I see the latter all to often and the former all to seldom. Be smart in leadership selection! You get what you choose.
The most powerful group in any church are those who choose who will be in leadership because the quality, skill, wisdom and discernment of leaders will either contribute to church health or to dysfunctional and unhealthy ministry. As one who consults with many churches I see the latter all to often and the former all to seldom. Be smart in leadership selection! You get what you choose.
The following blog links may also to helpful to you:
Eight kinds of people who should not serve on a church board
Choosing the right leaders in your church: You get what you choose
Rethinking leadership selection for the church
Choosing and preparing new board members
Toxic team and board members
Thursday, May 8, 2014
Antiquated church governance systems that hurt the mission of the church
Poor governance systems tend to be "permission withholding" structures rather than "permission granting" structures.
In permission withholding structures:
- Decisions must be made more than once
- Permission and agreement must be negotiated with multiple groups
- Timely decisions are tough
- There is confusion of authority and responsibility
- Church bylaws are confusing and bureaucratic
- It is hard to make decisions and implement them
- The mission of the church is compromised
In permission granting structures:
- Decisions are made once
- There is no need to negotiate permission with multiple groups
- There are clear lines of authority and responsibility
- Church bylaws are brief and allow for flexibility
- It is easy to make decisions and implement them
- Timely decisions are easy
- The mission of the church is easier to implement because the systems support the ability of leaders to lead.
Jesus designed the church to be the most effective, flexible, and missional organization on the face of the earth. Permission-withholding structures (most antiquated church governance systems) make the church inflexible, relatively ineffective and certainly compromise its mission. If your governance systems are antiquated and no longer help fulfill your mission, be courageous enough to change them. The third section of "High Impact Church Boards" provides a roadmap for changing your governance systems.
Wednesday, May 7, 2014
Continuing the conversation on whether staff should serve on the elder board
Recently I reposted a blog on whether staff should serve on the elder board of a church. You can see that blog here. My answer was that as a practice it is a bad idea apart from the senior pastor and in a large church the regular attendance (but not a voting member) of the executive pastor.
This generated some comment from those who believe that all pastors are "elders" and therefor should be on the board. I will not repeat what I said in the earlier blog but would like to point out some fallacies of trying to "prove" everything we do in church governance from Scripture.
First, Scripture gives some overall guidance on what leadership in the church should look like but it does not give specific guidance on this. What we do know is that there were overseers or elders and deacons and deaconess. And their qualifications are spelled out in the text. We also know that the church was flexible and responded to the needs it had as in the book of Acts when the Apostles appointed a team to look after the widows.
Because Scripture is not overly specific on these issues is why you can "prove" various ecclesiastical models from the same text!
Second, God designed the church to be the most flexible, missional and effective organism on the face of the earth so that it can flourish in any political, economic or social system. That very flexibility will demand different models for how we do church governance. A house church in rural China is very different from the typical church in the United States. Context and size make a difference in how one can govern and lead well. You do not lead a church of 100 like you do a church of 1,000 or more. For that matter, the early church was more likely to be a house church than what has become the norm in the west.
Third, God tells us to use wisdom in all that we do. In other words, while Scripture gives us very broad principles in the area of church leadership and expects us to use wisdom in how we apply them to our situation. What is clear is that leaders are responsible for the spiritual climate of the church, that the congregation is taught, protected, cared for, released into ministry and led well. How that happens is not spelled out and of course will depend on the size and context of the church. We must figure out how to accomplish these Biblical mandates in our own situation.
This leads to the final thought. Governance and management of the day to day activities of ministry are not the same thing. We know that the early church made a distinction between teaching elders and non-teaching elders so why would we not make distinctions as well. Taken to the extreme, a large church with 30 pastors could have 30 pastors on the board as they are qualified as "elders." We all know that you cannot lead a large church with a huge group. Just because one is qualified to be an elder does not mean that they serve on the governance or leadership board of a church. For that matter there are many people in a larger congregation who are Biblically qualified as elders who do not serve in that role.
My point is that you cannot "proof text" the details of good church leadership but need to use wisdom and best practices to accomplish it. Be smart in how you lead not because the church is a "business" but because God designed it to be missional, effective and flexible and we must figure out how to do that in our context.
(Posted from Oakdale, MN)
This generated some comment from those who believe that all pastors are "elders" and therefor should be on the board. I will not repeat what I said in the earlier blog but would like to point out some fallacies of trying to "prove" everything we do in church governance from Scripture.
First, Scripture gives some overall guidance on what leadership in the church should look like but it does not give specific guidance on this. What we do know is that there were overseers or elders and deacons and deaconess. And their qualifications are spelled out in the text. We also know that the church was flexible and responded to the needs it had as in the book of Acts when the Apostles appointed a team to look after the widows.
Because Scripture is not overly specific on these issues is why you can "prove" various ecclesiastical models from the same text!
Second, God designed the church to be the most flexible, missional and effective organism on the face of the earth so that it can flourish in any political, economic or social system. That very flexibility will demand different models for how we do church governance. A house church in rural China is very different from the typical church in the United States. Context and size make a difference in how one can govern and lead well. You do not lead a church of 100 like you do a church of 1,000 or more. For that matter, the early church was more likely to be a house church than what has become the norm in the west.
Third, God tells us to use wisdom in all that we do. In other words, while Scripture gives us very broad principles in the area of church leadership and expects us to use wisdom in how we apply them to our situation. What is clear is that leaders are responsible for the spiritual climate of the church, that the congregation is taught, protected, cared for, released into ministry and led well. How that happens is not spelled out and of course will depend on the size and context of the church. We must figure out how to accomplish these Biblical mandates in our own situation.
This leads to the final thought. Governance and management of the day to day activities of ministry are not the same thing. We know that the early church made a distinction between teaching elders and non-teaching elders so why would we not make distinctions as well. Taken to the extreme, a large church with 30 pastors could have 30 pastors on the board as they are qualified as "elders." We all know that you cannot lead a large church with a huge group. Just because one is qualified to be an elder does not mean that they serve on the governance or leadership board of a church. For that matter there are many people in a larger congregation who are Biblically qualified as elders who do not serve in that role.
My point is that you cannot "proof text" the details of good church leadership but need to use wisdom and best practices to accomplish it. Be smart in how you lead not because the church is a "business" but because God designed it to be missional, effective and flexible and we must figure out how to do that in our context.
(Posted from Oakdale, MN)
Sunday, April 27, 2014
Spiritual discernment in ministry leadership
Individuals who have the gift of spiritual discernment are needed components in any ministry leadership team or board. Spiritual discernment is the ability to identify aberrations in theology or character issues in those who propagate those aberrations, who use theology for their own agendas or who are engaged in church power plays.
In First and Second Timothy, Paul tells Timothy to stay away from individuals who promote theological controversies. In 2 Corinthians (10-11) he takes the congregation to task for following so called super apostles who were using position and theology to rally people to their followership. Wherever there are people there will be those who use leadership or theology for their own agendas and it takes people of discernment to call it for what it is.
Paul called it for what it was: "For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an agent of light. Is it not surprising, then if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve (2 Corinthians 11:13-15)."
What is interesting is that there were many in the church in Corinth who did not discern the issues Paul is talking about. Obviously the spiritual cloak these individuals wrapped themselves in was effective in hiding their true motives.
The reason discernment is so critical is that when one is using Scriptures to make their case, there is enough truth that it takes discernment to identify its misuse. For instance, when a leader is always talking about money and the need for the congregation to give more and is using Scripture to try to force or manipulate individuals to give, you have moved from inviting people to be generous to "spiritual coercion." While it sounds Scriptural its application has become more about manipulation than the Holy Spirit's leading.
As one who works with troubled churches what often fascinates me is that members of the congregation are often more discerning than the leadership of the church. When Scripture is being misused for the personal agenda of the pastor for instance, prescient individuals often quietly leave while elected leaders remain unaware of the issues. And it is not necessarily pastors but others, especially who have the ability to teach and who have theological agendas who can promote controversies in the congregation that if discerned early can be dealt with.
Spiritual discernment also comes into play when there are people with power agendas in the congregation. We are often naive in the name of grace to name power games for what they are. As a congregational consultant they seem blatant to me but leaders have been reluctant to entertain the notion that a nice guy (or gal) might have poor motives and personal agendas for the church. Those with spiritual discernment usually read those situations for what they are. The fact the boards are often clueless tells me that we have too few with this ability in church leadership.
The early warning system of any church should be found in its leadership rather than the congregation at large. But that presupposes that there are individuals in leadership who are deeply spiritually discerning. And listened to! Can you point individuals in leadership of your church who have the gift of spiritual discernment?
(Posted from Oakdale, MN)
In First and Second Timothy, Paul tells Timothy to stay away from individuals who promote theological controversies. In 2 Corinthians (10-11) he takes the congregation to task for following so called super apostles who were using position and theology to rally people to their followership. Wherever there are people there will be those who use leadership or theology for their own agendas and it takes people of discernment to call it for what it is.
Paul called it for what it was: "For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an agent of light. Is it not surprising, then if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve (2 Corinthians 11:13-15)."
What is interesting is that there were many in the church in Corinth who did not discern the issues Paul is talking about. Obviously the spiritual cloak these individuals wrapped themselves in was effective in hiding their true motives.
The reason discernment is so critical is that when one is using Scriptures to make their case, there is enough truth that it takes discernment to identify its misuse. For instance, when a leader is always talking about money and the need for the congregation to give more and is using Scripture to try to force or manipulate individuals to give, you have moved from inviting people to be generous to "spiritual coercion." While it sounds Scriptural its application has become more about manipulation than the Holy Spirit's leading.
As one who works with troubled churches what often fascinates me is that members of the congregation are often more discerning than the leadership of the church. When Scripture is being misused for the personal agenda of the pastor for instance, prescient individuals often quietly leave while elected leaders remain unaware of the issues. And it is not necessarily pastors but others, especially who have the ability to teach and who have theological agendas who can promote controversies in the congregation that if discerned early can be dealt with.
Spiritual discernment also comes into play when there are people with power agendas in the congregation. We are often naive in the name of grace to name power games for what they are. As a congregational consultant they seem blatant to me but leaders have been reluctant to entertain the notion that a nice guy (or gal) might have poor motives and personal agendas for the church. Those with spiritual discernment usually read those situations for what they are. The fact the boards are often clueless tells me that we have too few with this ability in church leadership.
The early warning system of any church should be found in its leadership rather than the congregation at large. But that presupposes that there are individuals in leadership who are deeply spiritually discerning. And listened to! Can you point individuals in leadership of your church who have the gift of spiritual discernment?
(Posted from Oakdale, MN)
Monday, December 30, 2013
Thursday, July 11, 2013
Bold or timid church leadership
As one with leadership gifts, I can think of no arena more exciting to use them in than in the church of Jesus Christ. Amazingly. with all the ensuing challenges, difficulties and problems, Christ has chosen the local church as His means to reach the world with His good news. He has never given up on the church, and we can never give up on the church. Our challenge is to grow in our ability to lead well so that the leadership is a joy rather than a burden, and to lead in ways that allow Christ to fulfill His mission for our congregations in the expansion of His Kingdom.
Because many boards have not grappled with critical leadership issues, they live with a high degree of frustration. But there is hope. Over the past decade, I have watched many frustrated boards become energized, active and even high impact as they have made the choice to lead with greater boldness. This can be true for your board as well.
With many boards, there is a significant fear factor that prevents bold leadership. This is the church, after all. What if our decisions make some unhappy? Some probably will; leadership always gets 'pushback' of some kind. But consider the alternative!
Unfortunately, the local church, in general, is one of the most leaderless institutions in America. We have not learned to lead boldly, and we have paid too little attention to the selection of leaders. We have more fear than courage. You may take issue with me. However, think about it: Why is it that despite all of our churches, we make so little impact on our communities in terms of the gospel? Satan must rejoice over this general condition. Timid leaders don't threaten him. Bold and healthy leaders keep him highly occupied.
Almost without exception, congregations that are truly making a difference in their community and experiencing real life change within their body are led by a godly, healthy, bold, energized leadership team - pastoral and volunteer. Leadership matters. It matters to God because the quality of our leadership has direct impact on the depth of His disciples and the effectiveness of His mission.
Many of us do not have training in leadership (and seminaries are not stepping up to the plate). This is often true of pastors. Even though much of a pastor's ministry relates to leadership, few have received leadership training or mentoring. The good news is: We can learn to lead! There are few natural-born leaders. Most of us are 'leaders in training' and will always be learning to lead more effectively. As Paul said, if you are going to lead, "govern diligently" (Romans 12:8). Lead Boldly.
Because many boards have not grappled with critical leadership issues, they live with a high degree of frustration. But there is hope. Over the past decade, I have watched many frustrated boards become energized, active and even high impact as they have made the choice to lead with greater boldness. This can be true for your board as well.
With many boards, there is a significant fear factor that prevents bold leadership. This is the church, after all. What if our decisions make some unhappy? Some probably will; leadership always gets 'pushback' of some kind. But consider the alternative!
Unfortunately, the local church, in general, is one of the most leaderless institutions in America. We have not learned to lead boldly, and we have paid too little attention to the selection of leaders. We have more fear than courage. You may take issue with me. However, think about it: Why is it that despite all of our churches, we make so little impact on our communities in terms of the gospel? Satan must rejoice over this general condition. Timid leaders don't threaten him. Bold and healthy leaders keep him highly occupied.
Almost without exception, congregations that are truly making a difference in their community and experiencing real life change within their body are led by a godly, healthy, bold, energized leadership team - pastoral and volunteer. Leadership matters. It matters to God because the quality of our leadership has direct impact on the depth of His disciples and the effectiveness of His mission.
Many of us do not have training in leadership (and seminaries are not stepping up to the plate). This is often true of pastors. Even though much of a pastor's ministry relates to leadership, few have received leadership training or mentoring. The good news is: We can learn to lead! There are few natural-born leaders. Most of us are 'leaders in training' and will always be learning to lead more effectively. As Paul said, if you are going to lead, "govern diligently" (Romans 12:8). Lead Boldly.
Tuesday, July 9, 2013
A leadership fable
"Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God which he bought with his own blood. I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears."
-Paul in his farewell address to the elders of Ephesus, Acts 20
'Pastor Bill' moved to Pennsylvania as the first pastor in a church plant. Soon after, staff members from the larger 'mother' church stopped by for a visit. Before they left, they said, "We're really praying for you."
At first Bill assumed that they were simply praying for ministry success. Soon, though, he began to realize that they knew something he didn't.
Bill noticed that at the leadership board level in the new church, an individual who was one of the founding members seemed to have veto power. He also noted that when decisions were made that "Chris" didn't like, Bill started to hear the board's confidential discussions become common knowledge among Chris' friends in the congregation, a violation of board policy. These friends would then lobby Bill and others to move in a different direction.
Over several years, Bill watched the elder-board meetings become increasingly difficult and sometimes downright ugly, with language and attitudes from several of the members that shocked him. As well, some on the board who had been close supporters began becoming distant and critical as Chris moved in on those relationships Bill could only conclude that his leadership was being undermined behind the scenes, slowly but surely. He came to deeply dread board meetings after becoming a target on numerous issues.
Pastor Bill was in a conundrum. The church was growing rapidly from a group of about 60 to well over 300. Most members had little idea of the pain behind the scenes, but Bill was increasingly discouraged. He began to see Chris as an arsonist who lit fires all over the church but was never around when the firemen came to extinguish them.
At one congregational meeting, after a vote to overwhelmingly support Bill against a group of dissidents headed by Chris, one of those who wanted Bill to leave loudly stated he was going to withdraw all financial support from the church because of its decision. He then stalked out of the auditorium.
Bill started to ask questions of pastors at the mother church and found that Chris had a problematic history there as well. In fact, the pastor had vowed that Chris would never serve in leadership there again. Chris and his friends were no longer even attending Bill's church but continued sowing seeds of discord and dissension among friends and acquaintances still there.
Eventually, Bill and his wife made the painful decision to leave. His board was not ready to place the two main dissidents under discipline, although board members had been strongly encouraged to do so by many from whom they sought counsel. Bill left, discouraged and clinically depressed.
The congregation was increasingly becoming aware of the underlying power issues. In response to Bill's leaving and the lack of resolution to those power plays, more than half of the congregation left after a series of congregational meetings even as Chris returned to the church and reclaimed a leadership role.
A new pastor was called, and he was out of the ministry within a short number of years. A third pastor was called, and he, too, left amid power issues within a short number of years.
Finally, the local bishop intervened on the same issue where the church board had not acted, insisting that Chris could no longer serve in any leadership position in the church. The church had churned up three pastors and left numerous wounded members it its wake. One individual who had watched the destruction observed that this church had hurt more people than it had helped.
How many of us have watched similar situations where leaders have not had the courage to confront toxic, divisive individuals who wound the sheep and divide the bride of Christ? Even those who hide behind a mask of 'spirituality' and 'concern' for the church. One of the primary roles of a shepherd is to protect the flock from harm. David actually fought lions to protect his flock, but we are often unwilling to confront divisive individuals who do as much damage as a lion loose among the sheep!
Those leaders' reluctance to confront was an egregious but common failure. Amazingly, church leaders often allow behavior to flourish that would not be permitted in the secular business workplace.
Conflict will occur in the church, even those with attentive shepherds. So how we handle conflict is important. The scriptural principle (see Matthew 18, 1 Corinthians 5, 2 Corinthians 2:5-11 and Galatians 6:1-2) is to start gently and with prayer in the hope that we can persuade those causing harm to move away from their sin. If this is not successful, we are to apply successive steps of pressure, always seeking resolution and a restoration to fellowship. When all else fails, Scripture calls for the individual to be put out of the body - again, with the hope that this action will cause him or her to turn back to God. All confrontation is to be done in love, accompanied by firmness.
Most people do not like conflict and confrontation (beware of those who do). We live in a day of political correctness, where it is not popular to label behavior as "wrong." We are told that it not right "to judge" others. None of us sign up for leadership to deal with sinful people and ugly situations.
The question is: Do we love God's flock as much as He loves His flock? When we confront false teaching, sinful behavior or division in the body, we are simply acting on His behalf as shepherds of His flock and in obedience to His command in order to protect His sheep for whom He gave His life. Are we willing to put up with momentary discomfort in order to protect people for whom Jesus was willing to die? This is an unwelcome but necessary part of the leadership calling.
-Paul in his farewell address to the elders of Ephesus, Acts 20
'Pastor Bill' moved to Pennsylvania as the first pastor in a church plant. Soon after, staff members from the larger 'mother' church stopped by for a visit. Before they left, they said, "We're really praying for you."
At first Bill assumed that they were simply praying for ministry success. Soon, though, he began to realize that they knew something he didn't.
Bill noticed that at the leadership board level in the new church, an individual who was one of the founding members seemed to have veto power. He also noted that when decisions were made that "Chris" didn't like, Bill started to hear the board's confidential discussions become common knowledge among Chris' friends in the congregation, a violation of board policy. These friends would then lobby Bill and others to move in a different direction.
Over several years, Bill watched the elder-board meetings become increasingly difficult and sometimes downright ugly, with language and attitudes from several of the members that shocked him. As well, some on the board who had been close supporters began becoming distant and critical as Chris moved in on those relationships Bill could only conclude that his leadership was being undermined behind the scenes, slowly but surely. He came to deeply dread board meetings after becoming a target on numerous issues.
Pastor Bill was in a conundrum. The church was growing rapidly from a group of about 60 to well over 300. Most members had little idea of the pain behind the scenes, but Bill was increasingly discouraged. He began to see Chris as an arsonist who lit fires all over the church but was never around when the firemen came to extinguish them.
At one congregational meeting, after a vote to overwhelmingly support Bill against a group of dissidents headed by Chris, one of those who wanted Bill to leave loudly stated he was going to withdraw all financial support from the church because of its decision. He then stalked out of the auditorium.
Bill started to ask questions of pastors at the mother church and found that Chris had a problematic history there as well. In fact, the pastor had vowed that Chris would never serve in leadership there again. Chris and his friends were no longer even attending Bill's church but continued sowing seeds of discord and dissension among friends and acquaintances still there.
Eventually, Bill and his wife made the painful decision to leave. His board was not ready to place the two main dissidents under discipline, although board members had been strongly encouraged to do so by many from whom they sought counsel. Bill left, discouraged and clinically depressed.
The congregation was increasingly becoming aware of the underlying power issues. In response to Bill's leaving and the lack of resolution to those power plays, more than half of the congregation left after a series of congregational meetings even as Chris returned to the church and reclaimed a leadership role.
A new pastor was called, and he was out of the ministry within a short number of years. A third pastor was called, and he, too, left amid power issues within a short number of years.
Finally, the local bishop intervened on the same issue where the church board had not acted, insisting that Chris could no longer serve in any leadership position in the church. The church had churned up three pastors and left numerous wounded members it its wake. One individual who had watched the destruction observed that this church had hurt more people than it had helped.
How many of us have watched similar situations where leaders have not had the courage to confront toxic, divisive individuals who wound the sheep and divide the bride of Christ? Even those who hide behind a mask of 'spirituality' and 'concern' for the church. One of the primary roles of a shepherd is to protect the flock from harm. David actually fought lions to protect his flock, but we are often unwilling to confront divisive individuals who do as much damage as a lion loose among the sheep!
Those leaders' reluctance to confront was an egregious but common failure. Amazingly, church leaders often allow behavior to flourish that would not be permitted in the secular business workplace.
Conflict will occur in the church, even those with attentive shepherds. So how we handle conflict is important. The scriptural principle (see Matthew 18, 1 Corinthians 5, 2 Corinthians 2:5-11 and Galatians 6:1-2) is to start gently and with prayer in the hope that we can persuade those causing harm to move away from their sin. If this is not successful, we are to apply successive steps of pressure, always seeking resolution and a restoration to fellowship. When all else fails, Scripture calls for the individual to be put out of the body - again, with the hope that this action will cause him or her to turn back to God. All confrontation is to be done in love, accompanied by firmness.
Most people do not like conflict and confrontation (beware of those who do). We live in a day of political correctness, where it is not popular to label behavior as "wrong." We are told that it not right "to judge" others. None of us sign up for leadership to deal with sinful people and ugly situations.
The question is: Do we love God's flock as much as He loves His flock? When we confront false teaching, sinful behavior or division in the body, we are simply acting on His behalf as shepherds of His flock and in obedience to His command in order to protect His sheep for whom He gave His life. Are we willing to put up with momentary discomfort in order to protect people for whom Jesus was willing to die? This is an unwelcome but necessary part of the leadership calling.
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
Eleven things that discourage pastors and Christian leaders
Board members and congregants and staff seem to find it easy to criticize their pastor or leader. After all he works for them. As a former pastor and one who consults with pastors regularly I would suggest that there are a number of things that bring major discouragement to your pastor.
1. Bringing a major issue up on Sunday after your pastor has preached. Most non-preachers don't understand how much energy goes into a Sunday message. Unless there is an emergency, Sunday is the wrong day to dump issues on your pastor. So is Monday when he is recovering from Sunday. For most of us weekends are just regular days. Not so for your pastor.
2. Professional critics. Now I am a firm believer that we ought to be able to talk about any issue but I am most likely to listen carefully to who I know have my best interests in mind. There are people who believe that their spiritual gift is to criticize others, especially pastors. While your pastor may choose to respond graciously it does not mean that he is not hurt deeply by a constant barrage of criticism.
3. Anonymous letters. I have a rule. If a letter is anonymous I will not read it. If someone does not have the guts to reveal who they are why should I listen to their counsel (actually it is rarely counsel but critical feedback).
4. Passive aggressive individuals. These are those who say one thing to one's face and then do the opposite behind one's back. As I have said previously, this is not only a form of dishonesty but it requires a lot of time and energy when that behavior causes conflict in relationships and in the church.
5. Passing on information from anonymous sources and refusing to reveal where the information comes from. Comments like "Many people feel this way" without naming who feels that way leaves a pastor in an impossible position. I for one, will not have a conversation with anyone who comes with this kind of information if they are not willing to reveal the source. I cannot evaluate the information without knowing the source and some sources I will discount immediately because they are professional critics.
6. Power brokers. These are people who use power to get their way rather than through the normal channels of leadership. They try to win by intimidation or threats. As a leader I ask them to please share their issues with my leadership group which immediately causes them to back off. They don't like accountability but want to force their way behind the scenes.
7. Legalists. These are professional pharisees who believe that everyone should see life and Christian practices (most of them are not Christian practices) their way. There is much in the Christian life that is grey and where we are to follow our conscience. Legalists want people to live in their bondage (see Galatians) rather than in the freedom of Jesus.
8. Sharing issues about you with others rather than with you personally. I invite any who have issues with me to talk to me. It is gossip, passive aggressive behavior, destructive and cowardly to talk to others about a leader when they have not talked to the leader themselves. It also is unbiblical (see Matthew 18).
9. Staff who go around them to complain to board members. This is not only bad governance but it hurts the ability of a leader to lead. Furthermore, the board member gets only one side of the story. If a staff member feels that there is a moral issue at stake he or she should ask for a meeting with the pastor and the church chair so there can be a real conversation without violating the chain of supervision.
10. Those who want their church to look like the church they left. Here is an irony. Many people leave a church unhappy but their version of church is the one they left. Every church is unique. Your present church will never be your former church, for better or for worse. Suggestions are great when make in the right spirit. Your pastor does not pastor your former church but your current church.
11. Church leaders who don't keep confidences. What is said in a board room belongs there and no where else. Those who violate board procedures and agreements kill trust for the rest of the board.
All of T.J. Addington's books including his latest, Deep Influence, are available from the author for the lowest prices and a $2.00 per book discount on orders of ten or more.
1. Bringing a major issue up on Sunday after your pastor has preached. Most non-preachers don't understand how much energy goes into a Sunday message. Unless there is an emergency, Sunday is the wrong day to dump issues on your pastor. So is Monday when he is recovering from Sunday. For most of us weekends are just regular days. Not so for your pastor.
2. Professional critics. Now I am a firm believer that we ought to be able to talk about any issue but I am most likely to listen carefully to who I know have my best interests in mind. There are people who believe that their spiritual gift is to criticize others, especially pastors. While your pastor may choose to respond graciously it does not mean that he is not hurt deeply by a constant barrage of criticism.
3. Anonymous letters. I have a rule. If a letter is anonymous I will not read it. If someone does not have the guts to reveal who they are why should I listen to their counsel (actually it is rarely counsel but critical feedback).
4. Passive aggressive individuals. These are those who say one thing to one's face and then do the opposite behind one's back. As I have said previously, this is not only a form of dishonesty but it requires a lot of time and energy when that behavior causes conflict in relationships and in the church.
5. Passing on information from anonymous sources and refusing to reveal where the information comes from. Comments like "Many people feel this way" without naming who feels that way leaves a pastor in an impossible position. I for one, will not have a conversation with anyone who comes with this kind of information if they are not willing to reveal the source. I cannot evaluate the information without knowing the source and some sources I will discount immediately because they are professional critics.
6. Power brokers. These are people who use power to get their way rather than through the normal channels of leadership. They try to win by intimidation or threats. As a leader I ask them to please share their issues with my leadership group which immediately causes them to back off. They don't like accountability but want to force their way behind the scenes.
7. Legalists. These are professional pharisees who believe that everyone should see life and Christian practices (most of them are not Christian practices) their way. There is much in the Christian life that is grey and where we are to follow our conscience. Legalists want people to live in their bondage (see Galatians) rather than in the freedom of Jesus.
8. Sharing issues about you with others rather than with you personally. I invite any who have issues with me to talk to me. It is gossip, passive aggressive behavior, destructive and cowardly to talk to others about a leader when they have not talked to the leader themselves. It also is unbiblical (see Matthew 18).
9. Staff who go around them to complain to board members. This is not only bad governance but it hurts the ability of a leader to lead. Furthermore, the board member gets only one side of the story. If a staff member feels that there is a moral issue at stake he or she should ask for a meeting with the pastor and the church chair so there can be a real conversation without violating the chain of supervision.
10. Those who want their church to look like the church they left. Here is an irony. Many people leave a church unhappy but their version of church is the one they left. Every church is unique. Your present church will never be your former church, for better or for worse. Suggestions are great when make in the right spirit. Your pastor does not pastor your former church but your current church.
11. Church leaders who don't keep confidences. What is said in a board room belongs there and no where else. Those who violate board procedures and agreements kill trust for the rest of the board.
All of T.J. Addington's books including his latest, Deep Influence, are available from the author for the lowest prices and a $2.00 per book discount on orders of ten or more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)