Seven evaluative statements for your board

 

Church boards (and other boards) often forget what good governance looks like. Not because they don't care but because, in the press of ministry life, they forget. 

A simple way to evaluate your board work is to have everyone on the board assign a number from 1 to 10 for each of the statements below. Ten signifies we do this well and consistently, and one signifies we do it poorly or inconsistently. Average out the scores for each statement and have a board conversation around it.

1. We have an outward vision rather than internal preoccupation

Churches with an outward vision do so because their boards are more occupied with thinking about how to impact the community and world rather than spending the majority of their time discussing what happens inside the church.

2. We encourage a diversity of viewpoints

Healthy boards do not do "group think" but encourage each member to think for themselves, share their thoughts, and, through the diversity of viewpoints, come to better decisions.

3. We do strategic leadership more than administrative details

Boards are not designed to spend their time on administrative details that others can do. They are designed to provide strategic leadership to the organization and grapple with the BIG rocks.

4. We have a clear distinction between the board and lead pastor roles

A lack of clarity between the responsibilities of a church board and that of a lead pastor creates either confusion or conflict. Clear distinctions between the board and lead pastor roles foster healthy relationships between the two and smoother leadership.

5. We make collective rather than individual decisions

Healthy boards make collective rather than individual decisions. They also have an understanding that once the decision is made, each member will be supportive of the decision. No individual can force their will on the board or choose not to support its decisions.

6. We are more future-focused than we are present or past-focused

The best boards have a clear focus on the future rather than on the past or present. While they may need to deal with current crises or some administrative details, their primary focus is on the future and how they can help the organization meet the needs of the future.

7. We are committed to being proactive in our leadership rather than reactive

The vast majority of church boards live in a reactive world - dealing with crises or day-to-day issues. The best boards are proactive in their leadership by setting appropriate policies and thinking about the future rather than doing reactive leadership that is focused on the present and second guessing the decisions of others.

See also, 
Church board self assessment. 15 Questions

Twelve characteristics of healthy church leaders

 

If we desire healthy church boards, we need to ask: "What are the characteristics of an effective church leader?" The fact that 80% of churches are plateaued or in decline would indicate that this is an important issue. When I consult with troubled churches is it not unusual to find that those in leadership are poorly equipped to lead. Consider some of the ways churches have traditionally filled leadership roles:

• We look for Godly individuals.
• People who have 'power' in the church get the nod.
• We try to balance 'power blocks' in the church by making sure there is representation of the various blocks on the board. This is one of the most destructive strategies as it sets the board and the church up for ongoing conflict. 
• There is an unofficial system that rotates key leaders through the leadership spots.
• We choose those who have been in the church a long time.
• Congregations simply nominate people; if they have the votes, they end up on the board regardless of gifting or qualifications.
• Leadership slots are filled even when there is a lack of qualified candidates. Priority is given to filling slots rather than ensuring leadership 'fit.'
• In many instances there is no job description or list of competencies for prospective board members.

Clearly, none of these methods is likely to result in a board of great effectiveness or impact. Nor are these methods likely to be 'leadership friendly' - motivating those with true leadership skills to serve.

The way we choose leaders and our understanding of what good leadership looks like goes to the heart of church health and ministry impact. Who you choose to lead will determine the impact of your congregation.

I would suggest that the New Testament implicitly or explicitly describes the kind of individuals who we should place in church leadership.

Exhibits godly character and lifestyle
This is the most critical, non-negotiable characteristic of a church leader. We are called to lead on behalf of Jesus Christ, as shepherds accountable to the Chief Shepherd (1 Peter 5:4). Paul made it clear in First Timothy and Titus that, above all else, a leader's life must be in the process of being transformed into the likeness of Christ. Only those deeply committed to personal transformation and authenticity can lead others in that direction.

Has a deep passion for Jesus
The church is about Jesus! He is its leader. We serve as leaders under Him. Thus, only those with a passion for Him are qualified to lead His people. Those we lead will be influenced by whatever passions drive us. It is painfully obvious when church leaders are more interested in power, ego or their own agendas than in leading Christ's people where He wants them to go. Remember, few congregations rise above the spiritual level of their leaders.

Displays personal humility
Leadership in the church differs in two significant respects from how it is practiced in other arenas. First, it is a leadership of service rather than power. As Peter wrote, "Overseers should be 'eager to serve: not lording it over those entrusted to you.'" Second, this leadership already has its agenda set by the Lord of the church. Our agenda has been set, and our leadership priorities are Christ's not our own. Without humility people are unlikely to bow to the will of the majority and far more likely to push for their agenda rather than God's agenda. 

Genuinely loves people
Ego-driven individuals love themselves, not others. Humble godly individuals love others as Christ loves them, and their leadership is fueled by genuine spiritual concern. The driving characteristic of God's pursuit of us has been unexplainable, powerful, unrelenting love, bathed in mercy, compassion, forgiveness and grace.

Is a lifelong learner
Leaders are learners. They are hungry to understand the leadership task. They are driven to lead well to become more effective. Nowhere is it more important for leaders to be lifelong learners than in the context of the local church. Healthy leaders are learners of God, of effective ministry options and methods and of leadership. Once leaders give up learning as a high value, their effective leadership days are over. Learners are flexible and teachable. They are willing to change their methodology to meet their mission as long as it is healthy and Biblical.

Understands and agrees with God's leadership assignment
I often ask leadership boards if they can clearly articulate their responsibilities. Invariably the answer is no, apart from generalities. It is my belief that God has given leaders specific responsibilities and every leadership board should be able to define its responsibilities. If you cannot define those responsibilities for your board you have a problem as it becomes every leader's opinion against another's rather than a shared understanding of God's leadership assignment.

Grapples with the future
To lead is to be out in front of others. True leadership is primarily about the future and secondarily about the present. While this may seem obvious, most leadership boards spend the majority of their time dealing with present-day rather than future issues. Healthy leaders are always looking toward the future. You can lead the status quo, you can lead crisis or you can lead into the future.

Focuses on the team
Warning: Never elect or appoint to leadership an individual who cannot graciously work in a team setting - and publicly and privately support decisions that the team has made. Leadership teams require team players. Those who cannot function as a healthy member of a team will destroy the unity necessary for a leadership team to lead (remember humility). Mature, healthy leaders choose to subordinate their egos to the will of the group and deeply value the perspectives and input of others and the collective decisions of the board.

Leads willingly
Good leaders are willing leaders (remember 1 Peter 5). Willing leaders are ready to make the sacrifices necessary to lead, without inner resentment and frustration. It is a mistake to coerce individuals to serve in leadership positions. When we push people to serve before they are mature enough to handle the difficulties of leadership (such as conflict), they often have experiences that cause them to avoid future leadership. In addition, unwilling leaders can often lead harshly without patience and grace. 

Positively influences others
Real leaders have influence over others, whether they are in positions of leadership or not. This is the key: When considering individuals for leadership, ask the following questions: "Do they already have a positive influence over others? Do people look to them for leadership? Do they lead people closer to Christ and in positive ministry directions?"

Has an action bias
Leaders do things. They have a bias toward action and away from the status quo. They don't always know what to do but they will try things and see what sticks, what works. Leaders are never content with how things are but dream of how they could be - continually looking for ways to accomplish mission more effectively. Their focus is not the status quo but the future.

Is a purveyor of hope
Leaders are optimistic about the future and convey that optimism and hope to those they lead. They believe that positive things can and will happen because they understand that it is God who empowers and it is He who has promised to be with the Church until the end of the age. Pessimists are not leaders! Pessimists telegraph caution and see all the reasons why things cannot happen. Just read the epistles of the Apostle Paul. Always optimistic based on the power of God. Always expecting the power of God to prevail.

Rarely will a church rise above the personal, spiritual and missional health of its leaders. Who you select is a key either to mediocrity or to health. No one has all of these characteristics in equal measure but they are key questions to ask about those whom you put into leadership.

Refreshing your church's governance and leadership paradigm

 

Few things impact the life of your church more, but are thought about less than that of your governance and leadership paradigm.

Recently I was in a board conversation where a board member said, "this is the first time in decades that we have evaluated ourselves or how we do our work as a board." Think about that. All major ministry decisions go though a leadership board in most churches, but we rarely pay attention to how well we do the governance/leadership role.

Why do we regularly update our ministry strategies to meet the needs of a new day but rarely update our governance/leadership strategies to meet the needs of a new day?

Jesus designed the church to be the most effective, flexible, and missional organism on the face of the earth. Yet, our leadership systems are often clunky and difficult to negotiate. Remember this:

• In many cases our leadership systems come from many years in the past when the church was founded. A different day with different needs and a different understanding of leadership paradigms. 
• Governance/leadership systems were put in when the church was small. If your church is over 150 on a Sunday it is no longer a family church.
• Nearly every growing church has reexamined their leadership/governance systems to ensure that it serves them well today. What got you to here, got you to here but it won't get you to there.
• Boards and church leaders should examine their systems annually, yet many have not done so in a decade if ever.
• Church leaders often have frustrations about their leadership paradigms that could be eliminated if so desired.
• All this matters because the return on our ministry investment is eternal. The stakes matter and our ability to remain effective, flexible and missional is always at stake.

If you have not examined how you do leadership/governance in your congregation in the past five years, I would encourage you to do so. My book, High Impact Church Boards can help you understand how to evaluate and organize for maximum spiritual impact. 

In addition, I am available to meet with church boards and dialogue with them on the challenges they face and possible solutions. With zoom technology, this can be done easily at low cost to you. If interested, you may contact me at tjaddington@gmail.com.

If your leadership/governance system needs to be refreshed. Do so for the sake of the impact that God desires your congregation to have. 

The dangers of "representative" church leadership

It sounds like a good idea. The church has six or seven major ministries so why not have the leader of each of those ministries on the church leadership team - whether it is a council or board of elders or some other name. After all, we don't want any of these ministries not represented at the leadership level!

What sounds like a good idea can actually be a bad idea and in this case cause negative consequences that can linger for years. Let me explain.

Let's start with the mission and vision thing. In representative church government there are by definition multiple missions and visions - each ministry has one. It is challenging enough to drive one central mission in any church and to stay focused on that. It is impossible to focus on multiple missions and visions. What you end up with is an incoherent mission that is being pulled in various directions as each leader and team seek to exert their authority and advocate for their piece of the pie. 

Healthy and effective churches have one central mission that every ministry contributes to. In representative governance the situation is reversed as the church is to serve multiple missions. In healthy church governance the leadership group puts the mission of the church first, sees the whole rather than the parts and makes decisions that are best for the church as a whole.

There are politics in the church just as there are in other organizations. Representative governance will by its very nature become political. If you doubt this, try to change your governance to a healthier paradigm and you face the difficulty of trying to convince those who represent a ministry, have power in their sphere to give that power and fiefdom up. 

I was asked to meet with the leaders of a church in the Midwest who had this kind of a system. They called because the pastor and several leaders of the church were experiencing huge frustration in getting decisions made and moving the church to a healthier place. The church was stuck in a rut and getting anything done was frustrating.

In or conversation two things became clear. No one thought the current system worked well and no one was willing to give up their respective authority in their area to make it work better. Even though they would have denied it, this was church politics and personal power at its worst - but not uncommon.

In representative government:

• There is not a true central missional focus
• Decisions are hard to make because they need to be negotiated with too many parties
• Politics and turf wars are built into the system
• The health of the church as a whole suffers
• Pastors cannot lead as there are multiple leaders doing their own thing
• Meetings are long and unproductive
• No one truly gets served well in the end
• Your best volunteers see the above and often opt out after experiencing the system that provides inertia rather than progress.

I am available to meet with church boards and dialogue with them on the challenges they face and possible solutions. With zoom technology, this can be done easily at low cost to you. If interested, you may contact me at tjaddington@gmail.com.

High Impact Church Boards and Leading From The Sandbox are both back in print

I am pleased to announce that High Impact Church Boards and Leading From the Sandbox are back in print and available. 

The books are available at AddingtonConsulting.org

I am available to meet with church boards and dialogue with them on the challenges they face and possible solutions. With zoom technology, this can be done easily at low cost to you. If interested, you may contact me at tjaddington@gmail.com.

Willow Creek and governance lessons: A watershed moment

The inevitable resignation of the entire board of Willow Creek Community church today along with that of the two senior pastors is a watershed moment for church governance - and its failure. There are many lessons to be learned about what good and poor governance look like when it comes to the church. The leadership failures at Willow will become textbook fodder on governance for years to come.

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.