There are two choices that nearly every church in our nation has the opportunity to make: whether to compete or cooperate with other churches in their city or region. For most churches the choice is to compete since success is measured by numbers, programs and budgets. For a small but growing number of churches the choice is cooperation toward a higher goal of building His Church and reaching whole cities and communities for Christ.
I have no doubt that Christ himself would choose cooperation and partnership over competion and autonomy. But of course, Christ's definition of success is often different than ours - even what we do in His name.
“Did God call me to built a great church in my area or to reach my area for Christ?” was the question on the minds of a group of pastors in the Chicago area. What would happen if rather than competing with one another we actually joined together with other evangelical churches to make relevant, meaningful contact with every home in our city? What would happen if instead of caring just about “my” church we cared instead about The Church?
This is happening in Gurnee, Illinois where ten churches committed to evangelism are working together to bringing the gospel to every home in a city of 32,000 people. In Lake County Illinois, 45 churches are actively involved with scores of others participating in one way or another. Under the banner of Christ Together, churches are banding together across denominational lines and even theological differences in a major effort to reach whole cities and whole regions for Christ.
“The whole church bringing the whole gospel to the whole city” is the goal of Christ Together. The strategy gets its roots from the church in Acts 2 which banded together to reach the city for Christ. Churches who are involved see this effort not as an ancillary ministry but as one of the core ministries of their congregation. It is transforming churches, lives, and entire communities. Not only are these congregations working to bring the gospel to every household but they are banding together to serve the community in tangible ways as well.
What a refreshing difference from the autonomy and competition that marks so many ministries today!
Christ Together wants to help churches make five key shifts that they believe are consistent with the principles found in Acts 2.
“Move from Spiritually Struggling to Spiritually Transforming: We help churches to become agents of spiritual transformation, leading people into a vibrant, life-changing relationship with God.”
“Move from Relationally Fragmented to Relationally Connected: We help churches to build deep and trust-filled friendships with one another, enabling them to pursue God’s dreams for their city together.”
“Move from Functionally Anemic to Functionally Healthy: We help churches to overcome the pragmatic ministry challenges that threaten the strength and vitality of their faith community.”
“Move from Culturally irrelevant to Culturally Inspiring: We help churches to serve their community together in significant ways, reshaping people’s perceptions of God, Christianity and the Church.”
“Move from Missionally Ineffective to Missionally Effective: We help churches to fulfill the Great Commission by reaching their community more effectively, one life at a time.”
These are certainly five key shifts that are needed in the American church today. In a ministry culture that is driven by “my success” and the building of “my church” there is a deep need to repent of our selfish, autonomous ways that build our ego and pride and work to build His church, The church and reach our communities in humble partnership with the whole church.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Don't get enmeshed in the issues of others
One of the hallmarks of good emotional intelligence is that we are able to empathize with others without getting enmeshed in their issues. This does not mean that we do not care, provide counsel, pray and support. It does mean that we don’t allow the issues of others to become “our” issues.
A key to this is what I call “keeping my own counsel.” Everyone has a perspective on issues but they are not always accurate or fair. It is their perspective. This is especially true in relationships. I often hear negative things about others. In line with keeping my own counsel I seek to listen and when appropriate ask questions but ultimately I must make my judgments based on my own personal experience rather than on the perspective of others. It is not wise, fair or healthy for me to simply take on the opinions of others when my experience does not line up with theirs.
This leads to the second key to staying out of enmeshment. I cannot solve other people’s issues for them. I can encourage them to resolve their issues with whomever they have those issues. I can offer to mediate a meeting between them for resolution. But ultimately I am responsible for my issues and others for theirs. All manner of relational chaos is caused when I take up the offense of others without firsthand knowledge and based on their information alone.
In fact, getting sucked into the issues of others is often a ploy of the evil one to take what is a relational breakdown among two people and to multiply it among others who were never part of the original breakdown and who have simply taken on the stuff of others rather than keeping their own counsel. This is often the stuff of church splits and conflict. What was an issue between two parties becomes an issue between multiple parties and what was a small issue now becomes a major issue. What was complicated now has become exceedingly complex. What might have been resolvable is now often not resolvable.
Matthew 18 is clear that when I have an issue with another I am responsible for seeking to resolve it. If I cannot resolve it I bring another to help resolve it. What I don’t have the luxury of doing is going to others and pulling them into my issue, nor of picking up the issues of others and taking up their cause in the absence of first hand information. These Biblical principles are violated among Gods’ people all the time to the detriment of His reputation.
There is a final principle that is both Biblical and reflective of good emotional intelligence. When I have an issue with another I always have the choice as to whether I draw others in and seek to influence their opinion of the one I have issues with – unhelpful and sinful behavior – or whether I keep my own counsel, seek to resolve but not to influence the opinions of others. It is not my place to hurt the reputation of others but to ensure that my own behavior is healthy and biblical. Once we have done what we can do to resolve our issues, we leave the rest to the Holy Spirit whose counsel is always right, fair and accurate.
A key to this is what I call “keeping my own counsel.” Everyone has a perspective on issues but they are not always accurate or fair. It is their perspective. This is especially true in relationships. I often hear negative things about others. In line with keeping my own counsel I seek to listen and when appropriate ask questions but ultimately I must make my judgments based on my own personal experience rather than on the perspective of others. It is not wise, fair or healthy for me to simply take on the opinions of others when my experience does not line up with theirs.
This leads to the second key to staying out of enmeshment. I cannot solve other people’s issues for them. I can encourage them to resolve their issues with whomever they have those issues. I can offer to mediate a meeting between them for resolution. But ultimately I am responsible for my issues and others for theirs. All manner of relational chaos is caused when I take up the offense of others without firsthand knowledge and based on their information alone.
In fact, getting sucked into the issues of others is often a ploy of the evil one to take what is a relational breakdown among two people and to multiply it among others who were never part of the original breakdown and who have simply taken on the stuff of others rather than keeping their own counsel. This is often the stuff of church splits and conflict. What was an issue between two parties becomes an issue between multiple parties and what was a small issue now becomes a major issue. What was complicated now has become exceedingly complex. What might have been resolvable is now often not resolvable.
Matthew 18 is clear that when I have an issue with another I am responsible for seeking to resolve it. If I cannot resolve it I bring another to help resolve it. What I don’t have the luxury of doing is going to others and pulling them into my issue, nor of picking up the issues of others and taking up their cause in the absence of first hand information. These Biblical principles are violated among Gods’ people all the time to the detriment of His reputation.
There is a final principle that is both Biblical and reflective of good emotional intelligence. When I have an issue with another I always have the choice as to whether I draw others in and seek to influence their opinion of the one I have issues with – unhelpful and sinful behavior – or whether I keep my own counsel, seek to resolve but not to influence the opinions of others. It is not my place to hurt the reputation of others but to ensure that my own behavior is healthy and biblical. Once we have done what we can do to resolve our issues, we leave the rest to the Holy Spirit whose counsel is always right, fair and accurate.
Proactive or Reactive Leadership
One of the ongoing frustrations of many church boards is the lack of progress they seem to make in endless meetings. In some cases, the issues they are dealing with are the same issues they dealt with last year – and the year before that. The reason often has to do with getting trapped into reactive leadership – which is not really leadership at all rather than proactive leadership.
While leaders must at times respond to issues, the heart of leadership is intentionally moving an organization or ministry toward a preferred future. This requires a board to deal with issues at hand but to focus on issues in the future. One way to do this is to agree to two board meetings each month, one for dealing with decisions and business and the other for prayer, discussion and thinking about the future – with no business allowed.
But what about those issues that seem to come up time and again? My experience is that many boards are negligent in actually making decisions with the result that issues are never really resolved and come circling back for another and another round of discussion. I recently met with a board facing this dilemma. Using a white board we listed the unresolved issues that seem to keep popping up. I then gave each member three post it notes with a one, two and three and asked them to put their “one” next to the most pressing issue, the “two” next to the second priority and the three next to their third priority.
Very quickly they had prioritized their most important issues. I then suggested that they tackled these one by one and make a decision on each. Clarifying issues with a decision, even if it is not the perfect decision is far better than not making a decision and allowing the wandering to continue.
One of the main responsibilities of a board chair is to ensure that the most important “big rocks” that will help the organization move forward are addressed before the minutia that probably does not belong on the agenda at all. In the final analysis, leaders choose through the agenda items they tackle what is truly important to them and whether they will be proactive in their leadership or merely reactive to issues that arise. The first will move the ministry forward while the second will merely guard the status quo. How is your board doing?
While leaders must at times respond to issues, the heart of leadership is intentionally moving an organization or ministry toward a preferred future. This requires a board to deal with issues at hand but to focus on issues in the future. One way to do this is to agree to two board meetings each month, one for dealing with decisions and business and the other for prayer, discussion and thinking about the future – with no business allowed.
But what about those issues that seem to come up time and again? My experience is that many boards are negligent in actually making decisions with the result that issues are never really resolved and come circling back for another and another round of discussion. I recently met with a board facing this dilemma. Using a white board we listed the unresolved issues that seem to keep popping up. I then gave each member three post it notes with a one, two and three and asked them to put their “one” next to the most pressing issue, the “two” next to the second priority and the three next to their third priority.
Very quickly they had prioritized their most important issues. I then suggested that they tackled these one by one and make a decision on each. Clarifying issues with a decision, even if it is not the perfect decision is far better than not making a decision and allowing the wandering to continue.
One of the main responsibilities of a board chair is to ensure that the most important “big rocks” that will help the organization move forward are addressed before the minutia that probably does not belong on the agenda at all. In the final analysis, leaders choose through the agenda items they tackle what is truly important to them and whether they will be proactive in their leadership or merely reactive to issues that arise. The first will move the ministry forward while the second will merely guard the status quo. How is your board doing?
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Predicting the Decline of the Attractional Church
I am sure that this blog will elicit comments for I am not a fan of the attractional church model and believe it is already in severe trouble with the young, old and some in between.
The attractional church model thinking goes like this: If I have a great performance on stage, relevant preaching and lots of programming that I will attract a lot of people, build a large church and therefore experience ministry success. The American church continues down this path blind to the fact that it is often not producing real disciples but that there are a growing number of folks who are rejecting it outright. This blog is not about church size but church philosophy!
Take the young generation. What they see in the attractional model is that people come to get and not give. They desire to be part of communities who are actively living out the gospel rather than simply hearing about the Gospel. There is a fundamental difference between those two. Furthermore they do not relate to a performance up front but would rather be a part of the worship experience. Finally, our preoccupation with service "excellence" is often seen by them as lacking authenticity. They can live with simple if they believe it to be authentic.
Oh, and the preaching? By dumbing down the gospel to make it relevant, by not addressing the radical implications of the gospel - that would make it too uncomfortable. By paying more attention to culture (the relevance thing pastors talk about) they feel cheated on the truth thing (what Jesus has to say about life). All of these reasons contribute to the dearth of the under thirty crowd in many churches.
On the other end of the spectrum are the fifty plus crowd who are increasingly but quietly leaving attractional church models looking for something different. They feel cheated in the worship (not just worship style) but in the often shallow worship theology and show up front. They especially feel cheated by the lack of emphasis on the word of God in today's "relevant" preaching. And they are more interested in doing ministry that makes a difference in the world rather than attending another program in the church. They have not rejected the church but they have rejected the attractional model of the church.
When I look at the American church at large today I ask the question, where are the gospel centered churches where truth is proclaimed carefully with real application. I ask, where are the gospel centered churches where the emphasis is more on reaching those outside God's Kingdom than programming ourselves to death to justify our buildings and facilities. One can see with our current model why it takes 168 people one year to bring one person to Christ in the course of a year.
I also ask how we have so mangled our definitions of success so that almost all that is talked about are numbers on weekends. We claim that spiritual transformation is our goal but the real marker in many Churches has nothing to do with that and all to do with numbers to justify the success of the pastor.
In a mentoring conversation recently with a young pastor I asked him how he would feel if there was not growth to his church in the next three years. His church has deeply problematic health issues and they may be what he needs to focus on. It took him a moment to say he would be all right with that....because for most of us success is in the numbers.
When I read the story of the early church I do see numbers being added to their ranks regularly. But the emphasis was not on the numbers. It was on radically living out the implications of the gospel - meeting together to share the elements and receive teaching, sharing their possessions with one another and being the people of God in their circles of influence which is why for instance the gospel penetrated whole communities with radical conversions, powerful miracles and a high emphasis on the word - read the story in Acts 19.
We have a deeply American model of church which has many differences from the Biblical model of church. A congregation I attend from time to time is a simple Anglican church. No flashy music, simple Biblical teaching, great Biblical liturgy and prayers and participation in the service of ordinary congregants who take their ministry seriously. Half of those that are there are former members of my own denomination who have left "attractional churches" for the simplicity of the gospel.
I predict that the American church of the future will look very different than it does today - in Evangelical circles. I pray that it is more word centered, authentic in its worship and committed to living out the "good works" God designed for us in our communities and circles of influence rather than through its programming keeping folks in the church. The program of God for the church is that they impact their communities, workplaces and circles of influence through living out and sharing the implications of the gospel.
I celebrate every gospel centered church I find, and the number is growing. They hold the key to the future of the American church. And they will attract people who are hurting, needy and looking for an authentic Jesus who can bring authentic change to their lives. Is it possible that the church of the future will attract people because it is centered on the person of Jesus Christ above all else? And in living out the implications of the gospel?
The attractional church model thinking goes like this: If I have a great performance on stage, relevant preaching and lots of programming that I will attract a lot of people, build a large church and therefore experience ministry success. The American church continues down this path blind to the fact that it is often not producing real disciples but that there are a growing number of folks who are rejecting it outright. This blog is not about church size but church philosophy!
Take the young generation. What they see in the attractional model is that people come to get and not give. They desire to be part of communities who are actively living out the gospel rather than simply hearing about the Gospel. There is a fundamental difference between those two. Furthermore they do not relate to a performance up front but would rather be a part of the worship experience. Finally, our preoccupation with service "excellence" is often seen by them as lacking authenticity. They can live with simple if they believe it to be authentic.
Oh, and the preaching? By dumbing down the gospel to make it relevant, by not addressing the radical implications of the gospel - that would make it too uncomfortable. By paying more attention to culture (the relevance thing pastors talk about) they feel cheated on the truth thing (what Jesus has to say about life). All of these reasons contribute to the dearth of the under thirty crowd in many churches.
On the other end of the spectrum are the fifty plus crowd who are increasingly but quietly leaving attractional church models looking for something different. They feel cheated in the worship (not just worship style) but in the often shallow worship theology and show up front. They especially feel cheated by the lack of emphasis on the word of God in today's "relevant" preaching. And they are more interested in doing ministry that makes a difference in the world rather than attending another program in the church. They have not rejected the church but they have rejected the attractional model of the church.
When I look at the American church at large today I ask the question, where are the gospel centered churches where truth is proclaimed carefully with real application. I ask, where are the gospel centered churches where the emphasis is more on reaching those outside God's Kingdom than programming ourselves to death to justify our buildings and facilities. One can see with our current model why it takes 168 people one year to bring one person to Christ in the course of a year.
I also ask how we have so mangled our definitions of success so that almost all that is talked about are numbers on weekends. We claim that spiritual transformation is our goal but the real marker in many Churches has nothing to do with that and all to do with numbers to justify the success of the pastor.
In a mentoring conversation recently with a young pastor I asked him how he would feel if there was not growth to his church in the next three years. His church has deeply problematic health issues and they may be what he needs to focus on. It took him a moment to say he would be all right with that....because for most of us success is in the numbers.
When I read the story of the early church I do see numbers being added to their ranks regularly. But the emphasis was not on the numbers. It was on radically living out the implications of the gospel - meeting together to share the elements and receive teaching, sharing their possessions with one another and being the people of God in their circles of influence which is why for instance the gospel penetrated whole communities with radical conversions, powerful miracles and a high emphasis on the word - read the story in Acts 19.
We have a deeply American model of church which has many differences from the Biblical model of church. A congregation I attend from time to time is a simple Anglican church. No flashy music, simple Biblical teaching, great Biblical liturgy and prayers and participation in the service of ordinary congregants who take their ministry seriously. Half of those that are there are former members of my own denomination who have left "attractional churches" for the simplicity of the gospel.
I predict that the American church of the future will look very different than it does today - in Evangelical circles. I pray that it is more word centered, authentic in its worship and committed to living out the "good works" God designed for us in our communities and circles of influence rather than through its programming keeping folks in the church. The program of God for the church is that they impact their communities, workplaces and circles of influence through living out and sharing the implications of the gospel.
I celebrate every gospel centered church I find, and the number is growing. They hold the key to the future of the American church. And they will attract people who are hurting, needy and looking for an authentic Jesus who can bring authentic change to their lives. Is it possible that the church of the future will attract people because it is centered on the person of Jesus Christ above all else? And in living out the implications of the gospel?
When Congregationalism goes amuk
There is a great deal of confusion around the concept of congregationalism. Many mistakenly believe that congregationalism means that all folks in a church have a voice in all matters and that the congregation gets to weigh in on all decisions. In addition, to keep everyone in the loop and to ensure that nobody has too much power many churches continue to operate with numerous elected boards and committees. At its core, like American politics the system is build on mistrust of leaders so it is designed to make decision making complicated.
Congregationalism as defined above says more about bringing our national polity practices into the church than anything the New Testament says about church leadership! In scripture there is only one group of senior leaders variously called elders or overseers who are responsible for the spiritual temperature of the church, ensuring that the congregation is taught, protected, developed - empowered and released in ministry and led well. When new needs came up they simply appointed ministry teams like the deacons. All of this was designed in an atmosphere of trust where leaders were actually loved and appreciated by the congregation. And they were to lead well as under shepherds.
But what to make of the congregational thing? Congregationalism originally conceived did not mean a democracy or that every individual has an equal part in decision making. The priesthood of all believers is not the leadership of all believers. If that were true Paul would not encourage those with the gift of leadership to lead well.
Congregationalism meant something very simple. There could be no authority outside the local church such as the state church that could tell them what to do. Second it meant that congregations had a way to change the direction of their church if their leaders took it in a direction inconsistent with Scripture. Thus we say in the EFCA that if a congregation calls its senior pastor, votes on an annual budget, votes on any changes to the bi laws or constitution and must approve the sale and purchase of property it is congregational. Boards may choose to bring other issues to the congregation but this is what it means to be congregational.
Too often, the way we practice congregationalism hurts the church rather than helps bit. Multiple boards and committees are like toll booths that hold ministry up. The number of people on those boards and committees keeps those very people tied up in meetings rather than using their gifts in ministry. Leaders become discouraged because it is so hard to get things done and there is a huge loss on Return on Mission if indeed there is a mission being actively pursued.
If your ministry suffers from some of these elements it may be the very thing that is keeping you from moving forward missionally. And you do not have to live this way. My books High Impact Church Boards and Leading From the Sandbox (NavPress) can help you think differently about how you lead and about the missional elements to that leadership. Don't let your system constrain your mission. Design your system to serve your mission.
Congregationalism as defined above says more about bringing our national polity practices into the church than anything the New Testament says about church leadership! In scripture there is only one group of senior leaders variously called elders or overseers who are responsible for the spiritual temperature of the church, ensuring that the congregation is taught, protected, developed - empowered and released in ministry and led well. When new needs came up they simply appointed ministry teams like the deacons. All of this was designed in an atmosphere of trust where leaders were actually loved and appreciated by the congregation. And they were to lead well as under shepherds.
But what to make of the congregational thing? Congregationalism originally conceived did not mean a democracy or that every individual has an equal part in decision making. The priesthood of all believers is not the leadership of all believers. If that were true Paul would not encourage those with the gift of leadership to lead well.
Congregationalism meant something very simple. There could be no authority outside the local church such as the state church that could tell them what to do. Second it meant that congregations had a way to change the direction of their church if their leaders took it in a direction inconsistent with Scripture. Thus we say in the EFCA that if a congregation calls its senior pastor, votes on an annual budget, votes on any changes to the bi laws or constitution and must approve the sale and purchase of property it is congregational. Boards may choose to bring other issues to the congregation but this is what it means to be congregational.
Too often, the way we practice congregationalism hurts the church rather than helps bit. Multiple boards and committees are like toll booths that hold ministry up. The number of people on those boards and committees keeps those very people tied up in meetings rather than using their gifts in ministry. Leaders become discouraged because it is so hard to get things done and there is a huge loss on Return on Mission if indeed there is a mission being actively pursued.
If your ministry suffers from some of these elements it may be the very thing that is keeping you from moving forward missionally. And you do not have to live this way. My books High Impact Church Boards and Leading From the Sandbox (NavPress) can help you think differently about how you lead and about the missional elements to that leadership. Don't let your system constrain your mission. Design your system to serve your mission.
On not speaking down to our children
Some of my most memorable years as a father were our family dinner conversations in the evenings. Mary Ann and I would talk about our work and ministry and the kids would weigh in on those, ask questions or wax eloquent on their own issues of life, faith, politics and people.
From an early age, we did not hide from them issues we were dealing with including problematic issues at work. We had a fast and standing rue called PC or "Private Conversation" that could not go anywhere and to me knowledge they never violated that commitment. In the process they learned how we handled real life stuff and they learned how to have "robust dialogue" on any issues they wanted without personal attacks.
This is perhaps why from an early age, Jon and Chip were so comfortable around adults. They were treated like adults at home who could think through adult issues.
I think that we too often speak down at our children thinking that they will not understand. We do this with every day life issues, and especially with theology where we feel a need to bring the gospel down to their level. It is interesting to me that Jesus never did that. He spent time with children, talked with them and they in turn simply believe what he said in their naivety! He called us to have the same child like faith in his promises rather than rationalizing them away. He said it was easier for a child to enter his kingdom than a rich man.
I remember as a young child listening to tapes of Bible Stories right out of the gospels and Old Testament. My earliest scripture memory goes back to those "go to bed tapes." I did not need explanation, I simply listened and believed with child like trust. Perhaps that is a reason for my gift of faith today! God said it and I believe it. In fact, I never struggled in that department but it goes back to my youth.
Sure there are complicated themes in the Bible. But there are many that are complicated to adults that are not complicate to kids. They simply take God and Jesus at his word: a novel idea unhindered by our western rationalism.
Years ago, an expert in education from England wrote these words.
We might gather from [misguided] educational publications that the art of education as regards young children is to bring conceptions down to their 'little' minds. If we give up this foolish prejudice, we shall be astonished at the range and depth of children's minds. And, we shall perceive that their relation to God is one of those 'first-born affinities,' which it is our part to help them to make good. A mother knows how to speak of God as she would of an absent father, with all the evidences of his care and love. She knows how to make a child's heart beat high in joy and thankfulness; as she thrills him with the thought 'my Father made them all,' while his eye delights in flowery meadow, great tree, flowing river. 'His are the mountains and the valleys, his the resplendent rivers, whose eyes they fill with tears of holy joy.' And this is not beyond children. (Charlotte Mason, Philosophy of Education)
Remember that when children are created they come with amazing minds, creative ideas and a spiritual component that wants and needs to connect with the living God. It is often we as parents that complicate the uncomplicated and limit their understanding through our disappointments in life and sometimes far from robust faith.
From an early age, we did not hide from them issues we were dealing with including problematic issues at work. We had a fast and standing rue called PC or "Private Conversation" that could not go anywhere and to me knowledge they never violated that commitment. In the process they learned how we handled real life stuff and they learned how to have "robust dialogue" on any issues they wanted without personal attacks.
This is perhaps why from an early age, Jon and Chip were so comfortable around adults. They were treated like adults at home who could think through adult issues.
I think that we too often speak down at our children thinking that they will not understand. We do this with every day life issues, and especially with theology where we feel a need to bring the gospel down to their level. It is interesting to me that Jesus never did that. He spent time with children, talked with them and they in turn simply believe what he said in their naivety! He called us to have the same child like faith in his promises rather than rationalizing them away. He said it was easier for a child to enter his kingdom than a rich man.
I remember as a young child listening to tapes of Bible Stories right out of the gospels and Old Testament. My earliest scripture memory goes back to those "go to bed tapes." I did not need explanation, I simply listened and believed with child like trust. Perhaps that is a reason for my gift of faith today! God said it and I believe it. In fact, I never struggled in that department but it goes back to my youth.
Sure there are complicated themes in the Bible. But there are many that are complicated to adults that are not complicate to kids. They simply take God and Jesus at his word: a novel idea unhindered by our western rationalism.
Years ago, an expert in education from England wrote these words.
We might gather from [misguided] educational publications that the art of education as regards young children is to bring conceptions down to their 'little' minds. If we give up this foolish prejudice, we shall be astonished at the range and depth of children's minds. And, we shall perceive that their relation to God is one of those 'first-born affinities,' which it is our part to help them to make good. A mother knows how to speak of God as she would of an absent father, with all the evidences of his care and love. She knows how to make a child's heart beat high in joy and thankfulness; as she thrills him with the thought 'my Father made them all,' while his eye delights in flowery meadow, great tree, flowing river. 'His are the mountains and the valleys, his the resplendent rivers, whose eyes they fill with tears of holy joy.' And this is not beyond children. (Charlotte Mason, Philosophy of Education)
Remember that when children are created they come with amazing minds, creative ideas and a spiritual component that wants and needs to connect with the living God. It is often we as parents that complicate the uncomplicated and limit their understanding through our disappointments in life and sometimes far from robust faith.
Understanding the wiring of your staff
Several long conversations with ministries recently - both church and other have reminded me of the importance of paying close attention to how individuals are wired before we place them in their jobs. In one case, significant mistrust had developed between a senior pastor and his board. Words like “mistrust” and “unqualified” “lack of communication” and “distant” were used and it was obvious that there was a significant gap between the work of the board and the expectations of the leader.
In our dialogue, however, it became very clear that the long standing frustrations had nothing to do with the integrity or qualifications of the leader. Rather, they had to do with how the leader was wired and gifted. In fact, we made two lists on the white board. List one was the list of all those things that the pastor did (or did not do) that caused frustration for the board. They were all organizational leadership issues.
We then made a long list of the leader’s strengths. They were almost all people related, things he did one on one and did very well. His areas of strength lie almost completely outside the organizational arena. They are strengths he uses one on one with people facing problems, in evangelism and in his preaching.
This took the conversation out of the real of “good or bad” “trust or mistrust” and put them into a category that revolved around current job fit. This could mean that this leader will be happier in another job. It could mean that the board needs to change his responsibilities so that he plays to his strengths. That is a process they need to run over the next months.
In our organization we actually have three steps in the hiring process. First, is this someone we want on the team: Do they have the emotional, relational, spiritual and skill healthy that we need? Once we say yes, we need to determine how they are uniquely wired by God. Are they individual producers or organizational leaders? How do they like to be led and how do they lead? We use the SIMA organizational tool for this analysis as well as long dialogue. Finally, we write the job description that is consistent with their gifting and wiring. The job description gets written last, not first.
People are hard wired by God in unique ways and that wiring is not going to change. We can grow in a number of areas but our wiring will not change. The leader above will never be a great organizational leader but he shines in his lane. The more we think along those lines, the better the fit, the lower the frustration and the more return on mission we will experience.
In our dialogue, however, it became very clear that the long standing frustrations had nothing to do with the integrity or qualifications of the leader. Rather, they had to do with how the leader was wired and gifted. In fact, we made two lists on the white board. List one was the list of all those things that the pastor did (or did not do) that caused frustration for the board. They were all organizational leadership issues.
We then made a long list of the leader’s strengths. They were almost all people related, things he did one on one and did very well. His areas of strength lie almost completely outside the organizational arena. They are strengths he uses one on one with people facing problems, in evangelism and in his preaching.
This took the conversation out of the real of “good or bad” “trust or mistrust” and put them into a category that revolved around current job fit. This could mean that this leader will be happier in another job. It could mean that the board needs to change his responsibilities so that he plays to his strengths. That is a process they need to run over the next months.
In our organization we actually have three steps in the hiring process. First, is this someone we want on the team: Do they have the emotional, relational, spiritual and skill healthy that we need? Once we say yes, we need to determine how they are uniquely wired by God. Are they individual producers or organizational leaders? How do they like to be led and how do they lead? We use the SIMA organizational tool for this analysis as well as long dialogue. Finally, we write the job description that is consistent with their gifting and wiring. The job description gets written last, not first.
People are hard wired by God in unique ways and that wiring is not going to change. We can grow in a number of areas but our wiring will not change. The leader above will never be a great organizational leader but he shines in his lane. The more we think along those lines, the better the fit, the lower the frustration and the more return on mission we will experience.
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Missions and the Holy Spirit
I am going to make an observation as a mission leader that some may take exception to but which I believe to be true: In general missionaries from the west have much different expectations of the Holy Spirit in the missions endeavor than those we serve in the majority world.
It saddens me that many missionaries I meet have very low expectations of what God might actually do through their work. They work hard, expect little and often see little fruit. Often, the very people they work with (from the south and the east) have a much larger expectation of what God intends to do through their ministries. They expect much, and see much fruit.
Why the difference? I believe it has much to do with out view of the Holy Spirit, His work in our lives and our expectation or not that He will show up in a significant way.
In the book of Acts - our best primer on missions there are two concepts that show up together with regularity: proclamation of the Gospel and the power of God. Word and power together. It never surprised Paul with God showed his power in places that the Gospel was proclaimed. It was that power that gave credence to their claims that God was who He was and had the power to change their lives. Miracles, healings, and radical life changes accompanied the proclamation of the Gospel. "In this way the word of the Lord spread widely and grew in power" (Acts 19:20).
Why is it that in the rationalistic west where all things must fit into a neat box and everything have a rationale explanation that we see so little of that power in our ministries? Why is it that in the majority world, that power is regularly seen in miraculous events such as healings that result in people coming to Christ?
The Holy Spirit defies rational explanation. He shows up unexpectedly, and does things that defy explanation. In my own life, in 2007 He chose to miraculously heal my mitral valve when surgery would have been a death sentence because of my dire illness. My cardiologist cannot understand how that happened! So why should I be surprised when God heals regularly in much of the world resulting in people coming to Christ? Or shows up in other amazing ways? Even raising the dead resulting in the birth of churches!
We have been taught too often in the West that all our theology needs to fit into neat little boxes - but God defies fitting into a neat little box. When He chooses to show up in power, the unexpected takes place - we cannot control Him. The real question is whether we in our rationalism are willing to allow Him to show up, expect Him to show up, want Him to show up or believe He will show up.
Expect little and we will see little. Expect that the Gospel is the "power" of God for the salvation of everyone who believes...and pray that God would do beyond what we could "ask or imagine" and He might just do that!
Believers in the majority world don't have the sophistication to know that God is supposed to fit into neat categories. When they read the Scriptures and see God doing the unexpected and miraculous they actually believe he operates that way. When He tells them to ask for much fruit they assume He means what he says. And God blesses them for their naive faith. Actually that naive faith is the faith God wants from each of us.
We have a lot to learn about the power of God through His Spirit. We have a lot to learn about believing that His power breaks through spiritual strongholds and changes hearts. We have a lot to learn about naively believing that He wants to show up in power, surprise us and others and bring people to Him. As for missions from the west, I believe our lack of faith in the power of God, through His Spirit is one of the greatest barriers to seeing the Gospel come the way we see it came in the book of Acts.
What I am encouraged by are the number of workers from the west who are re-examining the role of the Holy Spirit in their lives and ministries. And even reclaiming the "forgotten God" of the Holy Spirit.
Here is my challenge to every Christian. Read the New Testament for the first time! By that I mean, put aside all your theological training, grids and commentaries for a while. Just read the New Testament and ask yourself, "What does the New Testament say about the Holy Spirit and His power in my life?" And, "if what it says is completely true what might I expect Him to do in my life and ministry?" And then - here is the scary part - invite Him to surprise you in your life and ministry. It's an invitation He will not turn down.
It saddens me that many missionaries I meet have very low expectations of what God might actually do through their work. They work hard, expect little and often see little fruit. Often, the very people they work with (from the south and the east) have a much larger expectation of what God intends to do through their ministries. They expect much, and see much fruit.
Why the difference? I believe it has much to do with out view of the Holy Spirit, His work in our lives and our expectation or not that He will show up in a significant way.
In the book of Acts - our best primer on missions there are two concepts that show up together with regularity: proclamation of the Gospel and the power of God. Word and power together. It never surprised Paul with God showed his power in places that the Gospel was proclaimed. It was that power that gave credence to their claims that God was who He was and had the power to change their lives. Miracles, healings, and radical life changes accompanied the proclamation of the Gospel. "In this way the word of the Lord spread widely and grew in power" (Acts 19:20).
Why is it that in the rationalistic west where all things must fit into a neat box and everything have a rationale explanation that we see so little of that power in our ministries? Why is it that in the majority world, that power is regularly seen in miraculous events such as healings that result in people coming to Christ?
The Holy Spirit defies rational explanation. He shows up unexpectedly, and does things that defy explanation. In my own life, in 2007 He chose to miraculously heal my mitral valve when surgery would have been a death sentence because of my dire illness. My cardiologist cannot understand how that happened! So why should I be surprised when God heals regularly in much of the world resulting in people coming to Christ? Or shows up in other amazing ways? Even raising the dead resulting in the birth of churches!
We have been taught too often in the West that all our theology needs to fit into neat little boxes - but God defies fitting into a neat little box. When He chooses to show up in power, the unexpected takes place - we cannot control Him. The real question is whether we in our rationalism are willing to allow Him to show up, expect Him to show up, want Him to show up or believe He will show up.
Expect little and we will see little. Expect that the Gospel is the "power" of God for the salvation of everyone who believes...and pray that God would do beyond what we could "ask or imagine" and He might just do that!
Believers in the majority world don't have the sophistication to know that God is supposed to fit into neat categories. When they read the Scriptures and see God doing the unexpected and miraculous they actually believe he operates that way. When He tells them to ask for much fruit they assume He means what he says. And God blesses them for their naive faith. Actually that naive faith is the faith God wants from each of us.
We have a lot to learn about the power of God through His Spirit. We have a lot to learn about believing that His power breaks through spiritual strongholds and changes hearts. We have a lot to learn about naively believing that He wants to show up in power, surprise us and others and bring people to Him. As for missions from the west, I believe our lack of faith in the power of God, through His Spirit is one of the greatest barriers to seeing the Gospel come the way we see it came in the book of Acts.
What I am encouraged by are the number of workers from the west who are re-examining the role of the Holy Spirit in their lives and ministries. And even reclaiming the "forgotten God" of the Holy Spirit.
Here is my challenge to every Christian. Read the New Testament for the first time! By that I mean, put aside all your theological training, grids and commentaries for a while. Just read the New Testament and ask yourself, "What does the New Testament say about the Holy Spirit and His power in my life?" And, "if what it says is completely true what might I expect Him to do in my life and ministry?" And then - here is the scary part - invite Him to surprise you in your life and ministry. It's an invitation He will not turn down.
Developing a Book of Knowledge
Think back to a time when you came into a new organization - perhaps your current organization. How long did it take you to figure out what was really going on, understand what the culture was, or get up to speed on issues they were dealing with? The discovery process can be frustrating and disorienting.
There is a way to shorten the process for new folks who come into your organization. It is to develop a comprehensive "Book of Knowledge." A Book of Knowledge is a compilation of every key document, policy, powerpoint, key meeting minutes, videos, white papers and so on - going back at least five years. It is all those things that those who have been around for a while already know but what a new individual has no clue about.
With a Book of Knowledge for your organization or team, one of the first responsibilities of a new staff member is to take a week or so and simply immerse themselves in that information. Coming out of that homework they then have context to ask questions of their supervisor and dialogue in depth over issues that are key to their success in their new role.
Not only will they get up to speed faster but the frustrations of trying to understand their new organization will be significantly alleviated. Do you have a Book of Knowledge for your organization?
Thursday, September 16, 2010
The Magic of Questions
Many of us are great at telling others what we think and sharing our opinions or telling others what they should think or do. Fewer of us are great at asking questions which draw others out, show our interest in them or create dialogue around issues that allow us to understand others or get to common understanding. For those who develop this skill, there is a special magic in the way others respond to them.
One of my sons is currently looking for a job and a good friend has been coaching him on interviews. The first thing he taught Jon to do was to look around the office of the one doing the interview and notice everything that was there because every book, magazine, picture or memento tells a story about the individual. And then he suggested Jon comment on those items and ask appropriate questions to draw out the interviewer.
Why? Because relational connection is everything in an interview. Actually, relational connection is everything in all of our interactions and learning how to be naturally curious and ask good questions goes a long way in making that connection.
“Tell me about….” questions allow you to ask about situations, decisions or thinking of another person. It sparks a narrative or story which provides context and understanding about a specific issue. It is an open ended question that allows the narrator to take it where they desire and allows for one to follow up to clarify.
“How did you…..” questions are wonderful questions if you want to understand how someone is wired because it is really asking how one went about tackling a specific issue or dealing with a specific problem. All of us go after issues differently so “how” questions help you understand how they are wired.
“Tell me why….” questions allow you to probe why someone chose a certain course of action and if asked well does not indicate rightness or wrongness but simply why they chose that course. If the course of action was problematic one can follow up. Often, one will understand the rationale that they did not understand before for a course of action.
“What are you learning these days about….” allows one to probe on any number of subjects and often reveals the cutting edge issues that people are grappling with opening up a wonderful dialogue on the subject.
The magic of questions is that it creates relationship, gives great insight into the thinking and styles of others and most importantly gives honor to the one to whom we ask the questions. The more questions we ask, the more we honor others and the more we understand.
One of my sons is currently looking for a job and a good friend has been coaching him on interviews. The first thing he taught Jon to do was to look around the office of the one doing the interview and notice everything that was there because every book, magazine, picture or memento tells a story about the individual. And then he suggested Jon comment on those items and ask appropriate questions to draw out the interviewer.
Why? Because relational connection is everything in an interview. Actually, relational connection is everything in all of our interactions and learning how to be naturally curious and ask good questions goes a long way in making that connection.
“Tell me about….” questions allow you to ask about situations, decisions or thinking of another person. It sparks a narrative or story which provides context and understanding about a specific issue. It is an open ended question that allows the narrator to take it where they desire and allows for one to follow up to clarify.
“How did you…..” questions are wonderful questions if you want to understand how someone is wired because it is really asking how one went about tackling a specific issue or dealing with a specific problem. All of us go after issues differently so “how” questions help you understand how they are wired.
“Tell me why….” questions allow you to probe why someone chose a certain course of action and if asked well does not indicate rightness or wrongness but simply why they chose that course. If the course of action was problematic one can follow up. Often, one will understand the rationale that they did not understand before for a course of action.
“What are you learning these days about….” allows one to probe on any number of subjects and often reveals the cutting edge issues that people are grappling with opening up a wonderful dialogue on the subject.
The magic of questions is that it creates relationship, gives great insight into the thinking and styles of others and most importantly gives honor to the one to whom we ask the questions. The more questions we ask, the more we honor others and the more we understand.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Leadership maturity: From me to us
There is an important transition that takes place as leaders mature and as their ministry grows. Many young leaders believe that leadership is about “making the calls” and decisions. Certainly, good leaders are pace setters as well as direction makers. They have an internal compass as to where the organization needs to go, articulate that direction daily and rally leaders and staff to go with them. This is especially true in new ministries, and when ministries are walking through transition and re envisioning their future.
Wise leaders, however, know that there is a more powerful leadership paradigm than leadership that revolves around them. It is shared leadership built around strongly held commitments where a senior leadership group brings their collective intellectual capital and gifts to the table in order to maximize the organizations potential. In order to get to this higher level of leadership there are four things a senior leader must do.
First, shared leadership requires that there is great clarity regarding what the organization is all about. Shared leadership only works when everyone is committed to the same mission, direction and values. This missional clarity is the glue that holds the group together and ensures that they are all moving in the same direction with the same commitments. Without great clarity, shared leadership simply becomes confusing.
Second, shared leadership requires the senior leader to build the very best group of A team players at the top of the organization. This often means recruiting leaders who are stronger than us and who have skills we do not have. The stronger the senior team, the better the organization will be – if built around great clarity and shared vision. As I reflect on the senior team of the organization I lead I can say with confidence that we would not be a fraction of what we are today without the skill, commitment, ideas, innovation and leadership of this group of leaders together. They are A players, committed to the same vision and multiply the leadership quotient of what I could do alone exponentially.
Third, shared leadership requires humility on the part of the leader along with a strong dose of self confidence. Many leaders suffer from deep insecurities which prevent them from building a strong team around them, allowing robust dialogue and dissenting views or allowing the team to truly lead. The pride and insecurity of the leader (these two often go together) keep the organization at the leadership level of the leader instead of allowing the exponential leadership potential of the group to take it to a new level. Those who lead at this level understand that it is not about “them” but about the mission and influence of the organization and set aside their own interests in the interests of the group as a whole.
Fourth, they actually share leadership with their senior team. Sitting in a meeting recently with five of the senior leaders of our organization I realized that they were grappling with issues that I used to grapple with. They were taking ownership for ministry direction that used to pretty much be mine. And, I realized, decisions I might have made myself are now being made by us, not me. It was a gratifying moment. I know the wisdom of the group is better than any of our wisdom by ourselves. I know that the direction does not depend on me because now there is a mature “us.” I know that our ministry philosophy will go much deeper because of shared ownership.
This does not mean that leaders no longer lead. It means that we lead differently. We lead through a team of mature leaders who together take responsibility for direction. I continue to speak into key issues but then work those issues through the team. It is truly shared leadership built on great trust among leaders, common direction and very deep missional commitment. It is a leadership that has gone from “me” to “us” and “us” is far more powerful than “me.” Where are you on that continuum?
Wise leaders, however, know that there is a more powerful leadership paradigm than leadership that revolves around them. It is shared leadership built around strongly held commitments where a senior leadership group brings their collective intellectual capital and gifts to the table in order to maximize the organizations potential. In order to get to this higher level of leadership there are four things a senior leader must do.
First, shared leadership requires that there is great clarity regarding what the organization is all about. Shared leadership only works when everyone is committed to the same mission, direction and values. This missional clarity is the glue that holds the group together and ensures that they are all moving in the same direction with the same commitments. Without great clarity, shared leadership simply becomes confusing.
Second, shared leadership requires the senior leader to build the very best group of A team players at the top of the organization. This often means recruiting leaders who are stronger than us and who have skills we do not have. The stronger the senior team, the better the organization will be – if built around great clarity and shared vision. As I reflect on the senior team of the organization I lead I can say with confidence that we would not be a fraction of what we are today without the skill, commitment, ideas, innovation and leadership of this group of leaders together. They are A players, committed to the same vision and multiply the leadership quotient of what I could do alone exponentially.
Third, shared leadership requires humility on the part of the leader along with a strong dose of self confidence. Many leaders suffer from deep insecurities which prevent them from building a strong team around them, allowing robust dialogue and dissenting views or allowing the team to truly lead. The pride and insecurity of the leader (these two often go together) keep the organization at the leadership level of the leader instead of allowing the exponential leadership potential of the group to take it to a new level. Those who lead at this level understand that it is not about “them” but about the mission and influence of the organization and set aside their own interests in the interests of the group as a whole.
Fourth, they actually share leadership with their senior team. Sitting in a meeting recently with five of the senior leaders of our organization I realized that they were grappling with issues that I used to grapple with. They were taking ownership for ministry direction that used to pretty much be mine. And, I realized, decisions I might have made myself are now being made by us, not me. It was a gratifying moment. I know the wisdom of the group is better than any of our wisdom by ourselves. I know that the direction does not depend on me because now there is a mature “us.” I know that our ministry philosophy will go much deeper because of shared ownership.
This does not mean that leaders no longer lead. It means that we lead differently. We lead through a team of mature leaders who together take responsibility for direction. I continue to speak into key issues but then work those issues through the team. It is truly shared leadership built on great trust among leaders, common direction and very deep missional commitment. It is a leadership that has gone from “me” to “us” and “us” is far more powerful than “me.” Where are you on that continuum?
Friday, September 10, 2010
Deep Influence: The Hidden Practices of Highly Influential People
I have just completed this new manuscript. If you would like to read this manuscript and provide feedback to me, please contact me at tjaddington@gmail.com.
It was also an honor to have Leading From the Sandbox named leadership book of the year by The Mission Exchange. You can view the video announcement at www.TheMissionExchange.org
It was also an honor to have Leading From the Sandbox named leadership book of the year by The Mission Exchange. You can view the video announcement at www.TheMissionExchange.org
What makes for a healthy ministry?
What makes for a healthy ministry organization? Having worked in a few and led a few I would suggest that there are some clear markers that we should look for when exploring a ministry job – and which we should work toward if we are in leadership of a ministry organization. Each of these markers – their presence or their absence – will make a difference in the health of the ministry and the satisfaction of those who work there. Of course, there are no perfect ministries. There is, however, a wide variation in the health of ministries. Most overrate their health and underrate their dysfunction.
Marker one: we have great ministry clarity. Clarity on why we exist, what our non-negotiables are (guiding principles), what we need to focus on all the time (central ministry focus) and the culture we want to create are all significantly important. Specific answers to these questions are far better than general answers because the clearer we are, the better we know how to best live within the parameters of the ministry. In answering these questions we actually define the culture and ethos of our organization. Ministry organizations that have significant dysfunction usually have not taken the time to proactively determine their culture and ethos by clarifying these questions and then intentionally living them out.
Marker two: we drive a missional agenda all the time. The missional agenda of our organization is the process of living out our mission, guiding principles, central ministry focus and culture through specific ministry plans and initiatives. It is not just about doing ministry but it is doing ministry that is in alignment with our clarity so that what we do on a day to day basis reflects the convictions and aspirations of our ministry. Thus our ministry plans and strategies are designed to help us achieve the clarity we have defined. Our actions (ministry plan) are consistent with our intentions (our clarity).
Marker three: individuals, teams and leaders are in alignment with our clarity. Alignment does not mean we all do the same things or use the same strategies to achieve our desired ends. It does mean that we are committed to achieving the same ends with the same non-negotiables. Many ministries are really only a gathering of nice people who like the days of the judges in the Old Testament, “do what is right in their own eyes.” Alignment around core principles (marker one) allows us to align all the arrows of the organization in the same direction even though we fulfill different responsibilities or pursue different strategies. Non aligned ministries often live with significant conflict because there is not clarity on what set of tracks to drive down. In an aligned ministry there is significant commitment to the same convictions coupled with flexibility on strategies to fulfill those convictions.
Marker four: we have an open and collegial atmosphere. Strongly hierarchical organizations will not attract the best people today. The best staff members want a place at the table and their voice to be heard. Indeed, the best organizations understand that a plethora of voices speaking into the strategy is far better than any one or two of us. Thus they seek to bring multiple voices to the table, encourage a huge degree of interaction and dialogue to find the best ways to deliver on the missional clarity we have determined. This does not mean that leadership is by committee. It does mean that we are open to the views of others and have a culture of collegial cooperation, interaction and collaboration.
Marker five: we encourage robust dialogue. Robust dialogue is the ability to disagree and state ones convictions as long as there is not a hidden agenda or personal attacks. Many would call this healthy conflict. It is in the conflict of ideas that better ideas emerge than either party had before the robust dialogue. Robust dialogue is not a smokescreen for hidden agendas, personal attacks or cynical attitudes. Healthy organizations call those behaviors for what they are – unhealthy. It is the ability to go at issues that need solving with vigor and conviction with an attitude of humility and care for others.
Marker six: we do our best but don’t pretend to be the best. Great ministries have high standards for clarity, ministry results and having the greatest influence for God’s kingdom as possible. At the same time, great ministries don’t fool themselves that they are the best or have a corner on the ministry world. They are humble about their place among God’s many workers, humble about their need to continue to learn, humble enough to collaborate with other ministries (many are not) and humble about what they don’t do well. Arrogant organizations go it alone while humble organizations go it with others.
Marker seven: we are candid about our success and failures. This follows from a humble attitude. How many times do you hear a ministry talk about its failures or weaknesses? How many ministries overstate their success? Healthy organizations are candid about where they are seeing success and where they are struggling. It is that very candidness that allows them to learn from others or collaborate with others from whom they can learn. Ministries are like people, they have strengths and weaknesses. Humble ministries collaborate with others where they are weak and don’t pretend that everything they do is a success.
Marker eight: we encourage innovation. Trying new things, rethinking old strategies, allowing the freedom to fail (some new things will fail) are signs of health. Ministry tiredness has set in when we are afraid to take a risk, afraid to fail, and settle into what is familiar rather than being willing to step into the unfamiliar. There is something deeply refreshing when people try new strategies and break old rules. Just as Jesus broke many of the traditions of the Pharisees, healthy ministries love the break the old rules as to “how it is done.” They encourage innovation, new ideas and give people freedom to try and even fail. They understand that if you always do what you always did you always get what you always got and they don’t settle for that.
Marker nine: we love to get people into their sweet spot where they are using their gifts and are in their right lane. Healthy ministries don’t fill ministry slots with available people. Rather they find the best people and then design ministry lanes that are consistent with the gifting and wiring of those great staff members. When staff are in the right lane, when they are playing to their strengths rather than their weaknesses, morale and productivity are high.
Marker ten: we empower people and hold them accountable. Empowerment means that we are clear about the results we seek and the convictions of the ministry and then set people free to achieve the missional agenda in line with their creative gifting. The other side of empowerment is accountability for results and living within the convictions of the ministry. Great staff love empowerment and are committed to accountability.
It takes the commitment of everyone to build a healthy ministry. It is not simply the job of leaders – they can help set the ethos but making it happen is the responsibility of every staff member all the time. That commitment pays off with a great place to work, colleagues we trust and appreciate and ministry results that give us energy.
Marker one: we have great ministry clarity. Clarity on why we exist, what our non-negotiables are (guiding principles), what we need to focus on all the time (central ministry focus) and the culture we want to create are all significantly important. Specific answers to these questions are far better than general answers because the clearer we are, the better we know how to best live within the parameters of the ministry. In answering these questions we actually define the culture and ethos of our organization. Ministry organizations that have significant dysfunction usually have not taken the time to proactively determine their culture and ethos by clarifying these questions and then intentionally living them out.
Marker two: we drive a missional agenda all the time. The missional agenda of our organization is the process of living out our mission, guiding principles, central ministry focus and culture through specific ministry plans and initiatives. It is not just about doing ministry but it is doing ministry that is in alignment with our clarity so that what we do on a day to day basis reflects the convictions and aspirations of our ministry. Thus our ministry plans and strategies are designed to help us achieve the clarity we have defined. Our actions (ministry plan) are consistent with our intentions (our clarity).
Marker three: individuals, teams and leaders are in alignment with our clarity. Alignment does not mean we all do the same things or use the same strategies to achieve our desired ends. It does mean that we are committed to achieving the same ends with the same non-negotiables. Many ministries are really only a gathering of nice people who like the days of the judges in the Old Testament, “do what is right in their own eyes.” Alignment around core principles (marker one) allows us to align all the arrows of the organization in the same direction even though we fulfill different responsibilities or pursue different strategies. Non aligned ministries often live with significant conflict because there is not clarity on what set of tracks to drive down. In an aligned ministry there is significant commitment to the same convictions coupled with flexibility on strategies to fulfill those convictions.
Marker four: we have an open and collegial atmosphere. Strongly hierarchical organizations will not attract the best people today. The best staff members want a place at the table and their voice to be heard. Indeed, the best organizations understand that a plethora of voices speaking into the strategy is far better than any one or two of us. Thus they seek to bring multiple voices to the table, encourage a huge degree of interaction and dialogue to find the best ways to deliver on the missional clarity we have determined. This does not mean that leadership is by committee. It does mean that we are open to the views of others and have a culture of collegial cooperation, interaction and collaboration.
Marker five: we encourage robust dialogue. Robust dialogue is the ability to disagree and state ones convictions as long as there is not a hidden agenda or personal attacks. Many would call this healthy conflict. It is in the conflict of ideas that better ideas emerge than either party had before the robust dialogue. Robust dialogue is not a smokescreen for hidden agendas, personal attacks or cynical attitudes. Healthy organizations call those behaviors for what they are – unhealthy. It is the ability to go at issues that need solving with vigor and conviction with an attitude of humility and care for others.
Marker six: we do our best but don’t pretend to be the best. Great ministries have high standards for clarity, ministry results and having the greatest influence for God’s kingdom as possible. At the same time, great ministries don’t fool themselves that they are the best or have a corner on the ministry world. They are humble about their place among God’s many workers, humble about their need to continue to learn, humble enough to collaborate with other ministries (many are not) and humble about what they don’t do well. Arrogant organizations go it alone while humble organizations go it with others.
Marker seven: we are candid about our success and failures. This follows from a humble attitude. How many times do you hear a ministry talk about its failures or weaknesses? How many ministries overstate their success? Healthy organizations are candid about where they are seeing success and where they are struggling. It is that very candidness that allows them to learn from others or collaborate with others from whom they can learn. Ministries are like people, they have strengths and weaknesses. Humble ministries collaborate with others where they are weak and don’t pretend that everything they do is a success.
Marker eight: we encourage innovation. Trying new things, rethinking old strategies, allowing the freedom to fail (some new things will fail) are signs of health. Ministry tiredness has set in when we are afraid to take a risk, afraid to fail, and settle into what is familiar rather than being willing to step into the unfamiliar. There is something deeply refreshing when people try new strategies and break old rules. Just as Jesus broke many of the traditions of the Pharisees, healthy ministries love the break the old rules as to “how it is done.” They encourage innovation, new ideas and give people freedom to try and even fail. They understand that if you always do what you always did you always get what you always got and they don’t settle for that.
Marker nine: we love to get people into their sweet spot where they are using their gifts and are in their right lane. Healthy ministries don’t fill ministry slots with available people. Rather they find the best people and then design ministry lanes that are consistent with the gifting and wiring of those great staff members. When staff are in the right lane, when they are playing to their strengths rather than their weaknesses, morale and productivity are high.
Marker ten: we empower people and hold them accountable. Empowerment means that we are clear about the results we seek and the convictions of the ministry and then set people free to achieve the missional agenda in line with their creative gifting. The other side of empowerment is accountability for results and living within the convictions of the ministry. Great staff love empowerment and are committed to accountability.
It takes the commitment of everyone to build a healthy ministry. It is not simply the job of leaders – they can help set the ethos but making it happen is the responsibility of every staff member all the time. That commitment pays off with a great place to work, colleagues we trust and appreciate and ministry results that give us energy.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
The Questions Raised by the New Tribes Mission Scandal
The terrible scandal that has erupted around New Tribes Mission (NTM) over systematic abuse in at least one of their mission schools in the seventies and eighties, along with a failed attempt to minimize what happened, protect the guilty and ignore the victims raises an important question for those of us who lead ministries. When things go wrong – and they will – how do we respond? Equally, how do we minimize the chances that something like this could happen in our own organizations?
Minimizing our risk starts with the ethos we develop in our organization. Many organizations have “elephants” that are off limits for discussion – and everyone knows it. We have intentionally sought to develop an open ethos and environment in ReachGlobal where any issue can be put on the table and where there are no lingering elephants in the room. An open ethos that invites dialogue rather than discourages it gives everyone permission to talk about issues that are of concern to them. NTM had a history of the opposite: One could not challenge leaders without it being framed as a spiritual issue of rebellion. There was not an open ethos and the result was that it took decades for a known problem to be brought into the light. One of the questions every leader ought to be asking right now is whether there is an open ethos in their ministry where known problems can be brought into the light easily and without incrimination!
Leaders who seek to cover up sin in order to preserve the reputation of their organization end up doing just the opposite. One of the first jobs of a leader is to provide a safe environment for those who work for them. This includes physical safety where possible – missions is inherently dangerous in many places – but it also implies a promise to staff that if something occurs that should not have that they will always respond in the best interests of those affected and in the best interests of all of their staff.
NTM failed this test miserably. In the attempt to minimize damage to their reputation they responded in ways that put children more at risk and by not acting vigorously and quickly to address the problem caused huge pain to many families and former MKs as evidenced by the stories that are being told. Even now, many former NTM MK’s and personnel are wondering aloud on blogs if there were not other schools where the same abuse took place and whether NTM will address those schools as well. Had NTM addressed the systemic issues quickly, forcefully and thoroughly in the beginning, they would have protected their future staff and spared the organization the agony they are currently experiencing. What they did instead is to put their own people at risk for the sake of their mission and reputation – a moral “exchange” that was unconscionable.
Protecting your staff and acting with integrity requires that leaders confront serious problems directly, with no attempt to hide or cover up the facts, because they know that in doing the right thing they serve their people best and protect the reputation of God. The question is not whether bad things will happen in Christian organizations – we live in a fallen world. The question is whether leaders will act with moral integrity and courage when it does for the sake of their people and God’s reputation regardless of the fallout in the short term. Ironically, short term losses in reputation actually make for long term gains in reputation as staff and others see that leaders can be trusted to do the right thing even when it is hard. Regardless, real leaders confront known issues quickly and vigorously knowing that doing the right thing is always the right thing, no matter what the fallout.
Those who serve on ministry boards have huge responsibility to ensure that they are alerted to potential issues – it should be one of their policies and that such issues are thoroughly explored and responded to quickly. The NTM situation would be a great discussion for many ministry boards. Are they prepared to respond to bad news with wise and decisive action? They need to ask the question, if this happened to us, how would we respond? Don’t pretend that it will never happen to you. It might. The question is whether you are ready to respond in ways different than NTM did?
There is a final question to be raised. The world believes that the end justifies the means. Christians believe that the means must be as righteous as the ends. NTM by its actions and words sent a strong message that they were willing to compromise the safety of their MK’s for the cause of the Gospel. That was an immoral exchange which permanently scarred many MK’s and their families for life. In some cases it also inoculated them against the Gospel itself. The ends never justify the means no matter how noble the cause of our ministry.
It is easy to throw stones and that is not my intention although I am sad, angry and believe that NTM utterly failed in its care for its staff, the ethos they developed and the response they exhibited. But my real question is whether we as ministry leaders and organizations can learn something from their leadership failure and ensure that we have done all that we can to develop healthy ministry environments where serious issues cannot be swept under the rug, where the care and safety of our staff is a high priority and where our ends never justify our means. That to me is the relevant response to this sordid affair.
Minimizing our risk starts with the ethos we develop in our organization. Many organizations have “elephants” that are off limits for discussion – and everyone knows it. We have intentionally sought to develop an open ethos and environment in ReachGlobal where any issue can be put on the table and where there are no lingering elephants in the room. An open ethos that invites dialogue rather than discourages it gives everyone permission to talk about issues that are of concern to them. NTM had a history of the opposite: One could not challenge leaders without it being framed as a spiritual issue of rebellion. There was not an open ethos and the result was that it took decades for a known problem to be brought into the light. One of the questions every leader ought to be asking right now is whether there is an open ethos in their ministry where known problems can be brought into the light easily and without incrimination!
Leaders who seek to cover up sin in order to preserve the reputation of their organization end up doing just the opposite. One of the first jobs of a leader is to provide a safe environment for those who work for them. This includes physical safety where possible – missions is inherently dangerous in many places – but it also implies a promise to staff that if something occurs that should not have that they will always respond in the best interests of those affected and in the best interests of all of their staff.
NTM failed this test miserably. In the attempt to minimize damage to their reputation they responded in ways that put children more at risk and by not acting vigorously and quickly to address the problem caused huge pain to many families and former MKs as evidenced by the stories that are being told. Even now, many former NTM MK’s and personnel are wondering aloud on blogs if there were not other schools where the same abuse took place and whether NTM will address those schools as well. Had NTM addressed the systemic issues quickly, forcefully and thoroughly in the beginning, they would have protected their future staff and spared the organization the agony they are currently experiencing. What they did instead is to put their own people at risk for the sake of their mission and reputation – a moral “exchange” that was unconscionable.
Protecting your staff and acting with integrity requires that leaders confront serious problems directly, with no attempt to hide or cover up the facts, because they know that in doing the right thing they serve their people best and protect the reputation of God. The question is not whether bad things will happen in Christian organizations – we live in a fallen world. The question is whether leaders will act with moral integrity and courage when it does for the sake of their people and God’s reputation regardless of the fallout in the short term. Ironically, short term losses in reputation actually make for long term gains in reputation as staff and others see that leaders can be trusted to do the right thing even when it is hard. Regardless, real leaders confront known issues quickly and vigorously knowing that doing the right thing is always the right thing, no matter what the fallout.
Those who serve on ministry boards have huge responsibility to ensure that they are alerted to potential issues – it should be one of their policies and that such issues are thoroughly explored and responded to quickly. The NTM situation would be a great discussion for many ministry boards. Are they prepared to respond to bad news with wise and decisive action? They need to ask the question, if this happened to us, how would we respond? Don’t pretend that it will never happen to you. It might. The question is whether you are ready to respond in ways different than NTM did?
There is a final question to be raised. The world believes that the end justifies the means. Christians believe that the means must be as righteous as the ends. NTM by its actions and words sent a strong message that they were willing to compromise the safety of their MK’s for the cause of the Gospel. That was an immoral exchange which permanently scarred many MK’s and their families for life. In some cases it also inoculated them against the Gospel itself. The ends never justify the means no matter how noble the cause of our ministry.
It is easy to throw stones and that is not my intention although I am sad, angry and believe that NTM utterly failed in its care for its staff, the ethos they developed and the response they exhibited. But my real question is whether we as ministry leaders and organizations can learn something from their leadership failure and ensure that we have done all that we can to develop healthy ministry environments where serious issues cannot be swept under the rug, where the care and safety of our staff is a high priority and where our ends never justify our means. That to me is the relevant response to this sordid affair.
Monday, September 6, 2010
New Tribes Mission faces the consequences of its past
I have just completed the reading of one of the most shameful, shocking and disturbing reports for a Christian organization. It is the GRACE report (Godly Response to Abuse in the Christian Environment) to New Tribes Mission “for the investigatory review of child abuse at New Tribes Fanda missionary school” in Senegal. The systematic abuse took place in the 80’s and 90’s against Missionary Kids (MK’s) while at this school.”
The introduction to the report states that “In the 1980’s and the 1990’s, New Tribes Mission (NTM) operated a boarding school in the village of Fanda, in the country of Senegal. The children of missionaries were housed at this school, sometimes over the strong objections of their parents. The workers NTM placed in charge of these children were often cruel and many of the boys and girls placed there endured sexual, physical, emotional, and spiritual abuse. Much of this behavior was criminal.”
As if this abuse were not enough, NTM systematically ignored the issue even when they were alerted to the abuse taking place. The field council in Senegal kept abusive personnel in the school even after complaints from children and parents. They downplayed allegations and did not alert the executive leadership in the United States. When the executive leadership in the US was made aware they did not alert authorities, allowed abusers to remain in NTM and hushed up serious (criminal) behavior they were made aware of. The GRACE report suggests that NTM placed the evangelization of the unsaved above the safety, protection and best interests of MKs. In some cases years went by before NTM was willing to even address the concerns of parents to say nothing of the abused children.
The cost to these MK’s of NTM in Senegal has been immense. While some have continued in their faith, others will have nothing to do with Christianity as much of the abuse was perpetuated in the name of Christ like the abuse by priests in the Catholic Church. Many are deeply bitter at NTM for the hypocrisy of ignoring the sin in their own organization. Like all those who have been victims of sexual, emotional or physical abuse, all of these kids (now adults) live with scars that will never be completely healed. As the report says, three generations have been deeply wounded and scarred by this abuse.
What contributed to a culture where such abuse could continue unfettered and for such a long period of time? The report suggests that NTM has had a culture of authority among its leaders that does not allow for disagreement. Disagreement was seen as rebellion and sinful and leaders led by authoritarian and coercive means. Field council leaders in Senegal had nearly complete authority over all aspects of their missionaries lives – with little recourse unless one simply resigned and even then, this was seen as a rebellious spirit against leaders. Even now, NTM leadership seems to believe this is a problem and is seeking to change their often legalistic, non-grace filled culture according to the report. They are also seeking to determine whether there were other places where such abuse took place.
It is also clear that NTM did not screen applicants for their mission with any degree of care. In addition, even knowing that they had pedophiles amongst them they did not discipline them, expose them or remove them. In one case a female missionary wife had an affair with a student at the school. The situation was hushed up, she was transferred to another assignment and the victim’s family was let go from the mission. Such a gross violation of trust can hardly be imagined! Only now – years later with the publishing of this report is it recommended that she be fired. Missions who do not properly and carefully screen applicants are on a course for trouble!
Too many missions in their drive to evangelize the world take almost all who come their way without regard to their spiritual, emotional, relational and skill health. This was certainly true of NTM as evidenced by those who perpetuated these egregious acts as well as the leaders who chose to minimize, ignore or even protect the abusers. Even at the highest levels of the organization there was not the health among leaders to choose the right course of action. The evangelization of the world took precedence over the care and health (spiritual, emotional and relational) of their own personnel.
What forced the issue for NTM? Why did they come forward now? Not, it seems, only their desire to bring sin to light within their organization (I hope their desire is authentic). There was the pressure put on them by their own abused MKs through their blog ( New Tribes Mission Abuse ), along with public pressure as the story has emerged over the last years. Even then, NTM’s response was too little, poorly managed, and fell far short of the independent investigation that finally took place by GRACE with its strong recommendations. This has left the affected victims and their families with serious questions as to whether the response today is genuine or is simply a reflection of self – interest. In the short run it is indeed hard to tell. The long run repentance, treatment of victims and changes in its ethos and culture will tell the real story.
Choosing to confront sin is a tough thing. But choosing to ignore it says everything about the character of an organization and its leaders.
This situation bothers me deeply on many counts. I am an MK and am aware of other situations like this that have destroyed the lives of MKs. I am a leader of a mission organization and know the trust that is placed in our leadership by supporters, staff and churches. I am a father and soon to be grandfather who cannot imagine a pain greater than the violation of my children or grandchildren and its devastating long term consequences. And, as a Christian leader I am convinced that we are and ought to be held to a much higher standard than others. No ends (evangelization of the lost) justifies the means (substandard treatment of kids so that the gospel gets out).
I hope and pray that something redemptive will come from this tragic chapter. Humility, repentance and a massive ethos change for NMT and healing for victims and their families. May such a chapter never be repeated in modern day missions.
The full GRACE report is a difficult and sad read. May it also be a cautionary tale for mission organizations. I understand my comments here are unusually to the point. Not more so, however, than the report that NTM solicited from GRACE.
The introduction to the report states that “In the 1980’s and the 1990’s, New Tribes Mission (NTM) operated a boarding school in the village of Fanda, in the country of Senegal. The children of missionaries were housed at this school, sometimes over the strong objections of their parents. The workers NTM placed in charge of these children were often cruel and many of the boys and girls placed there endured sexual, physical, emotional, and spiritual abuse. Much of this behavior was criminal.”
As if this abuse were not enough, NTM systematically ignored the issue even when they were alerted to the abuse taking place. The field council in Senegal kept abusive personnel in the school even after complaints from children and parents. They downplayed allegations and did not alert the executive leadership in the United States. When the executive leadership in the US was made aware they did not alert authorities, allowed abusers to remain in NTM and hushed up serious (criminal) behavior they were made aware of. The GRACE report suggests that NTM placed the evangelization of the unsaved above the safety, protection and best interests of MKs. In some cases years went by before NTM was willing to even address the concerns of parents to say nothing of the abused children.
The cost to these MK’s of NTM in Senegal has been immense. While some have continued in their faith, others will have nothing to do with Christianity as much of the abuse was perpetuated in the name of Christ like the abuse by priests in the Catholic Church. Many are deeply bitter at NTM for the hypocrisy of ignoring the sin in their own organization. Like all those who have been victims of sexual, emotional or physical abuse, all of these kids (now adults) live with scars that will never be completely healed. As the report says, three generations have been deeply wounded and scarred by this abuse.
What contributed to a culture where such abuse could continue unfettered and for such a long period of time? The report suggests that NTM has had a culture of authority among its leaders that does not allow for disagreement. Disagreement was seen as rebellion and sinful and leaders led by authoritarian and coercive means. Field council leaders in Senegal had nearly complete authority over all aspects of their missionaries lives – with little recourse unless one simply resigned and even then, this was seen as a rebellious spirit against leaders. Even now, NTM leadership seems to believe this is a problem and is seeking to change their often legalistic, non-grace filled culture according to the report. They are also seeking to determine whether there were other places where such abuse took place.
It is also clear that NTM did not screen applicants for their mission with any degree of care. In addition, even knowing that they had pedophiles amongst them they did not discipline them, expose them or remove them. In one case a female missionary wife had an affair with a student at the school. The situation was hushed up, she was transferred to another assignment and the victim’s family was let go from the mission. Such a gross violation of trust can hardly be imagined! Only now – years later with the publishing of this report is it recommended that she be fired. Missions who do not properly and carefully screen applicants are on a course for trouble!
Too many missions in their drive to evangelize the world take almost all who come their way without regard to their spiritual, emotional, relational and skill health. This was certainly true of NTM as evidenced by those who perpetuated these egregious acts as well as the leaders who chose to minimize, ignore or even protect the abusers. Even at the highest levels of the organization there was not the health among leaders to choose the right course of action. The evangelization of the world took precedence over the care and health (spiritual, emotional and relational) of their own personnel.
What forced the issue for NTM? Why did they come forward now? Not, it seems, only their desire to bring sin to light within their organization (I hope their desire is authentic). There was the pressure put on them by their own abused MKs through their blog ( New Tribes Mission Abuse ), along with public pressure as the story has emerged over the last years. Even then, NTM’s response was too little, poorly managed, and fell far short of the independent investigation that finally took place by GRACE with its strong recommendations. This has left the affected victims and their families with serious questions as to whether the response today is genuine or is simply a reflection of self – interest. In the short run it is indeed hard to tell. The long run repentance, treatment of victims and changes in its ethos and culture will tell the real story.
Choosing to confront sin is a tough thing. But choosing to ignore it says everything about the character of an organization and its leaders.
This situation bothers me deeply on many counts. I am an MK and am aware of other situations like this that have destroyed the lives of MKs. I am a leader of a mission organization and know the trust that is placed in our leadership by supporters, staff and churches. I am a father and soon to be grandfather who cannot imagine a pain greater than the violation of my children or grandchildren and its devastating long term consequences. And, as a Christian leader I am convinced that we are and ought to be held to a much higher standard than others. No ends (evangelization of the lost) justifies the means (substandard treatment of kids so that the gospel gets out).
I hope and pray that something redemptive will come from this tragic chapter. Humility, repentance and a massive ethos change for NMT and healing for victims and their families. May such a chapter never be repeated in modern day missions.
The full GRACE report is a difficult and sad read. May it also be a cautionary tale for mission organizations. I understand my comments here are unusually to the point. Not more so, however, than the report that NTM solicited from GRACE.
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Loving Your Pastor
I am convinced that there are few jobs more challenging than that of pasturing a local church. Too often we take our pastors for granted rather than honoring and loving them well. Having been one and now for many years serving them as a consultant I have some suggestions for how we can bless those who bless us with their ministry.
Pay a living wage – actually, be generous in your compensation. Paul tells Timothy that “The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching” (1 Timothy 5:17). There are few more sad attitudes than stinginess on the part of congregations toward those who serve them. Generosity is not only biblical but it sends a strong message of love.
Be generous with time off and respect days off. I grew up as the son of a missionary doctor. I know what it is to have a father who was always on call, day, night, birthday parties and even days that were supposed to be off. Then in the pastorate I experienced the difficulty of getting enough rest and like my dad, always being on call. I would literally get out of town on my day off so that I could get adequate rest. Wise congregations are generous with vacation (at least a month) and respect days off so that their pastoral staff can recharge. The rest of us get days off each week – our pastors need to as well. It is called the Sabbath rest which for pastors does not happen on Sundays.
In addition to time off, be generous with study weeks where your pastor does not need to preach so that he can study, read, think and prepare for future messages. A week out of the pulpit is not a vacation week – trust me. It simply gives time to catch up on all the things that get pushed aside by the weekly responsibility of preaching.
Give your pastor the benefit of the doubt when issues come up where he comes under criticism. When I had a church with three hundred and fifty congregants I had three hundred and fifty individuals who all had an opinion about what I should do and how I should do it. Pastors cannot please everyone and meet everyone’s expectations. In addition we often hold them to expectations that we don’t even hold ourselves to. They are human, we are human and they and we will disappoint, fail, get into relational scraps and sometimes do dumb things. I certainly did.
Related to this – be circumspect about criticism and generous with praise. It is easy to criticize and healthy leaders are open to the opinions of others without taking it too personally. But, there is a whole lot said to pastors that is not helpful, constructive or encouraging and far too little thanks and appreciation. Words have great power to build up or destroy. Loving congregations are gracious with their words rather than destructive.
Surprise them with love. Want to keep you pastor? Love him and his family. Surprise them with a gift card, send them away on an all expenses paid weekend, help them with special needs they have. Pastors give – a lot. Shower them with love.
Give them a generous book allowance. Pastors by nature and by work are readers. They needs books and actually read them. Many leaders don’t understand that books are the tools of pastors. You may need to skimp on some budget items but don’t skimp on giving your pastor the tools he needs to serve you well Sunday after Sunday. In addition, because pastors are learners and because we all have high expectations of them, make funds available for ongoing learning so that they continue to grow. The more they grow, the more you grow. Your ongoing investment in them in an ongoing investment in your church.
Finally, make a sabbatical available to your pastor every five years. Give them three months to learn, grow, read, think and plan for the next run. It will come back to you in spades.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
A personal code of ethics
Have you ever considered a personal code of ethics? Defining those commitments that you are committed to live by? None of us live perfectly but God continually calls us to a higher standard – one that reflects His holiness, righteousness and character. Since I am a ministry leader, my code of ethics reflect my calling. Having a defined code of ethics that we come back to regularly gives us road markers that keep us in the right lane and paid attention to, keeps us from losing our credibility, influence and even our ministries.
I WILL LIVE WITH TRUTHFULNESS AND HONESTY
When truthfulness and honesty are compromised, everything is compromised because every one of the ethical commitments that follow mean nothing if we are willing to be untruthful with others, with ourselves or with God. The lie was at the heart of the Adam and Eve and has been at the heart of sin ever since. For ministry leaders this includes not inflating ministry results, and always attributing sources when preaching and teaching. It is a life of transparent honesty in all areas.
I WILL TREAT ALL PEOPLE WITH DIGNITY AND HONOR
How we treat people: those we like and those we dislike, those like us and those unlike us, those who agree with us and those who don’t is an ethical issue. Jesus treated all people with dignity and honor with the exception of the hypocrites with whom he simply told the truth about their condition. For ministry leaders this is a major ethical commitment because our work is all about people – some who will like us and some not. The ethics of the world do not require us to treat all people with dignity and honor: the ethics of the Kingdom do.
I WILL LIVE WITH FINANCIAL INTEGRITY
This means that I will live within my means, I will model generosity toward God and others and I will be scrupulous in using ministry dollars and account for those ministry dollars used. When financial integrity starts to slip, that dishonesty has a ripple effect on other areas of life and an entitlement mentality takes the place of financial integrity. As a ministry leader I reject any entitlement mentality and live with gracious thanks for what God gives whatever that may me.
I WILL LIVE WITH MORAL INTEGRITY
Sexual purity goes to the heart of men and women made in the image of God and temples of the Holy Spirit. There is no room for ethical compromise here as it has devastating effects on our person, relationships and relationship with God. This means that I will be faithful to my spouse, will guard my relationships with the opposite sex, guard my thought life and intentionally avoid moral impurity of the heart, mind or actions.
I WILL BE A PEACEMAKER AND RECONCILER
Our world is filled with broken and unreconciled relationships. Jesus came to bring reconciliation between people and Himself and between brothers and sisters. The ethics of the Kingdom require that to the extent that it depends on us that we will live at peace with all men and be proactive in seeking that peace. This means that we will do all we can to keep short accounts, seek to understand others and live in peace rather than conflict with others.
I WILL ALWAYS LIVE WITH ACCOUNTABILITY TO OTHERS
All of our ethical commitments depend on honest and deep relationships with others where others have the ability to speak into our lives, challenge us, tell us truth when we need to hear it and help keep us faithful to our God and our calling. In the Kingdom we live in community not autonomously. Autonomy is at the root of ethical slippage.
I WILL NEVER HURT THE BRIDE
The church is the bride of Christ – His prized and beloved possession for which He gave His life. I will everything I can to build His church and never to hurt it. This means that even when I believe I have been mistreated by God’s people that I will do nothing that has the potential to hurt the congregation or congregations I serve.
I WILL CHOOSE A POSTURE OF HUMILITY RATHER THAN PRIDE
Humility is highly esteemed by God while pride is antithetical to life in His Kingdom. Humility means that I understand how God has gifted and wired me and wants to use me coupled with an understanding that in all other areas I need others. A life of humility is one where I submit to both God and others, work together rather than alone and value the contribution of others.
I WILL PUT GOD FIRST IN MY LIFE
All people have an ethical framework. My conviction is that the best ethics are the ethics of a holy and righteous God. Therefore I will seek to stay close to Christ and allow Him to transform my heart by grace, my thinking into His thinking so that His priorities become my priorities and my relationships reflect His relationship with me. I understand that my ethical understanding grows and becomes more complete as I become closer to the source of ethical conduct.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Don't waste your life in meetings
Think about all the meetings you attend in the course of a week – a month – a year. Then consider this fact: It is estimated that half of all meeting time in the United States whether business or ministry is wasted time! Henry Ford once said that the problem with wasted time is that there is no waste left over on the factory floor that can be visibly seen. And time is the one commodity that none of us can get back so if indeed half of all meeting time is waste, I want to reclaim that time for more important things. Many of us have read the book “Death by Meeting” and we instinctively understand the title. That says it all.
Meeting productivity can be seen as a function of three key elements: How we behave in meetings; having a tight agenda with specified outcomes along with a good facilitator; and ensuring that there is timely execution on action items.
Meeting Behaviors
All of us have been guilty at one time or another of “checking out” of meetings. We check out because there is not a tight agenda – wandering meetings are boring – and because we know that there probably will not be timely execution on action items anyway. That is why all three elements need to be addressed together.
Here is a set of meeting behaviors that I observed in a recent organization I visited. It says a lot about how they view meetings:
We engage in robust dialogue. This means that we can discuss any issue without personal attack or hidden agenda.
Our meetings start and end on time.
Team members are responsible to attend as scheduled.
One person speaks at a time, while others actively listen.
Everyone actively participates.
All ideas are encouraged and considered.
The Meeting COMPASS (TM) has been completed and is followed.
We leave the room as we found it.
Action items are clearly defined and completed as assigned.
Cell phones and pagers are turned off and only used during breaks or when meeting is over.
This organization obviously has raised the bar on how they do meetings!
Meeting format
Notice that one of their commitments is to use Meeting COMPASS which is a way to format meetings for maximum effectiveness. Basically the meeting compass (a proprietary tool) ensures that before a meeting is held, the purpose is clear, the outcomes are specified, the agenda is set and necessary preparation is done. With that kind of a roadmap (anyone can do this), and a facilitator, the meeting is kept on track, the agenda is followed, people are prepared and outcomes are clear.
The facilitator then records all action items and decisions made. Action items include the action, the person responsible and the date the action must be completed. These are put into an excel spread sheet
Execution
This brings me to the third issue – timely execution. The first thing that happens at the next meeting is a review of action items from the previous meeting. Using the excel spread sheet listing those action items, each item gets a color: Red (action was not completed – ouch), yellow (action was not fully completed – hmm) or Green (action was completed – great). It only takes a few meetings for folks to get a Red or Yellow to figure out that you are committed to execution rather than just talk.
We are working to up the level of meeting excellence in our own organization and are learning from others who do it better. How are you doing in your meetings? I for one don’t want to waste time in unproductive meetings.
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Leader Standard Work
.jpg)
All leaders have a set of responsibilities that only they can fulfill. If those responsibilities are not carried out by them because of the press of activities, expectations or simply because they have not prioritized well, the organization or team we lead will suffer.
Think for a moment about the regular commitments you have on an ongoing basis. Those commitments are Leader Standard Work. Then think about the activities that are critical to you as a leader to ensure that the team or organization you lead is led well and stays on track. These are also Leader Standard Work. If all of these critical activities are not placed into your calendar ahead of time they often get lost in the shuffle of activity.
Leader Standard Work encompasses the activities that every good leader must fulfill and because they are the most important activities they get put on the calendar first and are rarely changed. This would include, key meetings that occur at the same time each month, preparation for those meetings (they will only be as good as the preparation) monthly check ins with direct reports, built in think and evaluation time, evaluation of results and so on. For pastors it would also include preparation time for messages.
Can you identify your Leader Standard Work? The truth is that many leaders have never thought about it in this way. Being able to articulate the key activities that you must be involved in ensures a higher level of leadership excellence and execution than if one cannot.
Healthy leaders always schedule those things that are most important first and then fill in their schedules around those first priorities. My calendar in Microsoft Outlook is actually color coded to reflect my Leader Standard Work which seldom changes, and then the various other activities so that I can visually see how and where I am spending my time. Because my Leader Standard Work is scheduled out at least a year in advance, I have the framework around which to schedule other activities and ensure that those things that are most critical for me as a leader are not neglected.
Having identified what I must do on an ongoing basis and getting it on the calendar first gives a rhythm and framework to my leadership role that is freeing. I don't have to wonder what is critical - I know - and it is already on my calendar.
Perhaps the largest impediment for many leaders is the level of discipline this requires. One of the realities of leadership is that the most effective leaders are the most disciplined leaders - around those things that are most important. The key to growing our leadership effectiveness is becoming more focused and more disciplined. There is actually a freedom that comes with that discipline, however, because we end up with more margin and we know that we are paying attention to those things that are most important.
These responsibilities can be supplemented by an Execution Journal built off of a spreadsheet that list all of the tasks and projects we are responsible for along with the date they are due. Every time I make a commitment I place that commitment in my execution journal and color code it so that I know its priority. Each day I look at the execution journal so that commitments I have made don’t fall between the cracks or fail to be finished on time. When leaders don’t keep their commitments, others will not either.
A key to keeping our commitments is understanding that every time we agree to do something, we must build time into our calendar to fulfill that obligation. If there is not realistic time in the calendar we should either not agree to the project or modify the date by which we promise it will be done.
Understanding your Leader Standard Work and ensuring that it gets on the calendar provides the architecture of how you spend your time. The important things get on the calendar first – always – and then other activities are added around the important. Can you identify your Leader Standard Work and does your calendar reflect that work?
Thursday, August 19, 2010
What is in the way of your growth?
But that is not the whole story because we also know that for many people - perhaps for us at times, periods come when that growth slows or stalls out. It is as if they have hit a plateau and simply cease to go deeper with God.
What causes this stall in spiritual transformation? I believe that it often has to do with things in our lives that get in the way of God and prevent further growth. Until those areas that are in the way we are not likely to see the growth that we once did.
Paul's letter to the Ephesians bears this out. In that Epistle, he lists a long list of "put offs" - behaviors that are incompatible with our new life in Christ. These put offs include falsehood, anger, stealing, unwholesome talk, grieving the Holy Spirit, bitterness, rage, anger, brawling, slander, malice, sexual immorality, any kind of impurity, greed, and foolish talk. He then lists a comparable list of put ons that reflect the new life we have in Christ.
To the extent that we allow closets in our lives where the light of Christ has not penetrated, we prevent Him from entering that space and the less space we give Him the more our growth is stymied. The greater the space we give him the more our growth flourishes.
Here is a truth. All of us have areas where God is talking to us about putting something off so that He can fill more space in our lives. Often they are the very things that wake us up in the middle of the night whether worry, sin, unforgiveness, anger, or any number of issues. What He wants is to give those areas to Him, allowing Him to fill that space and every time we do that we give Him more of ourselves, put off more of ourselves, and experience more of Him. It is removing barriers to growth - and it is a life long process that brings us more and more of Him.
What is in the way of your growth today? An unforgiven relationship? Lack of trust that God can provide for your needs? An area of sin hidden in a locked closet? A lack of thankfulness for God's provision for you? Whatever it is, take Paul's advice, and put it off, so that you can put on those things that are of Christ's character and so that He can fill you with more of Himself. Every time we do that we grow!
Sunday, August 15, 2010
The Long View and Short View in Ministry
How often have I read the words of Paul to Timothy, "For 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 4:3-4).
Reading through my evangelical lens I just assumed that the modern day application would be liberals who don't take the Bible or its truth seriously. Now I am not so sure! I wonder if we evangelicals are guilty of the same thing - teaching what we know our folks want to hear rather than the whole counsel of God - some of which even we don't like to hear because it forces us to examine our lives in light of pure truth.
All of us know the pressures that public businesses feel to "meet the quarterly results" so that wall street is happy. Often the long view of serving customers or even building a strong company that will last is lost to the short view of corporate returns.
What does this have to do with ministry you ask? I wonder if there is a correlation between watering down the gospel to be "relevant" - often more pop psychology to make our people feel good than the gospel which connects them with the Lord of the universe and our desire for results in the church - the big N: Numbers - by which we measure our results.
It is not often that I find a reason to quote The New York Times in this blog but in an editorial regarding clergy burn out, guest writer Jeffrey MacDonald says this: Churchgoers increasingly want pastors to soothe and entertain them. It’s apparent in the theater-style seating and giant projection screens in churches and in mission trips that involve more sightseeing than listening to the local people.
As a result, pastors are constantly forced to choose, as they work through congregants’ daily wish lists in their e-mail and voice mail, between paths of personal integrity and those that portend greater job security. As religion becomes a consumer experience, the clergy become more unhappy and unhealthy.
And not only clergy become more unhappy and unhealthy - those they serve do as well. Short term results in the church - the hunt for success in weekend attendence is not compatible with long term spiritual results which the Lord of the Church is looking for - spiritual transformation where I live daily in grace, start to think like Jesus, bring my life priorities into line with His, and relate to others as He relates to us. It is transformation of our hearts, minds, priorities and relationships. And that takes time, an understanding of the whole counsel of God, deep relationships among believers and the desire to allow all of God's truth to soak into all of who we are.
Jeffrey MacDonald points out that The trend toward consumer-driven religion has been gaining momentum for half a century. Consider that in 1955 only 15 percent of Americans said they no longer adhered to the faith of their childhood, according to a Gallup poll. By 2008, 44 percent had switched their religious affiliation at least once, or dropped it altogether, the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life found. Americans now sample, dabble and move on when a religious leader fails to satisfy for any reason.
In this transformation, clergy have seen their job descriptions rewritten. They’re no longer expected to offer moral counsel in pastoral care sessions or to deliver sermons that make the comfortable uneasy. Church leaders who continue such ministerial traditions pay dearly. A few years ago, thousands of parishioners quit Woodland Hills Church in St. Paul, Minn., and Community Church of Joy in Glendale, Ariz., when their respective preachers refused to bless the congregations’ preferred political agendas and consumerist lifestyles.
Fighting this trend is not about being hard or harsh in our preaching. It is about honestly teaching the whole counsel of God and starting from His truth that is applied to our lives rather than starting from our lives and using the Bible like a self help manual. The Bible was meant to introduces us to the Lord of our lives whose transformation of our lives brings us into closer alignment with Him and that process is often not fun or easy. But the end result is true freedom and joy.
Rather than taking the short view of consumerism in our ministries we are reminded by Paul 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). Further he says, "Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct rebuke and encourage with great patience and careful instruction" (2 Timothy 4:2-3).
This is the long view of ministry. It is the Biblical view of ministry and it is the way to legitimate spiritual transformation.
MacDonald has it right when he says, Ministry is a profession in which the greatest rewards include meaningfulness and integrity. When those fade under pressure from churchgoers who don’t want to be challenged or edified, pastors become candidates for stress and depression.
Clergy need parishioners who understand that the church exists, as it always has, to save souls by elevating people’s values and desires. They need churchgoers to ask for personal challenges, in areas like daily devotions and outreach ministries.
When such an ethic takes root, as it has in generations past, then pastors will cease to feel like the spiritual equivalents of concierges. They’ll again know joy in ministering among people who share their sense of purpose.
I think we need to ask some serious questions as to whether we take the long or short view in our ministries. Whether we have been subtly sucked into Wall Streets view of success (all in the numbers) or are driven by the values and ethics of Scripture which is about long term life change from the inside out. What Paul said about tickling of ears is not just for the liberals. It is for all of us who proclaim the word on a regular basis - he was writing, after all to Timothy and warning him not to fall into the trap.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)