When The Sheep Bite

In his qualifications for overseers or elders in 1 Peter 5, Peter gives a crucial requirement – that shepherds serve “not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be” (1 Peter 5:2). Why is it so critical that leaders serve willingly? I believe it is because those nice, furry, soft gentle looking sheep have minds of their own and they may even bite the hand or foot that feeds them.

If you have been a ministry leader for any length of time you know this to be true. In fact, I believe that some of the most painful seasons for Christian leaders come when they are shot at from within their own camp. When the sheep bite our natural tendency is to kick back – hard - but that is exactly what a faithful shepherd does not do. Leaders who serve because of obligation are far more likely to kick back than those who have counted the cost and have chosen to lead in spite of the sacrifices inherent in the job.

I did not leave my church years ago because of outside difficulties but because of a few insiders who wanted me to go. My pain was not from the pagans in the community but the “saints” in the pew. And at a time when significant growth was taking place, individuals were coming to Christ regularly (one or more per week), and lives were being significantly changed. And my situation was far from unique – it happens every day in the bride of Christ to the chagrin and pain of the One who died for the bride. But it is the consequence of living and ministering in a fallen world.

In fact, I can say that the most painful periods of my leadership career have been the result of those I was supposed to be leading, choosing not to be led, choosing to bite or choosing to sow discord and difficulty for me and others. It is the reality and the price of leadership and it is one of the key reasons that many leaders choose to drop out. They are disillusioned at the source of their pain – and they should be.

In the wake of many years of ministry I can say with faith that God is fair – it is part of his character. I can also say with clarity that people and circumstances of life are often not! And that one of the burdens of serving Christ is the willingness to accept that unfairness for the sake of the One we serve and the cause He represents.

Jesus told His disciples, “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you” (John 15:18-19).

In his farewell to the Ephesian elders, Paul reminds those leaders that they will also face trouble from within the congregation. “I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. So be on your guard” (John 20:29-31).

Herein lies a challenge for those who lead God’s people. We choose this ministry because of our love for Him and our desire to point people to Him. We soon discover that many people don’t play fair, that ungodly attitudes and actions are ubiquitous even in the church and our efforts to shepherd others is often met with resistance. That is a rude awakening for every pastor and Christian leader. For young leaders it can bring periods of great pain, as it did me. And unfortunately the pain does not cease as the years pass. What can change is our ability to handle pain inherent in ministry.

It was no different for Christ whom we serve as undershepherds. He was a man of sorrows acquainted with grief. He dealt with the sadness of death and loss. At His most painful and crucial hour he was abandoned by those closest to him. People he had compassion for walked away, unwilling to pay the price of following him. When His teaching became hard for those to hear they abandoned him in great numbers. His own disciples often did not understand what He was telling them. He was maligned and his character besmirched. He was targeted by the evil one with temptation.

I am frequently amused by the long list of potential bad side affects one reads when prescribed new medication. They want you to know that in taking this medication, these bad things may happen. There ought to be mandatory courses on the cost of ministry for all those who are thinking about going into full time ministry. There are a list of side effects that unlike medications are not simply likely to happen but will happen.

This is not to discourage would be Christian workers. I would not choose to do anything else at any price. But my choice is made knowing the cost – and also knowing that this is what Christ has called me too and that my reward will not primarily come in this life “And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away” (1 Peter 5:4). I also know that it is in the moments of deepest suffering that I become the person God meant me to be. Thus I have the privilege of “sharing in the fellowship of His suffering,” as I serve Him, following in His footsteps, and becoming more like Him in the hard times. There is a cost to ministry which is why I counsel people not to go into full time ministry unless they are absolutely sure that this is where God is calling them to be. The cost is high – but the benefits are higher.

And the test of our character is not how we respond when times are good but when times are bad. That is when our truest character is revealed and for those who serve as under shepherds it comes down to this: when the chips are down do we preserve or hurt the bride?

I am deeply distressed by the number of pastors and Christian leaders, who when the chips are down, when they are under pressure to leave their ministry – for whatever reason – choose to hurt God’s work in anger on their way out! Their anger may or may not be justified but hurting God’s work is never justified and when it is the local church is it doing violence to the bride of Christ.

Al pastured a church in the west. He had been with the church for over a dozen years and had seen significant ministry growth during his tenure. But as the church grew, the leadership demands also grew. Individuals tried to come around the pastor to help define direction and vision but they were resisted – he was threatened by their help. That resulted in a quiet exodus from the church over a period of several years as those who had a passion to see something more done for Christ left for places where that was happening.

At the board level, the tension mounted as board members tried to negotiate a leadership vacuum. One day, Al, came to the board angry and asked for a vote of confidence. He received no votes. His parting words to the board at the meeting was, “I may just not leave. I may take the church down to 150 (from 500) and start over.” It was a threat that the board understood all too well.

Al, like thousands of other Christian workers was at a crossroads. It was unlikely that there was going to be a successful resolution to the issue of his leadership. The question was whether he would choose to leave in a way that preserved the unity of the body or to do so in a way that divided the body. In this case, in his anger and in spite of an extremely generous severance he chose to divide the body (in spite of a written commitment not to do so). As friends came to him he told them how he had been wronged and painted himself as the victim. Leaders were unwilling to do public battle with him and further cause division so that when all was said and done, two hundred or so had left the church after Al left.

Regardless of whether Al felt justified in his actions when the chips were down, his character as a Christian leader did not stand the test and he chose to hurt the bride of Christ. He failed the test of suffering by responding to that suffering in ways that would bring honor rather than disrepute to the cause of Christ. At one time or another all Christian leaders face these choices. It is at that moment our true character and motivations for ministry are revealed. And it comes from deep inside our hearts and souls.

When we fight back like Al did and all of us are tempted to do we forget who our audience is as Christ’s leaders. We fight back because we have been hurt. We fight back because our reputation has been sullied. We fight back because we forget that it is not about us but about Him.

Paul understood that ultimately he served an audience of One: Jesus Christ and that he would ultimately answer for his actions and ministry to only one. “So we make it our goal to please him, whether we are at home in the body or away from it. For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, good or bad” (2 Corinthians 5:9-10). If we suffer we do so for Him. If we respond we do so in a way that pleases Him. It is not about us but about Him, so how we respond to suffering must be in a way that brings glory to Him rather than looking after our personal concerns.

What Captivates Your Heart?

What captivates your heart?

My observation is that we vastly overrate life on this planet and vastly underrate eternity. Jesus, constantly tried to refocus the vision of those he came into contact with to focus their lives on eternity, not simply this life.

In one of those passages he says, “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also…No one can serve two masters” (Matthew 6:19-24).

Here is the question: Are we convinced that God and His purposes are so important that our vision is to live a life that does everything possible to make his Son well known and His reputation great, knowing that as we do this we are storing up treasures in heaven. Or are we focused instead primarily on our own lives. Jesus is inviting us to give up our shabby little dreams for a grand and eternal vision of joining Him in His work and His purposes.

C.S. Lewis said it so well: “We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased.”

Are we too easily pleased? You know what captivates my heart? A world that is desperate for a Savior, for spiritual answers, for a friend, for a purpose to give their lives to. What captivates my heart is that half the people who have ever lived in human history are alive today. Seven billion, of whom at least five billion probably do not know Jesus. I will do everything I can to bring the good news to those who without it will spend eternity without Jesus. And I will give all that I can to see that happen.

What captivates my heart are the three and a quarter billion people on this planet who live on three dollars a day or less. Who do not have food, clothing, medical care or even clean water. I remember the words of God through the prophet Isaiah, “Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen; to loose the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke. To set the oppressed free and break every yoke? Is it not to share your food with the hungry and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter when you see the naked, to clothe him, and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?”

When we show people the love of Christ in tangible ways, they are open to hear about a relationship with Christ and I will do everything I can to be the hands and feet and help of Jesus to those who need it and I will give of my treasure to see that happen.

What captivates my heart are my neighbors, coworkers and those in my circle of influence who are lost and helpless like sheep without a shepherd. Most of them are trying to find happiness in their stuff and it is not delivering. The good news is that the emptiness of that pursuit becomes an opportunity for us to share the news of an eternal father who loves them with an infinite love and longs to give them an eternal purpose.

What captivates our heart is where our treasures and focus go. Our hearts can only be captivated by one vision. A vision that focuses on this life or a vision that focuses on eternity and joining God in His purposes. One is settling for building mud pies in the slum while the other is like a holiday at sea.

A vision that focuses on this life asks how little I have to give so that I can keep the rest. A vision that focuses on eternity and joining God in His purposes asks how much I really need to live on so that I can give the rest.

Mission Drift

Anyone who has done much fishing knows the challenge. You park in one spot on the water and start to fish. An hour later you realize that you have drifted a long ways from where you started and a correction is needed.

Drift takes place with organizations - churches - and ministries all the time. One thinks we got parked or anchored in the right place but over time, our location changes and it is so incremental that we often don't notice it until we are a long ways from where we thought we were.

It is mission drift. It is vision drift.

Mission and vision drift take place because it is far easier to pay attention to our activities and programs - which take on a life of their own than it is to stay focused on our reason for existence and the direction we have committed to. Over time we move from actively piloting to allowing auto pilot to do the work for us.

Recently two Northwest pilots put their plane on auto pilot and became distracted with their own laptops in the cockpit. They overshot the Twin Cities by 150 miles until finally Air Traffic Control got their attention and they turned around to come back for landing. Unfortunately this if often the case with ministries as well. But we wake up one day and wonder, how did we drift so far from our missional focus?

There are three key practices that can keep a ministry from moving to auto pilot and mission/vision drift. The first is to have absolute clarity on who they are, why they exist, where they are going and how they are going to get there. Most ministries don't have that clarity! It is clarity in the minds of leaders and it is the ability to communicate that clarity quickly, easily, continuously, all the time in ways that other leaders, volunteers and folks "get it." (If you do not have that kind of clarity I recommend reading Leading From The Sandbox).

The second key practice is that the job of senior leaders - all the time - is to keep that clarity of mission and vision in front of their teams. Unless leaders are evangelists for the mission and vision and keep finding new ways to communicate that message, drift absolutely will take place! It is far easier to drift into running programs and getting lost in activity than it is to stay focused on the prize and it will not happen unless leaders make the mission and vision and clarity job one!

The third key practice is to tie everyone's annual ministry plan and key result areas to the mission and vision in very tangible ways so that all activity, energy and focus is targeted on what is really important. Then, on a monthly basis in a mentoring/coaching meeting, supervisors dialogue with their direct reports on how they are doing in keeping their main things the main things.

Unlike the Northwest pilots there are no control towers keeping watch over most of our ministries - although that is one of the real jobs of boards. Take a few moments to think about the ministry or team you lead today. Are you and your people on auto pilot or are you focused like a lazer on the mission and vision you have been called to? If calibration is needed do what you need to do to bring your part of the organization back into alignment with vision and mission.

Organizational Gaps: Vision vs. Reality

Those who lead entrepreneurial ministries, or ministries going through change always face a challenge. It is the gap between the organizations vision for who they want to be and where they want to go and the reality of where they actually are.

A healthy organization's vision for itself is never full realized because as it becomes better at what it does the goal line continues to move. Thus the gap between vision and reality is always a reality for healthy organizations.

There are seven common responses to organizational change and to the gap between vision and reality. Understanding how people respond and why they respond the way they do can help leaders negotiate the whitewater of change and deal with the responses that follow from change and the space between current reality and desired future.

The continuum of responses runs from resistors to change to active evangelists of change.

Resisters. Resisters can come in two forms, active and passive. These are the people who don't like change, or are so vested in the past that they cannot envision the future - or don't want to. Active resisters are vocal about their opposition to the future being articulated. There are also passive resisters who pay lip service to the new future but do not bring their actions into alignment with it. They quietly rather than actively resist.

Cynics. Cynics choose to believe that there are ulterior motives behind the change being proposed. Typically, they are deeply cynical toward leadership and therefore transfer their cynicism toward the ideas that leaders propose. They will often see change as the flavor of the month and figure that given time the proposed changes will go away and the organization will go back to what it was. Cynics will often call attention to the gap between where a leader is calling the organization and where it is - using that gap as proof that the vision is either unattainable or foolish.

Loyal followers. These are individuals who like organizational clarity and who appreciate its articulation - whatever it is. They appreciate clear leadership and simply want to know what the direction is and they will follow that direction. While they will not necessarily promote change, they will gladly move in the direction that leaders propose, trusting those leaders in their direction.

Idealists. These are individuals who readily grab on to the vision of the future, embrace it, love it and expect that the organization will be there today. The up side is that they embrace the vision quickly. The down side is that they can easily become disillusioned and critical when change does not happen at the pace or in the way they desire. It is very difficult for idealists to be patient or accept gaps between vision and reality.

Realists. Realists understand both where the organization is trying to go and where it currently is. They understand the challenges of change, will not stand in the way of change and usually are not overly bothered by the gap.

Change agents. These individuals not only embrace the future, understand the past and present but they actively work all the time to close the gap between vision and reality. They take responsibility in their areas of influence and leadership to personally work on closing the gap. They are voices in the organization for the preferred future and work well with leaders who are the evangelists of change. In many ways, change agents are the guiding coalition for leaders seeking to bring change.

Evangelists for change. These are the leaders who are actively engaged in helping the organization move from reality to their preferred vision, and calling others to join them in the effort. They explain change, are architects of the new, and do all that they can to help move the organization from where it is to where it needs to go. They are deeply realistic about what is, deeply passionate about what must be and have the resolve to see the process through.

Two questions present themselves. First, where are you on this continuum in a change process and where are those around you? Understanding your position and that of others helps one understand the various responses to change and attitudes and actions related to change.

The Danger of Inconsistency

One of the traits that builds great trust between leaders and those they lead is personal and organizational consistency: the knowledge that what is said is meant and what is meant is lived out. Inconsistency breeds mistrust while consistency breeds trust.

A lack of consistent direction plagues many ministries. When a pastor suggests a direction to his staff that is different than what the board has decided, one has inconsistency. When leaders change their minds on directional issues on a regular basis there is inconsistency. When a stated direction or conviction is easily changed or violated, there is inconsistency. When people are allowed to violate stated commitments there is inconsistency.

Inconsistency confuses people - breeds cynicism and sends a message that what we say we are committed to is negotiable after all. If a leader can violate stated convictions, why cannot others - and they will. One of the reasons that values and guiding principles are viewed with some suspicion is that people have seen such values written and then ignored all too often. It is better not to write them than to do so and violate them. The same is true for other commitments that are made about who the organization is, what it is committed to and how it intends to move forward.

Many in our organization have heard me state, "Do not underestimate my resolve" around our mission, our values, our central ministry purpose and our preferred culture. Our stated commitments around these four areas which describe who we are are deep and carved in stone. We believe what we say and are committed to getting to what we believe. It is not always done perfectly but we want to do it consistently and send a strong message that these commitments are non-negotiable and will be lived out.

How strong is your resolve around your organizational commitments? Are your commitments and actions in alignment? Are you consistent with your message? Would those you lead be able to articulate what your commitments are? Do they know you are really serious about them? Is your board serious about what they say is important?

Consistency matters!

It's too dangerous

Recently, a church that had committed to working with ReachGlobal in a specific country pulled out because when they checked the State Department web site they discovered there was a travel advisory discouraging travel there. The comment was, "It's too dangerous."

I was fascinated by that response. Do we only go to places that are completely safe to do missions? If the answer is yes, we rule out most of the world! It is a good thing that Paul did not operate by that set of rules, or missionaries in the past 2,000 years.

Make a mental list of places where there is danger in our world and then ask, what would happen if we chose not to go because of a perceived danger?

In discussing this situation with a pastor recently he told me of a conversation he had with folks in his own church who were resisting a mission emphasis in a place that also had some danger.

He knew that these individuals supported the US intervention in Iraq. He asked if the danger and sacrifice of the war in Iraq was worth it. "Of course" they said, "it keeps America safe." "So," my friend said, "it is worth it to go to war in Iraq but it is not worth the risk to share the Gospel in (and he named the country)?"

What is the Gospel worth? What risk is acceptable or unacceptable in sharing the Gospel? And if the State Department Advisories - they are ubiquitous - determine where we do or don't go, what would Jesus or Paul have to say about that? They irony is that the country in question is actually a very safe place to work.

Missions today is about.....

Equipping others rather than doing it ourselves. With a world population of 6.5 billion it is critical that missionaries are equippers of others rather than simply doing it themselves. This is in line with Ephesians 4:12 where the emphasis is on equipping and giving ministry away. This is a change in how many missionaries see their role.

Partnering with others rather than doing it alone. Historically missions have not been very partnership friendly. They have gone it alone and have perpetuated all of the denominational distinctives from their homeland to the rest of the globe. Yet, Jesus did not die for our particular denominational brand but for the church. Working together both with other missions and with indigenous partners where they exist can help us reach greater numbers of people.

Raising up indigineous leaders rather than being the leader. Paul did just this in his church planting strategy. As quickly as possible he raised up, trained and appointed leaders for the church. If we are about equipping others rather than doing it ourselves we need to also give leadership away to those that we develop. That is the only way to start indigenous church movements and to guard against dependencies.

Involving all of God's people, not just some of God's people. Everyone has a stake on world evangelization. In today's world everyone can also play a vital role whatever our background or training. We can give, we can pray, we can participate long term or short term. Travel is cheap and opportunities are huge. Missions is no longer only the purview of those who have Bible School or Seminary training - and never should have been. God calls all of his people to be involved in the great commission and it has never been easier than today to carry that out in the international arena.

Going ourselves, not just sending others. There is no substitute for hands on experiences in missions. It so changes our hearts and perspectives that one church I know of will not allow new elders to come on their board who has not personally participated in their India ministry because they want to guard the missions DNA of their congregation. The more people who experience the world and missions first hand the more the congregation carries a great commission DNA.

Reclaiming the great commission as the call of the church and not the call of the para church. The responsibility and vision for world missions was given to the church, not the para church. Every congregation should be and can be personally involved. Para church mission agencies exist to serve the church in their global vision and not to work independently of the church on the sending or receiving side.

These six changes in how we see missions are really game changers for the global cause of Christ.

The Core Of Leadership

What is the core of good leadership? What makes one leader qualitatively different than another? Why do some leaders seem to lead from the hip while others seem to lead from somewhere deep inside? Why is it that some leaders lead effectively for a period of time while others have a leadership that stands the test of time?

For thirty plus years I have mulled on these and other leadership questions. From age 16 when I became the leader of my youth group at church, to leadership with InterVarsity in College, then leading a congregation as a pastor and for the past twenty two years in senior leadership within the Evangelical Free Church of America in various capacities. I have written on leadership (High Impact Church Boards and Leading From the Sandbox), I have read hundreds of books on the subject, have taught leadership principles and lead an organization (ReachGlobal) of six hundred individuals.

I have worked for good leaders and poor leaders. I have paid enough dumb tax in my own leadership to fill a book. I have consulted with ministry organizations and countless churches. I have written hundreds of blogs on leadership issues. I have learned much from countless people and have often read through Scripture with my leadership lens on since this is one of my life passions.

All that to say that I, like you, care a great deal about leadership and what makes for a good leader. As a leader, I want to lead well. At fifty three I am far more interested in long term leadership development and success than I am in the quick wins and fifteen minutes of fame. I realize that while I was wired to lead as evidenced by the leadership positions I had early on in life, that my understanding of leadership then was immature and undeveloped. It has taken 40 years of leadership in various capacities to understand that becoming a leader of Deep Influence is something that truly comes from great depth in our hearts and minds.

I believe that the answer to the questions above is that the best leaders, those who make the largest impact over the longest period of time. Who lead with the greatest wisdom and discernment for long term results and the building of the best teams lead from deep inside themselves and as a result have deep influence with the organization they lead. And the deeper that influence, the greater the leadership: influence to impact our world in significant ways for a cause greater than ourselves.

Both the Old and New Testaments make it clear that what is deepest in our hearts, souls and minds is that which informs our actions, thinking, priorities and leadership. Consider these examples:
Proverbs 4:24
“Above all else guard your heart for it is the wellspring of life.”
Proverbs 3:5-8
“Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight. Do not be wise in your own eyes: fear the Lord and shun evil. This will bring health to your body and nourishment to your bones.”
Matthew 15:18-20
“But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man unclean. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.”

Here is a truth about leadership that is often not acknowledged or paid much attention too. We lead from the core of our hearts and minds. The deeper that core is steeped in healthy and spiritual practices, the deeper the influence of our leadership. The shallower that core, the shallower our leadership.

The preponderance of books on leadership focus on what good leaders do, how they act, or the strategies they practice. Many of these books provide real insight into good leadership principles. But these are neither the most important issues in leadership nor are they were leadership starts. Great leadership starts deep inside us and the best leaders are different than other leaders. Their uniqueness lies not first in their ability to lead but in a set of intentional practices that they nurture - out of which comes a unique, powerful, and deeply influential leadership. Those practices, combined with good leadership ability make the difference between the average leader and a leader of deep influence.

Our world has many leaders but few leaders of deep influence. Much of what passes for leadership is not true leadership but simply a position of authority. True leadership is not about authority. Whenever you hear, “I am the leader and this is what we are going to do,” you rarely have leadership (there are exceptions where that kind of leadership is required, but seldom). You have someone in authority who thinks that leadership is about their telling others what they should do. They are not only wrong but do not understand the call of a leader.

Then there are many leaders who think that if they adopt the latest leadership theory or the style of leaders they admire that they too will lead well. This is often “flavor of the month” leadership which leads to cynicism among those they lead as the leadership practices and philosophy change with the winds. In this case, both the style and substance of the leader is coming from other people rather than from a place deep inside themselves.

Other leaders believe that the core of great leadership is action and they are always on the move, looking for the next strategy or initiative to pursue. Leaders are people of action. But the best action comes out of deep thinking, great understanding and the ability to connect the dots of opportunity, needs, organizational ability and strategy. The question is not whether leaders are people of action but whether their action comes from a depth of understanding that leads to an inner conviction rather than an addiction to action.

Sticky Factor

Many church leaders spend a great deal of time and energy in developing programs designed to bring new people into the church. That is a good thing. However, too few think about the structures needed to sustain the growth that comes. If there are not intentional structures the assimilate new people into the life of the church, what one is left with is a big front door and a big back door.

Larry Osborn of North Coast Church in Vista, CA calls this the sticky factor. He is the author of The Sticky Church. Interestingly, North Coast does not put huge attention on the programs to bring people in. They do put much emphasis on the sticky factor, or the structures that will keep people there once they come. As they have been intentional over the years, they have seen the congregation grow to over 7,000 in multiple venues.

A key structure for assimilating new members is a quality, well led, small group that is focused on relationship, prayer, care and learning together. People crave authentic relationships and personal significance. That is provided in the context of small groups that are well designed and well led. The larger the percentage of adults a congregation has in well designed and well led small groups, the higher the sticky factor for those who come. It is one of the key structures that will keep those who come coming back and integrate them into the life of the church.

Programming without the requisite structures to support growth - numerical and spiritual - are a waste of precious time, energy and resources. More important than the programming designed to bring people in is the sticky factor of your church to keep them if they come. The first without the second is not very productive. The second - even without much of the first - is highly productive.

Dealing With Our Shadow Side

All of us have a shadow side. We often don't like to admit it and don't like to think about it but unless we manage our shadow side, it hurts us, those we lead and can even destroy our ministries.

A sign of good Emotional Intelligence (EQ) is understanding our strengths, weaknesses, temptations, places where we are at risk to sin, and the unhealthy parts of our lives that we hide from others. Unless we pay close attention to our areas of weakness and darkness those areas come back to bit us.

Shadow sides are different for different people but here are some examples:

- Deep insecurities that cause us to need constant affirmation and are responsible for defensive attitudes toward those who disagree with us.

- A need to have our way which hurts team

- Areas of hidden sin that we have not adequately dealt with

- Isolation from others where deep friendships are not fostered, leaving us without people who can speak truth into our lives

- Anger that lies close to the surface

- Arrogance that comes from a measure of success

Essentially our shadow side are those parts of us that are not healthy whether spiritually, emotionally or relationally. No one is exempt - it is part of living in a fallen world.

Shadow sides need to be understood and managed if we are going to be healthy individuals and leaders. It starts with asking some hard questions like, "where am I vulnerable to sin" and "what aspects of my responses and inner life do I not like?" It is also helpful to ask those who know us best, our spouse, a close friend and colleague to identify potential areas of dishealth that they see in us. It is also one of the things we should consult God on - asking Him to reveal to us truth about our hearts that we need to know.

The next step is to regularly evaluate those areas we have identified and to develop strategies for ensuring that our shadow side does not hurt us or those around us. That may mean counseling to better understand ourselves. It may mean candid discussion with a close and trusted friend for a deeper level of accountability. It may be as simple as an awareness of our areas of vulnerability so when we come close to those areas we can deal with them.

Someone has said that we need to spend as much time dealing with our shadow side as we do our strength side. I tend to agree with this because left unacknowledged and unchecked it is the shadow side with comes back to hurt us and can deep six our lives, families, and ministries.

Understanding ourselves and dealing with our shadow side requires the time to think deeply and reflect on who we are, how God made us and where we struggle. Scripture is a great mirror for this reflection as we encounter life as God intends it, hearts as He desires them to be, motives (good and bad) and compare our lives to the holy and healthy life we encounter there. That is why the best leaders are deeply reflective leaders. They have taken the time to understand themselves because who we are as leaders spills out in our lives and leadership. Managing the inner life is the key to managing our outer life.

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?

Innocent as Doves, Wise as Serpents

I am constantly amazed how naive we choose to be as believers regarding "wolves" in the church who have personal agendas that they hide behind a spiritual facade. This was the case in a call I received recently from a pastor and his board chair. A former leader in the church who has a poor track record of working with others has been quietly working those who will listen in the congregation regarding the senior pastor - subtly undermining him - even though the church board is fully supportive of his ministry.

I asked them if this gentleman's stated "concerns" are his real agenda and they said no. I asked if the board had faced the fact that they had a wolf in their midst that they needed to confront and they said no. I asked if they believed that he had a hidden agenda and they said yes.

Why are we so naive? So unwilling to name agendas for what they are, so unwilling to confront behavior that is blatantly sinful? Think about Jesus when he interacted with people. He saw right through them. He made statements or asked questions that revealed motives and behaviors for what they were.

Jesus told us to be innocent as doves but wise as serpents. Wise people understand, are willing to name and to confront behaviors that hurt the church. They don't allow people to to undermine the church while hiding behind spiritual talk or facades. Like Paul in his letters to Timothy and Titus they see sinful behavior for what it is and are willing to name it and wisely confront it.

I believe we use the excuse of "grace" to not confront wolves in our midst because we fear them and don't want to go head to head with them. In the meantime, the wolves rip through the congregation doing quiet but real and often longtime damage.

Innocent of doves means that we have pure motives. Wise as serpents means that we see issues for what they are and deal with them as leaders. How is your board doing?

Leadership and Relational Enmeshment

A common issue related to poor Emotional Intelligence (EQ) is relational enmeshment. This is when we allow ourselves to become enmeshed in someone else’s issues and take on their issue or their offence. This happens in families all the time where two members of the family will triangulate against a third rather than dealing with issues directly. So Tom who has an issue with Mary will talk to Bill about Mary. Bill take up the offence and there is therefore pressure on Mary by both Bill and Tom to conform. What Tom has done is enmesh Bill in his issue.

This happens in churches and workplaces all the time. It is bluntly a violation of Matthew 18 and the coward’s way out of dealing with conflict. Rather than dealing with the person we have an issue with we bring someone else into the equation and enmesh them in the problem.

Healthy individuals do not allow themselves to be drawn into other people’s issues. They may well seek to help that individual solve the problem in a healthy manner but they do not triangulate, nor do they take on the offenses of others. Often in cases like Tom, Mary and Bill, the two with the issue solve the problem but the one who became enmeshed, Bill, continues to carry it in his heart – unresolved - which is not surprising since it was not his to resolve in the first place.

How do unhealthy leaders triangulate or enmesh others in their issues? Often they do so by playing the victim role. They communicate their hurt to those who they feel are sympathetic and draw those folks into their circle of hurt against those who they feel have hurt them. It is dangerous and hurtful when pastors (or others) do this because those they triangulate with have no way of solving the issue since they are not a part of the dispute. So, even when the pastor resolves his issue, those who he has enmeshed often continue to carry ill will toward the individual that the pastor had an issue with.

I have watched pastors actually divide boards by choosing to triangulate with sympathetic board members against other board members. Long after the issue is resolved the board remains divided.

Very simply, enmeshment or triangulation is unbiblical, unhealthy and the wrong way to resolve issues that we have. For leaders, especially it has consequences that are far reaching.

Secular or Sacred Worship?

My wife recently attended a worship service where the message was shaped around a popular country western song (rather than the text used) and then the secular song was the last set by the worship band. She left deeply disheartened.

The service raised an interesting question. Does the sacred influence the secular or does the secular influence the sacred? Now without a doubt there was some truth in the song. But why use a secular source to try to communicate eternal truth when it is the word of God that is the source of all truth? Maybe to illustrate but not as the source. There are many good illustrative stories from the secular world, but the source of all truth about God is found in His word.

In addition, how can a secular song as a worship set raise our hearts to the throne of God? Again, does the sacred influence the secular or does the secular lead us to the sacred?

What was more interesting was that many loved the song. Actually I like the song. But I question the discernment of those who believe that the secular can lead us to the sacred as an act of worship. In our effort to be relevant we often forget that the Word itself is the source of all relevance and that word, empowered by the Holy Spirit has amazing power to change lives.

Perhaps our drive for relevance is an indication that we don't always think the truth of the Word is enough. Paul did. "For I am not ashamed of the gospel because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: 'The righteous will live by faith' " (Romans 1:16-17).

Reveal Study and Preaching in America

I just finished listening to the Reveal report on line of an evangelical church that I know very well. It was a fairly devastating report. I give the leaders and pastor high credit for their candid report to the congregation and some of the things that they really need to address.

Across the board, the Reveal results have been problematic in terms of the American church's effectiveness in bringing spiritual transformation to the lives of those in their congregations. I don't lay all the fault at the feet of the church as we live in a society of huge distractions and a secularism that threatens to rob us of our historic biblical and evangelical commitments.

However, there is one area where I do lay much responsibility on pastors and that is in the area of preaching and teaching. My observation is that we have dumbed down the gospel in our effort to be "relevant" and to bring new people into our churches to the the extent that we are not proclaiming the whole truth about God, ourselves, His call on our lives and what a non-negotiated followership of Christ is all about.

When we cannot connect the message to the biblical text, when there is not a call to radical followership, when hard issues are avoided and real life application not made, why are we surprised that the spiritual temperature of our people is so low. We have made numbers and programming and flashy services our criteria of success and in direct response, the spiritual temperature of our congregations has declined.

We have neglected the words of Paul to Timothy that "All Scripture is God-breathed, and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:16-17). We have come dangerously close or frankly guilty of of Paul's prediction that "the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear" (2 Timothy 4:3).

Saddest of all, it is the very ones who preach the word who all too often are blind to the dumbing down they are perpetuating while those looking for substance quietly move out of their congregations looking for greater depth from God's word. The irony is that even basic but biblical preaching will do more for people than the "relevance" many try to produce which leaves out the truth of the word.

And we wonder why followership is so shallow and biblical knowledge so non-existent today. Most people in our churches could not even articulate the great doctrines of the faith that make our faith what it is. We have sacrificed truth for our definition of relevance.

Not all have sacrificed truth at the altar of popularity and the Reveal study is a wake up call to the church that people long for substance and truth and the life changing Word of the Living God.

I was interested to hear that the church referenced above has plateaued and seen a decline in attendance over the past several years. Is it possible that those who have left are looking to drink from deeper wells of God's truth? I applaud those pastors who diligently preach the Word and not a version that has been diluted for the sake of some definition of relevance. The only real relevance we have is God's truth. That is relevance that can change hearts and lives and satisfy the deepest desires of our hearts

The writer of Hebrews said it well, "For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account" (Hebrews 4:12-13).

Board Evaluation

One thing pastors notice is that boards are far more likely to evaluate them than they are to evaluate themselves. Yet, the quality of board work has as much impact on most churches as the quality of the senior pastor's work. Annual evaluation of the senior pastor should be combined with a self evaluation of the board including the input of the senior pastor.

If you are a board member, evaluate the work of the board you are on (church or otherwise) with the following evaluation. As you think about the past year evaluate the following and give a numerical score from one to five for each item with one being weak and five being strong.

Our board is deeply intentional in driving a clear ministry agenda:

Our board has healthy relationships and keeps short accounts:

We are able to engage in honest constructive dialogue on all issues:

We engage in regular corporate prayer:

The majority of our time is spent on future issues rather than day to day management:

We are clear on our church's mission, guiding principles, central ministry focus and preferred culture:

We guard the gate to church leadership ensuring that only qualified individuals get on a ballot to serve:

We have a clear board job description that mirrors what the New Testament says about church leadership

We have a permission granting rather than a permission withholding culture in our church

We ask that our senior pastor work with Key Result Areas and an Annual Ministry Plan and use those objective results as the basis of our annual review of him.

We delegate issues to others that do not need to be dealt with by the board:

Our meetings are well planned and well run:

We evaluate the major ministries of our congregation honestly at least once a year and make corrrections as needed:

We focus on developing, empowering and releasing our people in meaningful ministry in line with their gifting:

What is the average score you gave the board you are on? Each of these are critical issues for a healthy board.

Worship Music: For Christ Followers or Seekers?

As my own church has tried but failed to articulate a philosophy of music and worship for the past ten years - they are still trying - I have reflected on the purpose of worship in the church.

Fundamentally worship is for those who follow Jesus. That may seem obvious but I believe that it is not clear in many congregations that are trying to attract seekers. I believe that much worship direction is focused more on those who the congregation is trying to attract than it is on those who actually know Christ.

If so, that is an amazing shift from what I believe Scripture would say about worship. Only those who know that God of the universe can truly worship the God of the Universe and whether in the Old Testament or New the purpose of worship is to honor, praise and connect with the One whom we love and serve.

This leads me to a second observation. Different believers connect with God and worship him through different types of worship. Thus when we do not honor those different styles and offer different styles we are essentially excluding those whose style is not represented.

It seems to me that we are so concerned about "attracting" new people to our congregations that in many cases that focus overshadows the central focus of worship which is to help Christ followers within the church worship the God of the universe in ways that work for them. When that happens we have shifted the true focus of worship to an improper focus of worship and it is the worship of God's people that gets lost in the refocus.

The reveal study has made it abundantly clear that our lack of focus on the needs of God's people to grow and mature is the cause of many leaving the church today. Is it possible that our obsession with bringing new people into our church actually forces Christ followers to leave the church?

This is complicated when church leaders focus on one demographic to the exclusion of other demographics. In many churches the focus on reaching seekers through their style of worship has a detrimental affect on existing believers in the church who don't connect with that particular style.

I believe that that seekers are attracted to the genuine love, unity and heart worship of those they see around them. The more genuine and real the worship of God's people, the more that seekers will be attracted. But, this is the distinction, the focus is not on seekers but on believers - they are the only ones who can truly worship God.

We have complicated what should be simple. Worship is for believers and believers need options today in worship styles. Seekers will be attracted to Christ not because they hear their style of music but because they encounter God in the people, love, unity of God's people and the truth they hear from His word.

Leadership by consensus or unanimity

I am often asked what I think about leadership by unanimity - where all leaders must agree to a course of action before they move forward. My answer is "not much." While it may sound spiritual and well meaning, leadership by unanimity presents two very real problems.

First, it puts tremendous pressure on those who might choose a different route to change their minds under the pressure of needing a unified vote. To be the person who is holding out because they disagree becomes a tough place to be - for those who value teams working together. It is simply unfair to members who might disagree.

Second, it allows one person to determine the direction of the organization because just one vote can keep the organization from moving forward. In the best case scenario this individual simply does not agree and prefers another way. In the worst case scenario, a recalcitrant member holds the rest of the board hostage. Either way it is a net loss for leadership momentum

Far better is leadership by consensus where there is general agreement on the board and those few who are in the minority graciously agree to the direction determined. General agreement is more than a bare majority. Where a board has only a bare majority on an important issue, there needs to be more work and discussion because you run the risk of a divided board. In fact, bare majority decisions if they are frequent indicate a lack of unity and alignment on the board and signal deeper trouble

Boards that are healthy and shoot for consensus do well.

Intimacy before Impact

One of the ministries I have a long term relationship with, Life International, has one of the most unique but important guiding principles of any ministry I know: Intimacy before Impact!

Life International is a global "life" ministry dealing with issues of "life" wherever abortion exists around the world. It is a holistic ministry helping pastors train their congregations in abstinence outside of marriage, in healthy relationships between men and women and ministering to those with unwanted pregnancies.

But they know that their best strategies are worthless unless they have the power of the Holy Spirit ever present in their lives. They believe what Jesus said in John 15 about the importance of "abiding in me." So, built into their DNA and into their ministry lives and day is a culture of worship of God and paying close attention to their spiritual connection.

There is one phrase of Jesus in John 15 that always causes me pause: "Without me you can do nothing." All of us need to pay attention to those six words. We expend great energy in the cause of our ministries but in the end - without the empowerment of His Spirit and the connection of "remaining" we cannot accomplish anything of eternal value. But, "Ask anything of me and I will give it for it is to my father's glory that you bear much fruit."

A guiding principle to live by today and every day.

Boards that are not united and don't face reality

I have recently been watching a church board that is not united and not facing realities within its congregation. Members have been marginalized, issues have been ignored and there has been a slow but steady exodus of key long time members from the church. Notwithstanding the evidence of problems that board has not been willing to deal with substantive issues the church faces. Instead it has presented an "all is well" message to the congregation.

Here is an interesting fact about congregations. They are not stupid. They may not know all the facts but they can sense when something is wrong. But, being gracious and not wanting to hurt the church most will not fight, make a fuss, or try to force change. Nor are they in a position to do so. They are not in leadership and in the end it is the leaders who either choose to deal with problems or not. And their choices have consequences for the church.

What do they do? As they become disillusioned, they simply leave, quietly. And board members and staff whitewash their leaving. There is always a good reason. And who leaves? Usually the very people who have the insight to understand the issues that are not being addressed are the ones who leave. And in many cases they have been ignored when they tried to appropriately address those issues with leaders.

So, the very people that the church needs to move forward are the ones who quietly migrate out of the congregation. I have watched this many times and it is disastrous for the church in the long run.

I wish at every annual meeting, someone would ask the church chair or board chair how united, aligned and healthy the board is - and get a candid answer. Here is something I know from long experience. Divided boards end up dividing a congregation - one way or another. It may be a visible division or as I have mentioned, an invisible one, as insightful people simply migrate out.

No church can be healthy with an unhealthy board! Few congregations will rise above the spiritual health of their leaders. People who sense not all is well and don't see that changing, or who sense powerplays in the church will often simply leave. Unhealthy leaders whitewash issues rather than deal with them. They hope that those issues will not get "out" and they do all they can to keep them "in." But, the wisest among us are not fooled. Nor will they stay indefinitely if they believe that leaders are not dealing with real issues.

What happens is a quiet but real leadership drain from the church. Leaders who do not lead well end up losing the leadership pool in the church. Something to think about.

Signs of healthy and unhealthy boards

How healthy is your board? Do not underestimate the importance of this question if you serve on a board.

The question matters because the health of your board (church or otherwise) will reflect and determine the health of your ministry. Too many boards live with a lack of health and their ministries suffer because of it. If you are a board member, your contribution to health or dishealth of the board you serve on either contributes to overall health or dishealth. Because we are talking about ministry boards, we ultimately answer to the Lord of the Church for our board involvement and stewardship. Board health matters.

Healthy Boards have certain characteristics. They have clarified what is important for the ministry and can clearly articulate its direction. They spend the majority of their time thinking about the future rather than dealing with present day to day management. They learn together, read together and pray together.

On healthy boards, all board members represent the whole of the ministry and engage in honest, respectful, robust dialogue. On a healthy board there are NO ELEPHANTS that cannot be discussed. To the extent that there are issues that one cannot address directly the board is not healthy. Nor do healthy boards ignore real issues in the ministry whether they involve a board member, a ministry program, or the ministry leader. To the extent that there are real issues that cannot or are not discussed, the board is unhealthy.

Healthy boards are unified. That does not mean they always agree but they can work together agreeably and are "in the game" together. They want the best for the church or ministry and will pull together to get there. In this regard, they also care about ministry results. Because they are clear on ministry direction, they are able to measure ministry results. They give staff freedom within clear parameters but they also hold them accountable for measurable results.

Unhealthy boards have a predictable set of practices. They are often unified, focus on management rather than the future, micromanage, allow elephants to exist, do not engage in honest dialogue, allow factions to develop on the board, don't clarify ministry or the future and don't hold staff accountable for ministry results. One of the results of conflict on an unhealthy board is often conflict within the congregation.

The first step toward health is knowing how healthy your board is. The following board self analysis will give you a clue. It is from the book High Impact Church Boards. Remember, the health of your board matters.

1. Are you ever frustrated by the pace of decision-making?
Yes No

2. Is it necessary to get the approval of more than one group
in order to get something done?
Yes No

3. Do you find your board revisiting issues that you thought
you had settled already?
Yes No

4. Is there confusion or conflict over what place the congregation,
staff team or board plays in leadership or decision-making?
Yes No

5. Does your board have a clear job description and understand
its responsibilities?
Yes No

6. Do you find that you spend more time “managing” day-today
activities than thinking and planning for the future?
Yes No

7. Could you identify the clear “preferred future” for your
congregation, and is this a shared dream of the board?
Yes No

8. Do your board and staff members have clear annual ministry
goals and plans?
Yes No

9. Are you frustrated with the number of decisions that need
to go to the congregation for approval?
Yes No

10. Is there a high level of unity and relational health among
board members?
Yes No

11. Do your church structure and bylaws hinder rather than
help leaders make timely decisions?
Yes No

12. Does your board have ample time for prayer and study of
Scripture, and to dream and plan for the future?
Yes No

13. Does your board have a covenant that spells out its procedural
and relational practices?
Yes No

14. Has the lack of such a covenant ever caused problems for
the board?
Yes No

15. Do you have a process designed to find the very best leaders
for your senior board?
Yes No

16. Do you have a process to mentor and train potential leaders
before they become leaders?
Yes No

17. Do you believe that your church is maximizing its ministry
impact?
Yes No

18. Does your congregation have more than one elected board?
Yes No

19. Is there tension or confusion between the staff and board
over who is responsible for what?
Yes No

20. Are you able to attract and retain the best leaders in your
church to serve on your senior leadership board?
Yes No

How many yes answers do you have? _____. A perfect score
would be a yes for questions 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 20

How many no answers do you have? _____. A perfect score
would be a no for questions 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 11, 14, 18, 19

Take a moment and find out how each member of your board
answered these questions, and discuss the results together. The
resulting conversation will help you identify issues in your
church leadership paradigm that need to be changed—if you
are going to maximize your congregation’s ministry impact.