Trends in Missions Today

There are a number of common trends among mission agencies today that are very encouraging in terms of their missional effectiveness.

The introduction of Key Result Areas and Annual Ministry Plans. This is all about a new level of accountability and intentionality in the mission world. Among major agencies it is no longer acceptable to work without a plan and clarity on the results desired. As one of my colleagues observed, the only place to hide today in missions (from intentionality and accountability) is in some of the mom and pop missions. Interestingly, some major agencies have lost significant numbers of people who objected to the introduction of a new level of accountability and intentionality.

A second major trend is that of deploying personnel in teams who work synergistically together. It has been proven over and over that healthy teams are more effective than personnel deployed alone. Teams take into account a variety of gifts, encourage greater creativity and provide a greater level of care for personnel.

The move toward teams and the introduction of KRAs and AMPs has lead to another major development - the elimination of levels of management and supervision that were deemed necessary in the past. Missions are embracing the flat world and the idea of empowering teams on the ground to determine their plans and strategies and are therefore eliminating the management structure that was necessary in the absence of plans and teams. In our own mission, we have only three levels of leadership - the senior team, the international area team and the local team.

These changes have inevitably led to a fourth - the development of a set of metrics by which to measure effectiveness and success. Almost every major mission is grappling with the metrics issue and desiring to ensure that they have a way to measure their effectiveness. In many ways this is driven by donors who want to know that their major investments in missions are paying off. The Mission Exchange just did a major conference on this issue.

All of these changes have come amidst a movement by agencies to deal with unproductive or unhealthy personnel. This is the major issue being faced by new mission leaders today. In the past, many missions have defined their success by how many missionaries they had and paid little attention to the health and effectiveness of those leaders. This has led to many problems because unproductive or unhealthy personnel have a huge impact on those around them. While in the past it was unknown for a mission to let a missionary go, that is not the case today. There is much retooling taking place in missions and the transition of unhealthy personnel out of the organizations.

These trends have forced missions to raise up a generation of better leaders. Intentionality, health, metrics, plans and teams all require leadership and many agencies are scrambling to find those leaders since they did not focus on the leadership issue in the past. In many cases, agencies are looking outside their own mission to leaders from the church and business sector who have a leadership track record.

The new interest in results and healthy personnel has led to the development of greater ongoing learning and skill development. In the past one could have a lifetime of mission service with little ongoing education. Not anymore. The requirements of team, plans, metrics, health and leadership require ongoing skill development. Many agencies actually have a division that focuses on this ongoing learning.

Finally there is a major shift away from missionaries simply doing the hands on work to missionaries as equippers of others in line with Ephesians 4:12. Increasingly there is an emphasis on the development of partnerships with indigenous movements and the equipping of those movements for greatest missional effectiveness. It is a shift from a focus on "my" ministry to a focus on "our" ministry and the developing, empowering and equipping of healthy indigenous leaders.

All of these are encouraging developments toward mission work that can meet the needs of our globalized world where the opportunities and challenges are both significant.

When everyone is in charge, no one is in charge

I recently visited a congregation that has a lot of health in many ways - except in its leadership paradigm. It is a congregation of about 320 with a 50 member general board - although I doubt they ever get that many there. It is a labyrinth of boards and committees.

The pastor and several elders made the comment that no one is really in charge! It is in many ways leaderless apart from the fact that the pastor and elders seek to lead.

Unfortunately there are still tens of thousands of evangelical churches in this country - and elsewhere that operate like General Motors. Committees and boards galore, suffocating any ability of a group of truly qualified leaders to lead.

The result is ministry paralysis that prevents the church from making timely decisions or clarify ministry direction. This congregation has been plateaued at its current size for many years. It is unlikely to break through its barriers without rethinking and redoing its governance structure.

Often leaders don't tackle this issue because of a few loud voices who argue that to move away from a structure of multiple boards and committees is to rob the congregation of its involvement. They are right about one thing - God wants everyone's involvement. But they are wrong on the kind of involvement God wants of everyone. He wants everyone involved in meaningful ministry, not meaningless meetings!

The New Testament has a paradigm for leadership that looks nothing like the paradigm this church has. Actually this church's paradigm is that of the New England town hall, not Biblical leadership.

That is also why so many churches plateau and don't live missionally. Their structures keep them institutional rather than missional. How is your church doing?

Identifying and Removing Hidden Barriers to Growth

They are often hidden and not obvious but all ministries face barriers to growth that if not identified and removed will cause the ministry to plateau in its effectiveness.

One of those barriers is the leadership style, activities and priorities of the senior leader who is operating the same way they did when the organization was smaller. Since I blogged on this issue last week, two leaders have raised their hand and said, that is me - help me figure out how to lead differently so that I am not the barrier to growth.

Leaders and how they lead are responsible for much plateaued leadership. This is why it is very rare for a church to get much larger than 1,000 if it gets that far. As leaders continue to lead as they did when the church was 500, they effectively plateau the church unless changes are made.

Another barrier can be staff who were effective when the church was smaller but do not have the capacity to lead in their area as the Church grows. For instance, the larger the Church the more critical it is for staff to multiply themselves by training others and working through them. Some staff do that wonderfully. Some staff are always individual producers and cannot multiply themselves. Thus they become a barrier to growth in their area and when one area of ministry plateaus it causes other ministries to do so as well.

Ministry complexity can become a barrier to growth. Here is a counter intuitive observation. The larger the organization the more simple it must become if it is going to continue to grow. Growing ministries often go the other direction toward greater complexity. But complexity is difficult for leaders and members to get their hands around and the very complexity causes confusion, makes it hard to manage and diffuses ministry energy.

Another hidden barrier is either a lack of missional focus and clarity or confusing missional focus and lack of clarity. Again, the larger the organization the more critical it is for staff and volunteers to be clear on who they are, where they are going, how they are going to get there and what the end result of their ministry should be. Without this focus and clarity, ministries silo into their own orbit, people do what is right in their own eyes and ministry focus is hugely diffused.

Church governance that does not reflect its size if a common barrier to growth. Multiple boards, unempowered leaders, too many decisions that must go to the congregation are all barriers to growth because it simply takes too much time and energy to get anything done and the lack of permission granting leadership structures frustrates and takes precious time away from other leadership priorities.

A final hidden barrier to growth is the quality of congregational leadership on their senior board. I spoke recently to a pastor of a church of 1,200 whose leadership board is endlessly wrangling over petty issues, has no focus, wants to manage the staff and ministry, does not empower the senior pastor, cannot provide adequate direction and is not candid with the congregation. Here is a church that will never grow until the group is traded out for a group of leaders who know how to lead and are willing to do so.

Passion Killers

Why do some ministry staff have a high and contagious level of passion for what they do and other staffs have low and non contagious levels of passion?

Certainly some of it has to do with how individuals are wired personally. But, much of it has to do with the ministry environment in which they work - for environments will either fuel or kill passion in those who work in them.

Passion killers are those things that will diminish rather than fuel ministry passion.

There is the passion killer of ambiguous missional purpose. Organizations that do not have a compelling reason for existence that everyone understands and shares will diminish rather than fuel passion for ministry. General ministry purpose yields general ministry efforts with general ministry results. Lack of focus and clear definition of what we are all about will not generate much passion. No wonder such a high percentage of churches in our world exist without much excitement or energy around them.

There is the passion killer of control and micromanagement. Good people want to be developed, empowered and released rather than controlled or micromanaged. Control diminishes passion because it devalues people and essentially says "I can't trust you to do your job by yourself." It disempowers and discourages and over time diminishes enthusiasm for one's work. Leaders who control or micromanage by definition kill passion.

There is the passion killer of poor leadership. Leaders set the pace for the missional focus, health, level of energy and commitment and the synergistic working of a team. Where leaders don't provide that kind of directional leadership and cohesion passion begins to diminish. Poor leadership yields poor followership and teams will rarely rise above the passion and commitment and example of their leader. For passion to remain high it must start with the leader of the team.

As noted in my prior blog on risk, there is the passion killer of living with the status quo rather than being willing to take a risk for ministry leverage. Organizations that will not take a risk diminish the passion of those who long to do something different in order to get greater ministry results. When the answer is "no" we don't do that here, passion leads from discouragement!

There is the passion killer of unresolved conflict and lack of team cohesion. Teams, congregations, and organizations often live with high levels of negative stuff that is not resolved. Everyone knows that it is present but no one has the courage to face and resolve it. Over time, that diminishes the passion of good people whose desire to see something happen for Christ is discouraged by the dis health they are surrounded by.

Then there is the passion killer of leaders who are coasting toward the end of their ministry life, who don't really know where to go anymore but who are determined to "hang on" till the end, leaving staff without direction or real purpose. This is a real problem among pastors who have lost their ability to lead but who don't know what to do next and simply hang on. They may be great people but they are no longer leading and their lack of leadership diminishes passion among those they should be leading.

There is also the passion killer of leaders who are more about building their own success and legacy than working as a team. These leaders may have narcissistic tendencies and it is all about them. Their narcissism diminishes passion in others quickly as team member realize that they are simply being used rather than part of a cohesive, unified ministry team. It is about the leader and not about the mission. Some very large organizations, and churches, suffer from this passion killer.

Organizational culture and its leadership will either fuel or diminish passion. I would love to hear from readers on passion killers they have observed in their ministries.

Measuring Ministry Results

Ministries often do what they do, year in and year out without a clear sense of whether or not their ministry or efforts are paying off. Consider these examples.

I spent time this past week with a pastor of a church of 1,500. For years they did what many churches do in the summer - DVBS, putting huge resources, time and energy into this ministry. The Bible School would take some 300 volunteers. Given that investment he asked for a rigorous review of the results of the ministry. What he found out was that in three years, this massive ministry layout resulted in only eight new families coming to the church, three of whom were planning on coming anyway.

This year there is no DVBS.

My own church, for many years had a "sports ministry" - mainly baseball and dedicated half of its five acre lot to a baseball field. In the 25 years of the "sports ministry" there were no known new believers. Mainly it was church folks playing with each other. Nice but not strategic.

We often make the assumption that because something is "ministry" that it is useful, good and important. Assumptions without factual information on results is a great mistake. It confuses activity with results. All ministries have loads of activity, many see few results. You don't know if you don't evaluate and ask what the real, tangible results are of your activity. A simple but neglected proposition in many ministries.

Wise ministries actually measure ministry results. I suspect that there are massive layouts of time, energy and money to ministries in local churches and missions which yield very little but we don't realize it because we don't measure. In fact, we don't even think to question our practices since we are just used to doing them.

This implies that we are willing to say no to ministries that cannot demonstrate true missional effectiveness and challenge ministry teams to have a strategy for getting those results. It is not necessarily popular but it is missional.

The same pastor who shut down DVBS this year had folks come to him to start a new sports ministry - they are a church very interested in reaching out to their community. His response was that he would consider it when he saw the detailed plan on how the ministry would leverage its sports program to actually bring individuals to Christ and help them grow. That is, after all the mission of the church, and therefore each ministry within the church.

Wise leaders question everything and count everything. They don't rely on past history or blindly assume that ministries are producing real ministry results. What do you really measure? What areas of ministry are you not measuring? It is worth thinking about!

Simplicity and Complexity

Remember that last strategic plan you did for your organization? How much of it was ever implemented? Can you remember the details of what you decided? Or what about those things called ministry philosophy, values, preferred future or ministry outcomes? Do you remember what those are for your church? Would your leaders or staff remember? Are they helpful to you?

All of the above are good I am sure. But they often look like the jumble of paperclips in the picture - they are there somewhere and they can be helpful - if you can remember them when you need to or make sense out of them when you want to.

Consider this

Ministry is always complex

Complexity is confusing

Therefore complexity must be communicated with simplicity

Simplicity beats complexity every time

Most ministry leaders have a hard time remembering core documents or core missional commitments - let alone three year strategic plans. And if leaders don't remember those things, certainly those down the communication chain are even more challenged - if they care at all.

Despite the title of the book, "Simple Church," few churches are truly simple - nor are other ministries. The world is a complex place filled with complex problems that require complex solutions. Even the four basic Questions every leader must ask for their ministry requires a level of complexity:

1. What is our mission?

2. What are our guiding principles?

3. What is our central ministry focus - the thing we need to do well all the time?

4. What results do we want to see?

Rarely can I get a quick and clear answer to those questions even from the most senior leaders of an organization. That is not a criticism as much as it is an admission of the complexity inherent in even those four answers. Any good organization must ask and answer those questions - to say nothing of others that may be important.

The problem is that complexity creates confusion. Or, just as problematic, people deal with complexity by simply ignoring it (it takes too much energy) which is a worse fate than confused complexity! Is it any wonder why mission and vision drift take place so easily?

One of the best ways to simplify complexity is to tell stories. Jesus was a master at this. Stories grip the imagination and are remembered. Just think of the complexity of grace and the ways in which we respond or don't respond to grace and then think of the story of the prodigal son! So simple, so profound, so easily remembered and so full of content.

You may have a philosophy of ministry or uphold a certain value. Telling stories of those who have lived it out will be remembered even if the specific wording of your value is not. Stories are powerful simplifiers.

Metaphors do the same thing. The baseball diamond used by purpose driven churches takes complexity and simplifies it. I lead from a sandbox (hence the title of this blog) which takes complexity and simplifies it. A metaphor is something that can be repeated and remembered which is the goal!

Sometimes just a phrase, intentionally and often repeated does the trick. A friend of mine, pastor of a large church always tells the congregation that "We always must have a seat for the next person who is looking for a church home." He has said that for twenty five years and the church now has over 7,000 people in multiple worship venues. The value of always having a seat for the next individual has been owned by the congregation.

You can actually create an intentional church or organizational culture around those things that your care about and which are important to you but in order to do that one must take complexity and bring meaningful, rememberable simplicity. That takes great intentionality but those who do it find that their values, direction, mission and culture are understood implicitly or explicitly by their organization or congregation.

But complexity must be simplified. How do you simplify complexity and does your church or organization get it?

Complacency or urgency?

One of the deadliest threats to any ministry, be it a church, mission, mission team or some other ministry is that of complacency.

Complacency is defined as self satisfaction accompanied by unawareness of actual dangers or deficiencies (Webster).

I am struck at how often when talking to ministry leaders and asking them about how the ministry is doing that the answer is overwhelmingly positive.

There is often little urgency among those I interact with that things need to be different, that not all is well or that they need to do things differently. I contrast that response with those who are business owners who give me a very realistic answer regarding the challenges they face and the difficult issues they are wrestling with.

When I talk to ministry leaders and the vast majority of their report is positive and I don't hear the critical analysis of what should be different, what real deficiencies or threats exist, I know that I am talking to someone who does not live with a sense of urgency, tends to gloss over deficiencies and likes to put a positive spin on situations - rather than do the critical analysis needed to understand reality.

And, I can safely assume that their own teams or reports live with the same complacency they do. Perhaps it is the fact that ministries have so little accountability generally and that we just assume that Jesus will do what He wants to do that we don't ask and answer the critical questions and live with such complacency. Unlike those in the business world, many Christian leaders don't have to live with a profit or loss statement and thus live more easily with contentment with where things are.

The sad thing is that the state of the church and the effectiveness of much of what passes for missions is woefully inadaquate and ineffective. That is a result of complacency and lack of urgency.

That self-satisfaction comes from a lack of critical analysis of what could be, or ministry fruit left on the table because of our satisfaction with what is.

Companies that become complacent and self-satisfied die or go into bankruptcy - so General Motors and Chrysler and a host of others who have disappeared in the last decade. Ministries simply move into decline, seemingly oblivious that anything is wrong or that things could be different.

Good leaders are never complacent or satisfied and they do not allow their teams to live in complacency either. They are always asking critical questions about priorities, strategy, opportunities and dangers. They celebrate wins but they never camp on the wins or the success of the past but are always looking at the untapped opportunities of the future.

This is about a way of thinking and living and leading.

Urgency is not about doing more or doing it faster or creating more activity. Leaders who live with a sense of urgency often engage in less activity than others but do far more critical analysis and ask harder questions and focus their attention on those things that will push the missional agenda the farthest. They are also not looking for swift wins (nice when they come) but long term ministry fruit.

The apostle Paul lived with a sense of urgency that was evident in his life and his teaching. He constantly exhorted in his epistles to the churches to never be content with their spiritual life or their ministry but to work while it is still day for the night comes.

Good leaders do less, focus on the most important and constantly communicate with their priorities and communication their sense of urgency to see the ministry they lead (or the team they lead) maximize their potential.

And they communicate their sense of urgency to their staff who easily fall into a mode of comfort (we all gravitate there) and live with a deep sense that we must always be looking for better ways to fulfill our mission.

Their calendars reflect that commitment! Their priorities reflect that commitment. Their communication reflects that commitment and their meetings reflect that commitment. The focus of their lives reflects that commitment.

Where are you living on the complacency/urgency continuum?

For a great read on this subject, take a look at John P. Kotter's book, A Sense of Urgency. Our senior team is reading it right now. I deeply desire that our ministry live with urgency not complacency.

Board members and intellectual capacity

Serving on a board, church or otherwise, requires a special intellectual capacity or ability. This is not about education - many educated people have limited intellectual capacity and many who lack higher education have it.

It is the ability to think conceptually, to visualize what could be rather than simply what is, to be able to focus on the big picture and concepts rather than on the small picture and details and enough personal flexibility to be open to new ideas, and work constructively with other board members. It is also the ability to trust staff to do what they must do and to always be pushing forward the missional agenda of the church or organization. It includes the ability to problem solve in creative ways rather than simply to fall back on what they have seen before in another church and organization.

Not everyone can do that and too often we bring well meaning, even Godly individuals onto our boards who actually hinder ministry progress by their narrow views, inability to think conceptually and who believe that board work is guarding the status quo and controlling staff. Those who have worked on boards with people who do not have the intellectual skills enumerated above know how frustrating that can be.

So in choosing effective board members it is helpful to ask the kinds of questions below:

• Do they think big picture or small picture? (think big)


• Can they engage the future of the organization or simply deal with status quo? (think future)


• Do they exhibit personal flexibility or are they inflexible in their thinking? (think flexibly)


• When problem solving do they see all the pieces or just some of the pieces? (think all)


• Do they like to micromanage or empower? (think empowerment)


• Can they trust staff or do they need to know everything before staff can act? (think trust)


• Do they work synergistically with others or need things their way? (think synergistically)


• Do they think missionally or like to deal with inconsequential issues? (think missionally)


• Are they articulate and thoughtful or confusing and quick to make judgements? (think articulate and thoughtful)

Intellectual capacity matters in any church or organization that wants to go anywhere and which is governed by a board. Again, it is not about education level. It is about the ability to think well and understand the big picture of the organization - in order to help it get there.

Think about the board members you know who do that well and those who lack the skill. There is the difference!

It only takes one!

I have recently written on the issues of alignment and healthy teams and boards. What are the implications of having a member of your team who is not in alignment? This can happen when a team member:

• Is not in agreement with the direction of the team or organization
• Does not pull their own weight in terms of productivity and results
• Have attitudes that are counterproductive to healthy team: cynicism, sarcasm, untrusting, etc.
• Does their own thing and are not committed to working as a productive team member
• Has Emotional Intelligence (EQ) issues that disrupt the health of the team
• Are not teachable or coachable

Here is the reality: it takes only one member of the team to pull down the rest of the team, and to take a huge emotional toll on the other team members and the team leader. And, to hurt the overall missional effectiveness of the organization.

Because ministries are about "grace" we often do not handle these situations, hoping they will resolve themselves or go away. They rarely do without intentional and direct intervention. Where we do not resolve we unfairly punish the rest of the team who must live with the unhealth of one member, and we hurt the missional effectiveness of the organization.

Here are some suggestions for dealing with this kind of situation:

1. Provide very direct feedback in person and followed up in writing indicating the problems and the necessary changes that are necessary if they are to continue to play a role on the team and in the ministry. Be direct, be honest and be defining.
2. Establish time parameters in which the issues must be resolved or they will be placed on a probationary status. If they need additional coaching during this time, provide it and always give honest direct feedback verbally and in writing.
3. If there is not adequate progress, place the individual on a probationary status (in writing - always document) with the understanding that if there is not appropriate resolution that they will not be able to continue on the team or with the organization.
4. Be willing to let them go and transition them out of the organization if they do not meet the requirements of the probationary period.

Your willingness as a leader to take appropriate steps in cases like this sends a powerful message to the rest of your team that you care about their health and the health of the organization. When one does not take these steps the opposite message is sent - and clearly read that we are an organization that does not take health seriously.

The emotional and energy toll that is paid for an unhealthy team member is higher than we realize until the issue has been resolved and we realize the price we paid. Ministry is tough enough. We make it easier when we deal with those individuals who pull the rest of the team down.

Ministry and Team Alignment

How aligned or in sync is the team you lead or the team you are a part of? Many ministry teams look like the picture above with everyone doing their own thing or going in their own direction. Or, various teams going in different directions. While it may be convenient that way - one can do their own thing - it is not a prescription for maximum ministry impact.

Many ministry leaders believe that they are aligned if people have collegial relationships. It is alignment around relationship. One ministry leader I worked with believed that if only people prayed together, their hearts would come into alignment and therefor all would be well. It was alignment around spirituality. Many church staffs believe that alignment is about communication - making sure everyone else knows what each ministry is doing. Now collegial relationships, spiritual fellowship and communication are are great for a team but they are not the true basis of alignment.

In fact, the first two alignment strategies above, an emphasis on close relationship and fellowship, actually complicate true alignment because it takes the emphasis off of missional success and puts it on everyone feeling good about each other. Frank, honest, robust dialogue around missional issues rarely happens where the highest priority is that we are "best friends."

Real alignment means that the directional, value, and missional arrows are all pointed in one direction. That is, we operate by the same values or guiding principles, we are passionate about the same mission, we understand the central ministry focus of our organization and we are committed to the same outcomes. Very few ministry organizations can claim that kind of alignment but it is the key to maximizing our ministry's potential.

In order to get that kind of alignment it is first necessary to clarify the core principles by which one is going to operate, the mission one has and the outcomes one desires. Without clarity on those issues alignment is not really possible.

It is precisely because most ministries have not defined these that they end up trying to align around relationship, fellowship or communication. But these will not get the arrows all pointed in the right direction. It may give an illusion of alignment but it is not true alignment.

Once one has clarified what we call the "sides of our ministry sandbox" one can then ask every individual and each team to align themselves around those core commitments or in our terminology, play inside the same sandbox. The larger a ministry is the more critical it is that everyone is working off the same play sheet. The phrase in the book of Judges that "everyone did what was right in their own eyes," was not a commendation but a criticism.

If you were to ask the team you lead or the team you are a part of, "What really aligns us and keeps us in sync what would they say? You might want to ask the question. At best, lack of alignment causes leaks in ministry impact. At worst, it causes misunderstanding, lack of clarity and lack of objective ways to measure success.

If you need help in getting to alignment, the book, Leading from the Sandbox can help. It is all about how to build and maintain an aligned team or organization.

Dumb things Church Boards do!

Fail to clarify what is critical for the congregation

Good leaders clarify and communicate mission, guiding principles, central ministry focus and what spiritual vitality looks like. Without clarity, there is not direction and without direction there is no focus. It is accidental rather than intentional ministry.

Focus on the small stuff

The small details of church life do not move the ministry forward. It is certainly not the task of church boards to deal with the small rocks. It is easy to be deceived that the small day to day details are important. They are for someone - but not for the board which is responsible for clarifying and driving the large important issues of mission.

Don't resolve conflict

Unresolved conflict either on the board or within the congregation kills missional effectiveness and hijacks needed energy for ministry. Wise boards never allow unresolved conflict to fester - they deal with it.

Don't police themselves

Many boards allow behavior that is sinful, counterproductive or simply poor leadership. Wise boards ensure that their behavior is a model for the congregation and that their time is wisely spent on the important issues - including coming to decisions in a timely fashion. Wise boards have leadership covenants that each member signs that spells out how they work together.

Are intimidated by the few loud voices

Too many boards acquiesce to loud voices in the congregation and surrender to those voices even when they know that God is calling them to action. Wise leaders are not intimidated by loud voices who usually represent far less influence than they think they have.

Allow someone in the church to have informal veto power over church decisions

No one person has the authority to decide what the congregation does or does not do. In fact, no leader by themselves have that authority but only the board together and the congregation as it follows. Wise leaders do not allow any individual to control the direction of the church. And when necessary, they face them down.

Don't guard the gate

Who gets into leadership matters. Not guarding the leadership gate is one of the most foolish things boards and congregations do. Poor leaders will give you poor leadership and one bad apple can ruin the whole bunch. Whoever chooses leaders actually has the most power for good or ill in the church. Ensure you have a way to ensure the right leaders are chosen. In this matter, churches get what they deserve.

Allow elephants in the room

Elephants are those issues that everyone knows are there but no one is willing to name or deal with. Unfortunately those elephants are usually the very issues that MUST be resolved if the congregation is to move forward. Ignoring the elephants is not only dumb but deeply harmful.

Don't use an agenda and stay on task

Agendas may seem pedestrian but they are not. Agendas force boards to prioritize their work and stay on task - dealing with the big rocks rather than the pebbles and sand. Board meetings without agendas are a sign of accidental and non-prioritized leadership.

Don't empower staff

Boards that do not empower their staff to design and manage day to day ministry are doing management by committee. It has never worked and never will work but church boards try to do it all the time. Staff designs, board refines! Boards determine policy and direction, staff manage day to day ministry and ensure that the policy and direction are carried out. Boards do governance and staff ensures day to day ministry happens.

Choosing and preparing new board members

One of the great challenges for healthy boards is the rotation of board members that is required in many churches. Every time a new board member is introduced to the board, the culture of the board changes. Boards are are intentional in moving in a certain direction may also find that the new member is not in sync and causes frustration for those who were already on the board.

I have suggested that the New Testament lays out a clear job description for board members as well as specific characteristics for the board members themselves. I also believe that boards should operate with a board covenant that spells out how they relate to one another, how they make decisions and the "game rules" for how the board operates.

Who you choose to serve on your board will have a direct impact on the missional effectiveness of your congregation. Yet congregations continue to pay far too little attention to the selection process, effectively sabotaging their future ministry when the wrong people are placed in leadership roles.

What should a selection committee look at when selecting potential board members? First they need to ask whether the individual meets the criteria laid out in the New Testament for church leadership. This includes asking the question as to whether they are really leaders. Non leaders do not belong in a leadership role. Non leaders on boards simply impede the work that a leadership board is meant to have.

Second, does the potential board member understand the ministry philosophy and direction of the church and can they support it? To put someone in leadership who is out of sync with the rest of the board or the staff is literally to throw a wrench in the gears. It is foolish. This means of course that the board actually has a philosophy and direction - essential elements to a healthy board.

Third, can the individual live by the board covenant and are they willing to sign the covenant? If not, they should not be placed on the board.

Fourth, do they understand the biblical role of the senior leadership board of the church - to keep the spiritual temperature high, ensure that people are cared for, release people into ministry, provide directional leadership, ensure biblical teaching and protect the flock?

Church leadership boards often have only the foggiest idea as to what they are actually responsible for and muddle around in minutia when what is needed is attention to the most critical spiritual and directional issues of the congregation.

All of this assumes that those who run the selection process understand these four issues as well. If they do not they will not be able to vet well or communicate up front what is expected. It is often said that the most powerful group in the church is actually the nominating committee since they "guard the gate" or in most cases don't.

If your board needs clarity on any of the issues above, "High Impact Church Boards" is a great place to start. Don't fly blind when choosing and preparing new board members.

For frustrated pastors and church leaders

Are you ever frustrated by how much bureaucracy you face either as a pastor or a leader in trying to make decisions for the church?

Yesterday I had an extended conversation with a pastor of a church of nine hundred. The leadership structure of the church is "leadership by committee" and nothing is supposed to happen without the approval of the elder committee. They literally feel that they have the right and the prerogative of dealing with every issue in the church - even though the church is a large church of 900 people!

Imagine the frustration of a pastor who has strong leadership skills but cannot lead. Imagine the frustration of several board members who understand good governance but whose hands are tied.

My guess is that this pastor will end up leaving to the missional loss of the church.

I contrast that with the story I shared recently of a church that has empowered its leaders and has seen huge ministry success. In one church leaders are empowered to lead - in the other they are not.

What is sad is that the church of 900 above could easily lose its pastor due to his high frustration factor - affecting not just him but a large congregation who love him and his direction. And, the church is leaving a huge amount of ministry effectiveness on the table - unused because the committee of elders cannot get its act together but insists that it must control the pastors.

What is wrong with this picture?

First, these leaders are leading like the church was led when it had 100 people and today it is a church of 900. It does not work! When church governance does not reflect the size of the Church the ministry hits a ceiling and stalls out. Who gets hurt? Those who are no longer led well and those who are not reached because of ministry paralysis.

Second, these leaders clearly do not trust their pastor. When a board insists on controlling their staff they are clearly communicating mistrust. An interesting concept when the New Testament talks about a culture of trust among God's people.

Third, these leaders do not have the humility to listen to others and to learn new ways of leading. They insist that there way is God's way and no counsel regarding leadership principles is listened to - hubris - and foolishness.

The sad thing is that this is all too common in the church. But it does not and should not be that way. If you face these challenges, take a look at these blogs:

The Payoff for healthy church culture

Avoiding Board Traffic Jams

Institutional verses Missional: A cautionary Tale

A Leadership Fable

Rethinking the meaning of congregationalism

Checks and balances in church leadership

Church leadership and trust

Church structure matters

What spells Success?

Do you know what success looks like for your church, team, ministry or organization?

Being able to clearly define success can be a huge factor in an organization's effectiveness. In my experience, however, most leaders and their staff cannot clearly answer the question. And, many times, the factors that we believe would spell success actually do not - and we are chasing the wrong things.

For instance. Many mission agencies define success by the number of missionaries they have and the number of countries they operate in. If you doubt that, just look at their materials. The problem is that those two statistics have nothing to do with effectiveness or results.

And, that definition can have negative unintended consequences which include bringing people into the organization that are not really qualified (because we are enamored by numbers) or starting ministries in new places where we do not have the necessary infrastructure or leadership.

In a similar fashion, local churches often simply believe that it is about numbers and one can get numbers by participating in the shuffle of believers from one church to another. Reading the New Testament one does not get the impression that numbers are the final indicator of success, rather life change is.
What is interesting is that there are actually two factors in defining success.

The first is the end product you want. In my organization the end product is spelled out by a mission statement, The EFCA exists to glorify God by multiplying healthy churches among all people. Our end goal is therefore church health, church multiplication and ensuring that the denomination includes all ethnic, and socio economic groups who make up our communities, nation and through missions our world.

Clarity on the mission, however, is only half the equation. The other half is defining the culture, practices and central ministry focus that are necessary to reach the missional goal that has been defined.

First, we need a set of guiding principles which provide true guidance as to how the organization operates. This goes beyond a static set of values to a set of principles which all staff and volunteers (or in the case of a church) members are committed to living out (see here for an example). These principles ensure that your staff are committed to practices that will help you get the results you desire. Without defining those practices you are unlikely to achieve what you desire to achieve.

The second piece is knowing what the central ministry focus must be if you are going to achieve your mission. This is the one thing that your organization must do day in and day out, without which, you will be far less likely to get to where you want to go. (see this post for an example).

The third piece is that of defining the culture you must have if you are going to achieve your mission. The culture of your organization, just like the practices of the organization will either help you achieve your mission or will work against you achieving that mission. For the local church I believe the culture is spiritual vitality. For our mission, it is healthy people, healthy teams, healthy leaders and healthy churches. In other words we know that without a culture of health at all of these four levels we will not achieve our missional goal.

In the book, Leading From the Sandbox, I describe how these four elements of mission, guiding principles, central ministry focus and organizational culture can be communicated in a simple way to all staff, and stakeholders.
The central point is that we must have the correct definition of success for our ministry. But once we have that definition, we must define the practices, central ministry focus and culture that are most likely going to help us achieve that mission - and therefore success.

Taking the Risk to End Well

This week, a 20 year colleague of mine, a fellow Senior Vice President of the EFCA took a huge risk. He resigned from a safe paycheck and solid ministry to move to a tiny ministry that requires him to raise his support and take a major income cut.

At 56! After 22 years at the EFCA!

Steve did what most of us are not willing to do at his age - leave the comfortable and the secure for the scary and unknown.

In explaining his decision, Steve put his finger on several issues that all of us who are secure in our positions ought to consider.

First, he did not want to do what he had seen so many people do - coast into retirement and not stay on top of their game. It is easy for us to become comfortable and start to coast in our ministries or employment. Whenever we get too comfortable we lose our edge and we either need to redesign our job so we stay 100% engaged or consider something else.

Steve had reinvented his job many times in 22 years but now felt that he needed to step out into something new that would more fully engage his heart.

Second, Steve had consistently worked himself out of jobs and found himself in a place where while extremely competent, he was not in the center of his sweet spot. He understands that it is only when we are in the center of how God made us that we will be most effective.

Third, his heart was restless. And had been for several years. When our hearts grow restless we need to pay attention because it is often God trying to get our attention! If we experience the restlessness and do nothing about it, we run a risk that our restlessness will become complacency leading to a loss of ministry passion and a coasting to the end.

For all of us in our 50's there is a great temptation to become comfortable and settled after the hard work that has brought us to where we are. This is a danger zone. To finish well we must press on with the same passion and missional commitment that got us to where we are.

It is sad to see people start with passion and end with complacency. But our comfort often keeps us from "getting out of the boat" and taking the risk. We know that our comfortable salaries and benefits will be at risk. We are less willing to move from the comfortable to the scary.

I honor Steve for taking the risk. I ask myself if I would be willing to take the risk. Would you be willing to take that risk? Would God be asking any of us to take that risk

Peter was when he got out of the boat to walk on water to Christ. Steve is as he gets out of his boat to follow Christ to a new, uncharted and scary place. May we be as sensitive to God's call and our engagement!

The Three Top Responsibilities of Leaders

What do leaders do? There are many things they can do but there are three things that they must do if they are going to maximize the effectiveness of their organization. These three are non-negotiables.

One: Leaders provide maximum clarity around mission, guiding principles, central ministry focus and culture

Leaders must provide clarity about what the ministry stands for, what its mission is, how it will operate (guiding principles), what it must concentrate on (central ministry focus) and the culture of the organization.

Staff, donors, constituents and congregations all want to know where we are going, how we are going to get there, what we are about and they want a mission that is so compelling that they can give their energies, their resources and their best efforts. General clarity leads to general commitment. High clarity brings high commitment. The more clarity a leader provides the more commitment they will have from others.

Two, leaders ensure that mission is accomplished.

Leaders care about ministry results. They focus on ministry results and they hold their staff accountable for ministry results. Leaders distinguish between activity and results. They do not confuse activity with results and help staff understand that their activity must be focused in ways that are most likely to bring results. Everyone is busy but not everyone sees real results.

Staff pay attention to what their leaders pay attention to. If leaders are always focused on ministry results they will be too. If leaders don't focus on ministry results staff will not either. Leaders set the tone for the seriousness with which staff take actual missional effectiveness.

Three, leaders intentionally create an organizational culture that will allow it to best live out its clarity (one) and achieve missional results (two).

Most leaders underestimate the power of culture and pay too little attention to it. One can have the highest clarity and deepest commitment to missional effectiveness but have a culture that is unhealthy and which does not encourage healthy relationships, collaboration, robust dialogue, innovation and personal development. Healthy culture is critical to missional effectiveness and leaders are ultimately responsibility for that culture.

If you are interested in learning more about these three responsibilities of leaders, the book Leading from the Sandbox deals with these issues extensively.

The mentor/coach model of supervision

What does it mean to be a supervisor? For many the word 'manager' comes to mind. But think about that. Do you like to be managed? For many, that word spells control and it is not a cool or empowering word. What it says is that my manager does not trust me to do the job I have been hired to do or that two people need to have a hand in doing my job - my manager and me.

One of the most frustrating issues good people face is the sense that they have too little freedom to use their gifting, skills and creativity to accomplish the work they have been hired to do.

Do you really want to 'manage' others? Most ministry leaders and supervisors I know find the traditional job of 'managing' others frustrating and time consuming. And it should be because good people were not made to be managed. They were made to be empowered, set free and then coached and mentored. If people on your team cannot be set free, empowered and then coached, you have the wrong people on the team.

A mentor coaching model is dependent on your staff having a clear plan and a clear understanding of what spells success. Thus the importance of Key Result Areas (KRAs) and Annual Ministry Plans (AMPs). If you need more information on KRAs and AMPs you will find a clear paradigm in the book, Leading From the Sandbox.

I am going to make a distinction between mentoring and coaching. They are different sides of the same coin, each with its own focuses. A good team leader needs to practice both, depending on the circumstances.

The Practices of Coaches

Coaches want to release the gifting and potential in others
Coaching is not about helping others become like us! Or having them do things the way we would do them. Coaching is about releasing the gifting and potential in others and helping them become as successful and impactful as they possible can be.

'Release' is a key word for a coach. Good people have been gifted by God with unique skills and particular ways of approaching problems and situations. Coaches want to tap this potential and these gifts, pulling them out so that the gifting and potential are released in increasingly productive and effective ways.

Coaches don't tell, they ask
Releasing the potential in others means that our challenge is not to tell people how we would do things if it were us, but to help those we coach figure out how to solve problems and meet challenges themselves. Coaches ask questions, lots of questions, questions that make others think and come to good conclusions.

Coaches care about the whole person
Many leaders and organizations simply use people. While good organizations, teams and leaders are deeply missional, coaches understand that there are many factors in a person's life that affect their work, their emotional health, and their makeup. Caring about the whole person is one of the keys to unlocking potential.

Coaches are exegetes of those they coach
People are different and need to be approached differently. People cannot be treated alike in a cookie-cutter way. Individuals are just that - individuals, and our approach, whether mentoring or coaching, needs to fit who they are and the wiring they have.

Coaches hold people with an open hand
The ultimate test of whether we want the best for those who work with us and for us is: Do we hold them with an open hand? Are we willing to develop them for their sake even if it means that we end up developing them out of the organization?

Holding people with an open hand and wanting the best for them engenders huge loyalty and appreciation. The message we give is that we ultimately care about them, and what God wants for their lives, not what we want for their lives or what we can get out of them. When we try to control others we are violating them and may be violating God's best for them.

Coaches always try to keep their people engaged
People, especially highly motivated people, are not static. They grow, they change, they get bored, and they periodically need new challenges. My philosophy is that I want to find the very best people I can find and then keep them highly motivated by changing their responsibilities when I need to.

The Practices of Mentors

Mentors give honest feedback
Constructive feedback is often missing in ministry organizations where the culture is supposed to be 'nice.' The lack of honest feedback hurts the individual and the organization. It does no one any favors and can eventually result in people actually being let go for behaviors that might have been modified if someone had been courageous enough to be honest.

Mentors get people individual training when necessary
Good mentors not only provide honest feedback but also, where necessary, insist that an employee or team member receive help that will allow them to be more effective. This often means help from a psychologist or a good mentor, especially when someone is dealing with behaviors that negatively impact their own lives, the lives of others or those on their team.

Mentors care about their people but they also want a winning team
Leaders build teams that can win. Healthy leaders are committed to results, insist that the team play well together, that players are playing to their strengths, and that the results re consistent with the mission of the organization.

This means that if changing the responsibilities or team members to better organize the team for effective ministry is necessary, they will do it. It also means that there are times when they need to let someone go because they cannot play at the level needed in their ministry role, or the person is not effective in their job even after intensive mentoring. Good leaders do not allow the mission of the organization to be compromised by keeping people who are not effective.

Being a mentor/coach with those you supervise takes more time but it also brings out the best of those who work with us, engenders huge loyalty and yields huge ministry dividends. It is worth the investment.

Best practices that can help you leverage your missions strategy

World missions is often a large part of a local church's budget (as it should be). However, if a congregation is going to leverage that investment for maximum missional return it would do well to consider the following "Best Practices."

Move from missions as a list of missionaries that are supported at modest levels to a small group of missionaries supported at a high level
The traditional long list of supported missionaries at modest levels is just that - a list. Because the congregation does not have a significant amount of support for any one missionary, there is very little personal contact and most people in the congregation have no relationship, stake, or prayer commitment for those on the list. Raise the stake of support and you raise the relational commitment of both the missionary and the church. I am suggesting you go from a list to a group - with relationship.

Adopt a region or several regions of the world where you can connect long term for long term impact
The world is a big place. Missions becomes "real" and "personal" when a congregation determines that it is going to have a personal stake in bringing the gospel to a specific region or regions of the globe and then connects for long term involvement. This allows the church not simply to support missionaries in that region but to actually contribute something significant themselves over time. The deeper the relationship, the deeper the impact.

Make strategic short term missions a key component of your strategy
Many question the investment in short term missions. However, done well, short term mission trips are the single most strategic thing you can do to generate interest and long term missionaries. No one comes into ReachGlobal today who has not been on one or more short term trips. God uses those trips to capture hearts for long term missions. The key is to connect your short term strategy with your long term commitment to a region of the world and to ensure that the team is contributing to what long term missionaries are doing on the ground (if there are long term personnel there).

Take your people through the perspectives course
The Perspectives course, a ministry of the US Center for World Mission has been a phenomenal tool for mobilizing large numbers of local church members for missions - giving, praying, sending and going. The larger the number of people you can put through perspectives the more passion your congregation will have for missions. It changes peoples perspectives on world mission.

De-silo your missions "committee" if it is not a part of the overall leadership led ministry strategy of your church.
No group in many churches is more siloed than missions committees. This means that what is happening in missions is not part of the overall ministry philosophy of the church and often mission dollars (a significant part of the budget) are the least scrutinized of any part of the church budget. I know this is a political issue but it is also a stewardship issue. We need to ensure that our investments are well used.

Send your pastoral staff on regular missions trips.
When pastoral staff are energized with missions, the rest of the church will be energized by them. Ensure that your key staff have regular opportunities to see what God is doing internationally.

The bottom line is that local congregations far underestimate what they can do either by themselves or in partnership with others for the cause of the gospel globally. Any local congregation can be involved in hands on, strategic and significant ministry globally.

Vision demystified - the last 20%

We indicated in the previous blog entry that 80% of vision for the local church has to do with what the people of God ought to be and crafting a mission, set of guiding principles, central ministry focus and culture of spiritual vitality to help God's people become transformed into His image. Getting clarity on those four areas is not easy but it is not complicated either. It simply takes the time and hard work of leaders to clarify, communicate and then be intentional in living these four areas out.

Then there is the other 20%. Here, leaders must make critical directional decisions that help the congregation maximize its spiritual influence in the community in which it is located - and in the world that it wants to reach. These directional decisions have significant opportunity to help the church expand its spiritual influence.

Directional decisions can include staffing, building, relocating, initiating ministry initiatives, killing no longer effective ministries, governance changes, community initiatives and other key decisions.

I think it is helpful to differentiate between two kinds of directional decisions. Global and local. I am not using these terms geographically.

By global, I mean directional decisions that actually change the game for a congregation. They are the kinds of decisions that are infrequent but significant - they are game changers. Take for instance, the game changer that Crystal Evangelical Free Church undertook in a suburb of Minneapolis. Historically the church had served an upper middle class congregation and community and was one of the larger churches in the EFCA.

When the church outgrew its campus in Crystal, it relocated to New Hope several decades ago where it continued to expand. Over the last decade, however, the community of New Hope changed significantly from an upper white middle class community to an ethnically diverse, lower class community.

The typical response to churches in changing communities is to continue to do ministry as usual and either relocate to a community that reflects its constituency or stay and become a commuter church with its traditional constituency driving from further out neighborhoods.

As Steven Goold, the senior pastor and his board pondered the changing landscape they chose a drastic, risky, prayerful and considered decision not only to stay but to intentionally change their ministry to minister to the multi-ethnic, lower class community. This was a global decision that changed the ministry game of the congregation.

It meant diversifying the staff. It meant accepting the fact that some who had called Crystal their church home would leave. It meant that the budget would probably go down. It meant learning new ways to do worship and doing the tough work of building love and unity in a multi-ethnic congregation rather than a white upper middle class congregation. It meant learning new ways to relate, to minister, to relate. It changed everything. It even meant changing the name of the church to reflect the community in which it was located "New Hope." It has not been easy but God is blessing the decision and God is at work in awesome ways.

Global decisions like this are the result of a huge amount of prayer, seeking God's direction, dialogue, discussion, planning and reflection. They are made by thoughtful leaders who have done the hard work of discerning the times, the opportunities, the right course of action and who have the courage to lead a deliberate process in order to make the transition from what is to what God is calling the church to. Such decisions should never be made quickly, should never be made without counting the cost - and there will be a cost - and should never be made without the leadership commitment to work the necessary process.

Most directional decisions are "local," in that they are key decisions but more limited in their scope. For instance, a decision to focus on compassion ministries within one's community in order to meet the commitment of the congregation to be the hands and feet of Jesus would fit this definition. Many local directional decisions are made on an annual basis in order to further the spiritual influence of the congregation and maximize its effectiveness.

The point here is that vision is a deliberate process on the part of leaders to maximize the opportunity and spiritual influence of the congregation. Most of these key directional decisions are limited in scope and a few are game changers. If leaders want to be "visionary," it is not necessary to have huge aspirations. It is necessary to be deliberate in figuring out how they can maximize the opportunity God has given them and then make the directional decisions to expand its effectiveness or influence.

You can be a leader in any community and any size church and be a leader and church of great vision. In fact, God has called you to do that. Vision is not the purview of the huge ministries around the world. It should be the vision of every congregation in every community.

One final thought. Wise leaders spend a lot of time praying, thinking and talking about how to maximize the opportunity God has given them. This means that they understand that their job is not to manage the present but to thoughtfully plan for the future. These kinds of discussions and times of prayer need to make up a large part of the time and work of church leaders. Vision is about the future and always pressing the missional agenda of the church for the sake of Christ and His kingdom.

			Hide all

Reader Comments
Allow
Don't allow

Backlinks
Allow
Don't allow

Post date and time