Evaluate the board you serve on. You may be surprised!

One of the most frequent conversations among evangelicals is the sad state of society today. Truth is that we are good complainers and there is plenty to complain about as there is in any society. What is less common are active efforts by the church to change those things that we are concerned about on a local level. Evidently that is someone else's business - maybe the politicians we elect or the judges they appoint.

There are many churches who love on those around them and that is both laudable and God honoring. However, no one church can make a significant dent a city or a region. For that you need the Big C Church - God's people working together to made a difference across denominational lines. God's people don't belong to my church, they belong to all Bible teaching churches in our city. It is The Church that can make the biggest difference. It is only then that we move from building our many little kingdoms to building His Kingdom.

In Jesus' powerful prayer in John 17:20-23, Jesus prays this for those who believe in Him. "My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one - I in them and you in me - so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me."

Jesus envisioned a Church characterized by oneness and unity and it was in this oneness and unity that the world will recognize that Christ  was sent by God. Our oneness was a sign of Christ's divinity. Our division would likewise be a sign that Christ was not divine - to a watching world. 

The big C Church is a powerful entity to be reckoned with but only when they are speaking with one voice to issues within our society. This is why there is a growing movement around the world to form City Transformation Movements where the Big C Church can put aside their differences and work as one in unity to influence the city for Christ.

One such movement is 4Tucson that in a broad coalition with churches across the spectrum is seeking to see Biblical transformation come to their city.

There are some impediments to such ministries which is why they are too few. First, you have to believe that God wants to transform your city and that He has the power to do so. Second, you have to commit to working with the Big C Church, setting aside minor differences for the unity of the Gospel. Third, one has to stop building one's little kingdom for the opportunity to build Christ's Kingdom. And finally we must give up our small and insignificant dreams for a large God sized dream worthy of our attention.

10 Signs that you attend an unhealthy and spiritually abusive church in the wake of Harvest Bible Chapel

As I have been thinking about the events at Harvest Bible Chapel, Mars Hill, Willow Creek, and several other large congregations walking down the same path, I have been reflecting on some common traits of dishealth and spiritual abuse. The sad thing is that these behaviors are antithetical to what a healthy church looks like (think the book of Ephesians) and the fruit of the Spirit. Sometimes, this spiritual abuse is found mainly on staff; other times, like Harvest Bible Chapel and Mars Hill, it is or was pervasive. These afflictions are not confined to any church size but rather a mindset among leaders, usually led by the senior leader. If you observe several of the following characteristics in your church, be wary!

A strong leader who others cannot question
The pastors of the above congregations and those like them have leaders who are a "force of nature" that others, even elders and staff, find hard, if not impossible, to challenge. In fact, these individuals often have a very black-and-white mentality toward people: If you agree with them, you are a friend. When you disagree with them, you become an enemy. This is how they see people: Friends or enemies with no grey in the middle. Staff, elders, and those who are close learn quickly that if you cross a particular line, you are done, and your job or ministry is in jeopardy.

Use of a board to manipulate and legitimize behavior
Boards are used in these churches not to evaluate issues or guard the health of the church (on the last score, firing the dysfunctional leader would be in order) but to legitimize the wishes of the senior leader and provide a kind of "spiritual cover" to them where they can hide behind the decisions of the board. Ironically, while these individuals talk as if the board has absolute authority and power, the reality is that they don't. It is the senior leader who has the authority and power. Even now, at Harvest Bible Chapel, it is clear that the board still does not have the freedom to act as a board even though James MacDonald is physically gone.

An inordinate degree of secrecy
Decisions are made with secrecy in many of these situations. When people ask questions about budgets, ministry decisions, or things like discipline and resignations, they are told, "Trust your leaders," "There are many things you don't know," "These are Godly men (or women) with the implication that you, therefore, should not question them. In fact, the Godliness of the board and pastor is often way overblown, as it is simply a cover for their decisions. After all, who can question them if they spent all this time in prayer and Scripture study? The truth is that in these boards, there is no time given to Scripture study or prayer beyond the formal necessities. It is far more about self-preservation, politics, and scheming than it is about a spiritual group.

Lack of truth
Secrecy is not the only issue. There is a consistent lack of truth in these situations. Decisions are spun to fit the leadership narrative, whether it has any relation to truth. Even here, those in the know don't dare speak out, making them complicit in the lies being told. The thinking is that the "little people" can't handle the reasons for the decision, so just like in Washington, there is a lot of fake news from church leaders.

Disparagement of critics or those who ask questions
Remember that those who disagree are seen as enemies, especially if they cannot be brought around to the party line. The groupthink in these situations is massive, and it is challenging from a relational standpoint to buck the party line or to question what everyone else seems to agree with. In reality, many may not agree, but they are unwilling to speak up as it disrupts the unspoken code that we should agree with the party line. Why else are so many former staff members or board members from Harvest Bible Chapel only now speaking out when they have left their positions or the church. The same can be said for Willow.

These dynamics extend to the congregation as well. When congregants ask legitimate questions, they are told that the Godly elders have looked at the situation, and after a great deal of prayer and deliberation (usually a falsity), they have chosen the best path. In other words, don't question our decisions. Unfortunately, in many cases, financial transparency is not present as well. At its worst, this is nothing less than manipulation and intimidation, a shutting down of legitimate discussion, and an attempt to evade any kind of accountability as the pastor, senior staff, and board of Harvest Bible Chapel did for decades. Congregants learn quickly that they want to avoid creating waves and choose to simply follow. Those who insist on asking questions are eventually driven out of their staff, board position, or church.

The liberal use of charges, church discipline, public rebuke, and shunning behaviors
Here is the cost of speaking up, disagreeing, asking questions, and not going away. These churches will ensure that you go away, but with your reputation in tatters, your character impugned, and your joy destroyed. Spiritual-sounding charges with lots of scripture and long letters or phone calls are designed to bring people back into the party line. When that does not work, church discipline is applied and made public as a rebuke and manipulation tactic to get people back to the fold with their "repentance." When these tactics don't work, people are shunned, and other church members are told not to speak to them as they have been given "over to Satan" because of their sin.

This is done with maximum public exposure through announcements from the pulpit, video messages to the church, emails, or letters, all designed to impugn the reputation of the "guilty" and to justify their indefensible behaviors. This is not only politics at its worst, but the use of spiritual language is designed to justify and intimidate the whole congregation to toe the party line. The more people are scared, the more cover the senior leader has (and the board) because people will not challenge them. In the case of Harvest Bible Chapel, dissidents whose information is now proven to be true wrote a blog called "The Elephants Debt" because of the massive financial mismanagement of the church. James actually sued them to shut them down until he discovered belatedly that there was this thing called "discovery," which would force him to open his books. That caused him to drop the lawsuit.

Frequent use of language like submission, obedience, and trust
When words like this are often used in a church, it signifies that leadership seeks to shut down discussion. Congregants are told to "submit" to the church's leadership. While Scripture says that, it says a lot more about the character and behavior of leaders, which, in these cases, is ignored. Trust us, obey us, submit to us, and if you don't, you are in violation of Scripture and subject to discipline and action by the board. Congregants are never to submit to lies or dysfunction.

A culture of fear on staff and on the board
Fear is the end product of these behaviors and is a spiritually abusive system. That fear is a tactic by leaders to intimidate staff into doing what they want to be done. Years ago, someone who attended an annual event at Willow told me that staff members had to get up in front of Bill and other staff and share their ministry results and goals. Bill harshly criticized many in public, which was devastating to them. My friend, a church leader from another church, was impressed. He learned much from Bill! I remember saying, "I would never work for a leader like that." Angry, manipulative, coercive, and verbally abusive leaders are not fit to lead. None of these behaviors exhibit the Fruit of the Spirit. In these systems, a spirit of fear prevails and serves the leader's purpose.

Bodies pile up
When many people are left in the wake of a ministry and good people at that, one needs to ask why? I once did a conflict intervention with a church of a thousand and interviewed nine individuals who had left staff in the past 18 months. All their stories were the same and revolved around the senior pastor. The board had never asked any questions! When the bodies pile up, it is a sign that something may be amiss and that it is time to ask some questions.

A closed system
This describes a closed system that does not allow anyone but the senior leader to honestly think for themselves. It is rotten to the core as a system designed to eliminate accountability, force compliance, and allow the senior leader to get their way. People only realize how sick the system is once the senior leader has been gone for some time.

Don't ignore symptoms like this in your church if you should see them. They are warning signs that something is amiss, and many people will be hurt if not addressed.

Confusing, outdated, unclear and vague church governance systems

Many churches are long overdue to change their governance systems, but I am still surprised to read many church constitutions that make real leadership very difficult. Church leaders who would never structure their business the way their church structures leadership are seemingly OK with the fact that it is almost impossible to do any kind of leadership within their governance system.

Yes, churches are not businesses. They are far more important that a business because eternal lives are at stake. Yet we continue to hamper leadership that would help the church to be more effective. Here are some common governance issues that congregations still allow to hamper their leadership.

Keep the leadership from controlling the budget

In what other arena would you find a system where those who are charged with the direction and effectiveness of the ministry (elder, Deacons or whatever the group is called in your polity), must go to another board (often trustees) to designate funds toward ministry initiatives. One board is charged with the effectiveness of the church ministry and its direction and the other board holds the dollars to carry it out hostage.

Such systems are absolute foolishness from a leadership perspective, yet they continue to exist. Every decision the first board makes must then be negotiated and made by a second board when it involves funds. And a board that is not vested with the direction of the ministry can determine whether they release the funds or not. In the best scenario this is a waste of time and energy. In the worst scenario, it sets up conflict between the two boards.

Multiple boards and multiple authorities

When you give a group the designation of “board” you give them implied authority. So, when you have multiple boards such as elders, deacons and trustees you have multiple groups with implied authority. Of course, this raises the question as to who is ultimately responsible for church leadership. When no one is in charge, everyone is in charge!

It is these kinds of structures that cause the best leaders to stay out of church leadership. They cannot lead and when they do, it is a very frustrating experience. And because no one desires to give up their power it is hard to change. In both scenarios, the power issue keeps people from making needed changes. We would not admit it, but it is true! And again, key decisions must be negotiated with multiple groups.

Confusing, overlapping and vague authority

Reading many church constitutions is a laborious activity because they are often full of confusing, overlapping and vague authority that makes it impossible to interpret who is responsible for what. Good governance documents should be simple, clear and designate lines of authority with precision. When this is not the case, the authors (well intentioned I am sure) set the congregation up for conflict and endless discussion.

If it is not simple, clear and delineate clear lines of authority it is a poor governance document and should be revised. Yet we resist revision because “you cannot change the bylaws.” Actually, you can since the bylaws serve the mission of the church rather than the church serving the bylaws. And you should.

What many don’t realize is that these kinds of poor governance structures keep leaders from leading and the church from moving forward. If you like the status quo this is a great strategy. If you care that the church is effective it is a terrible strategy. Often it takes the courage and diplomacy of a true leader to help others realize that their structures need to change if they want to be effective.

Let’s call poor governance systems for what they are and revise them for the sake of the gospel. 

Six board lessons from the recent Willow Creek events

My objective here is not to revisit the specific controversies of Willow Creek but to draw some lessons for those of us who serve on church boards to consider. For my part, I am drawing on decades of working with church boards as well as having served for years on various boards. The recent issues at Willow Creek simply serve to illustrate my observations. I suspect that the good people who serve(d) in leadership at Willow would agree with most of these observations.

One. You can have as sophisticated a board structure as you desire and still get into deep weeds. If you google Willow Creek and church governance you will see all kinds of advice for how churches should structure their governance. They used Policy Governance and wrote about running great meetings. In the end none of that mattered when the board could not hold the senior pastor accountable and failed to guard the health of the church. 

There are governance structures that will make ministry easier and some that will make ministry harder but the structure itself is only as good as the people who are leading. The bottom line is that governance structures while important are not a substitute for wise leaders. Sadly, the very ministry that held up its leadership paradigm as a model (Willow Creek), ended up with its whole leadership team resigning with no credibility left. It is a warning to all boards. 

I am very curious what the dynamics were at Willow that prevented people on the board who asked the right questions from staying in leadership. When discerning people ask discerning questions and they get shut down by the rest of the board it is a sign of a dysfunctional and unhealthy board and organizational culture.

Two: Any structure that prevents board members from asking questions of a senior leader and verifying their answers is flawed. I have encountered situations where in the name of Policy Governance, the board was not allowed to press into staff issues, or even ministry philosophy and they acquiesced to the senior leader's pushback.  Even while the senior leader was mistreating staff, creating a toxic workplace and making ministry decisions that alienated huge portions of the congregation. When it all came apart, the boards no longer had any credibility and had to step down. 

Only after the fact, and after huge damage had been done did these boards realize that they had failed to ask the hard questions, insist on answers and verify those answers. 

Three: Unhealthy pastors can and do use their boards to protect them and to silence discerning members of the congregation who are asking penetrating questions. When you try to silence others you either create a cult like atmosphere and healthy people leave, or there is a blow up when the voices persist (Willow Creek and Mars Hill), and finally leaders must confront it. Certainly not all voices in any organization are created equal but when people of good reputation and discernment speak up as they did at Willow Creek and Mars Hill they are ignored at the board's own peril. As they discovered.

One other observation. Boards cannot be intimidated by their senior pastor. If they are they will not be a healthy independent board. 

Four: Unhealthy governance systems or groups will eventually cause significant issues in the congregation. In the case of Mars Hill, the church ended up disbanding. In the case of Willow Creek, the leadership resigned. Think of the pain felt by the congregation in both cases. When there are unhealthy pastors or boards, that health issues will eventually be felt by the congregation. 

Five: Sometimes a board needs an outside voice(s) in order to help them see beyond their desire to protect the pastors, themselves or the church and to do the right thing. In the middle of a crisis or when people feel under siege, poor decisions are often made. What might have happened at Willow if the board had brought in and listened to a wise outside voice. Someone who has stature in the Evangelical community. This is not a sign of weakness but a sign of maturity. If nothing else an outside voice of reason and wisdom can verify the board's approach - or challenge them. 

Six. A sign of a healthy leader is their willingness to be accountable to a board even if they disagree with some of their decisions. Healthy leaders solicit the opinions of others, listen to their authority, respect it and abide by it even when they may disagree. If a senior pastor will not abide by board decisions or allow the board to make those decisions beware! It means the board has authority in name only and not in reality.


See also Willow Creek and governance. A watershed moment