Insecurity among ministry leaders is common. I am not sure why it is but I know that it is. The ability to overcome insecurity, however, is one of the key factors in a leaders long term success. So, developing some intentional strategies to move from insecurity to greater personal security is a development issue for many!
I have some suggestions to consider.
Insecurity often stems from the need to be right and a fear of being proven wrong on some issue. Here is a question to consider: what is the worst thing that can happen if I am wrong? Or to put it another way: why do I have a need to be right? There is really a more important question and that is "What is the best solution?" If we move from a need to be "right" to what is the "best" we no longer need to worry about whether we get our way. Rather we get the best solution. People respect that - a lot!
Insecurity comes from needing to prove something. Here is a personal issue to ponder: What do I need to prove to others? Is it that I am competent? Is it that I can lead? Is it that I am a success? Needing to prove something is usually about some unfinished business in our own life that is driving us and spills over to others in unhealthy ways.
What if I had nothing to prove? What if I could live in the freedom of just being me? I actually live by a principle of "Nothing to prove, nothing to lose." It is freeing! And, when I start to get defensive over something I just remind myself that I don't have to prove anything. I can just be me. It is a reprogramming of our minds.
Insecurity can make us hostage to the expectations of others, especially if we need their validation for our lives and ministries. Needing the validation of others causes anxiety and fear which is why it holds us hostage. It keeps us from just being ourselves. Often it stems from not having healthy validation and acceptance from our own parents and we are still trying to earn it from wherever we can. Not only that but as leaders we will often be targets for choices we need to make and leaders who need validation from others often cannot lead well as a result.
Learning to get our validation from our heavenly Father first and from close trusted friends second is far healthier than trying to live up to all the expectations of others - an impossible task in the end.
Those who suffer from insecurity can grow into more secure, self defined and mature individuals. However, it starts with some intense self reflection as to the reasons for our insecure behaviors and an intentional effort to change our thinking and behaviors. The alternative is not only personal fear but behaviors which negatively impact those we lead.
Thursday, October 4, 2012
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
Competitive ballots in church elections: Don't do it!
I still run into congregations that use competitive ballots in church elections for leadership positions. It is a bad idea!
What it conveys to those running is that you are not sure they belong on the board but you will give them a shot. What usually happens is that well known names win and lesser names don't - irregardless of what their relative qualifications are or are not. In many cases, after losing, individuals will not allow their names to be put on the ballot again. Not that they are sore losers but they don't see the point. Often it is the church that loses out.
In one church I worked with recently that still has competitive ballots the same leaders have rotated in and out for years simply because they are well known. So for decades, the same thirty or so people have served as leaders. They may have been good leaders but in the end that is not necessarily how they got elected. They were simply better known than others who didn't. Many who lost said they would not agree to be on the ballot in the future.
Those who are going to serve in church leadership ought to be carefully vetted and the best candidates put on a ballot for affirmation, not for a competitive vote. In other words if you need three new leaders, there are three leaders you believe in on the ballot. You know who you want, they know you want them and the congregation has the ability to vote yes or no. This is not American democracy, after all but church leadership.
Church leadership should not be about competition, winners or losers but rather the right people at the right time for the right reasons. Competitive ballots don't do that. I for one would not agree to being on a competitive ballot. I would assume that the nominating committee didn't really know who they really wanted!
What it conveys to those running is that you are not sure they belong on the board but you will give them a shot. What usually happens is that well known names win and lesser names don't - irregardless of what their relative qualifications are or are not. In many cases, after losing, individuals will not allow their names to be put on the ballot again. Not that they are sore losers but they don't see the point. Often it is the church that loses out.
In one church I worked with recently that still has competitive ballots the same leaders have rotated in and out for years simply because they are well known. So for decades, the same thirty or so people have served as leaders. They may have been good leaders but in the end that is not necessarily how they got elected. They were simply better known than others who didn't. Many who lost said they would not agree to be on the ballot in the future.
Those who are going to serve in church leadership ought to be carefully vetted and the best candidates put on a ballot for affirmation, not for a competitive vote. In other words if you need three new leaders, there are three leaders you believe in on the ballot. You know who you want, they know you want them and the congregation has the ability to vote yes or no. This is not American democracy, after all but church leadership.
Church leadership should not be about competition, winners or losers but rather the right people at the right time for the right reasons. Competitive ballots don't do that. I for one would not agree to being on a competitive ballot. I would assume that the nominating committee didn't really know who they really wanted!
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
Free book offer on Intimacy with God
Would you like a free e-copy of Intimacy with God:
Drawing Ever Closer to the Almighty by Dr. Benjamin Sawatsky? Simply follow
this link, click on the book and
choose the e-format of your Nook, Kindle or Apple iBook. You’ll need to enter a
valid email address for this free promotion. It’s only available this week so
act quickly.
Enjoy!
Leaders who live in a fantasy world!
Leaders run a significant risk of living in a fantasy world that all is well when it is actually not. It is a risk because we want to believe that we lead well and we want to justify our leadership. Those on the outside often see what we cannot see on the inside. All leaders are susceptible to believing we are doing better than we actually are.
Some leaders want to live in their world where all is well - whether it is or not. But for those who want to live in reality, who want to lead from health and continue to grow their leadership there are a number of critical choices they can make to help them lead well.
First, the best leaders create cultures within their organizations where people can openly and candidly share their opinions, observations and opinions. People will not go where they know their leader does not want them to go. Thus leaders either encourage or discourage the very feedback they need from their sharpest people. All leaders make a choice on how much they want candid feedback from within their organization.
Second, the best leaders seek feedback from knowledgeable people outside of their organization as to how they are doing. Bringing in outside facilitators from time to time helps us to think more clearly and to see things we may not see. We need questions that help us sharpen our focus and which challenge our assumptions. One ministry recently asked me for my perception from the outside looking in. They didn't necessarily like what I said but it caused them to think and dialogue.
Third, the best leaders have clearly defined "ends" as to what they are going after in their ministry. The lack of objective results we are after allow us to believe we are doing well when in fact we don't know because we have not defined success. Charlie Brown used to practice archery without a target. When Lucy asked why, he said "because that way I hit it every time." Not knowing what we are after allows us to believe we are hitting the target when we may or may not be.
Fourth, the best leaders create strong boards of thoughtful, healthy members who ask the right questions, question the right things, help us think clearly and never let the missional agenda move away from our central focus. Great boards are not a hassle. They help us lead better by the dialogue, questions, and group wisdom. Good leaders want to know what their boards think and willingly make them accountable to their board.
Fifth, the best leaders spend a great amount of time thinking about what they are doing and how they are doing and whether we are accomplishing the mission of the organization. Great leaders are honest with themselves about the real results of their leadership and the real results of the missional agenda. They don't gloss or ignore reality. In fact, they are frank with their staff on what is reality in order to keep the organization focused on areas of weakness in order to become stronger.
Sixth, the best leaders look at all their practices and processes to evaluate them for effectiveness. We actually use a simple tool to improve our practices and processes. We identify them all and then rate them with a red, green or yellow. Green means all is well, yellow means that we could do better and red means that we have a lot of opportunity to improve. Yellows and reds are good colors because they indicate that we can improve. If we have nothing to improve we cannot get better. It is actually a way to do continuous improvement.
I know a group of leaders who will never practice these six suggestions because the truth is that they don't want to be challenged and are threatened by truth. I also know that truly good leaders are willing to go there because they are not threatened by reality. Rather, they want to know areas of weakness so that they can improve and grow!
Some leaders want to live in their world where all is well - whether it is or not. But for those who want to live in reality, who want to lead from health and continue to grow their leadership there are a number of critical choices they can make to help them lead well.
First, the best leaders create cultures within their organizations where people can openly and candidly share their opinions, observations and opinions. People will not go where they know their leader does not want them to go. Thus leaders either encourage or discourage the very feedback they need from their sharpest people. All leaders make a choice on how much they want candid feedback from within their organization.
Second, the best leaders seek feedback from knowledgeable people outside of their organization as to how they are doing. Bringing in outside facilitators from time to time helps us to think more clearly and to see things we may not see. We need questions that help us sharpen our focus and which challenge our assumptions. One ministry recently asked me for my perception from the outside looking in. They didn't necessarily like what I said but it caused them to think and dialogue.
Third, the best leaders have clearly defined "ends" as to what they are going after in their ministry. The lack of objective results we are after allow us to believe we are doing well when in fact we don't know because we have not defined success. Charlie Brown used to practice archery without a target. When Lucy asked why, he said "because that way I hit it every time." Not knowing what we are after allows us to believe we are hitting the target when we may or may not be.
Fourth, the best leaders create strong boards of thoughtful, healthy members who ask the right questions, question the right things, help us think clearly and never let the missional agenda move away from our central focus. Great boards are not a hassle. They help us lead better by the dialogue, questions, and group wisdom. Good leaders want to know what their boards think and willingly make them accountable to their board.
Fifth, the best leaders spend a great amount of time thinking about what they are doing and how they are doing and whether we are accomplishing the mission of the organization. Great leaders are honest with themselves about the real results of their leadership and the real results of the missional agenda. They don't gloss or ignore reality. In fact, they are frank with their staff on what is reality in order to keep the organization focused on areas of weakness in order to become stronger.
Sixth, the best leaders look at all their practices and processes to evaluate them for effectiveness. We actually use a simple tool to improve our practices and processes. We identify them all and then rate them with a red, green or yellow. Green means all is well, yellow means that we could do better and red means that we have a lot of opportunity to improve. Yellows and reds are good colors because they indicate that we can improve. If we have nothing to improve we cannot get better. It is actually a way to do continuous improvement.
I know a group of leaders who will never practice these six suggestions because the truth is that they don't want to be challenged and are threatened by truth. I also know that truly good leaders are willing to go there because they are not threatened by reality. Rather, they want to know areas of weakness so that they can improve and grow!
Monday, October 1, 2012
Does your ministry budget reflect your ministry priorities?
Budgets tell a story. They reflect our true ministry priorities whether in a local church or other ministries. We can say what we will but how we allocate resources is the real story of what is important to us.
Often budgets simply reflect what we have always done rather than what we say we intend to do. Politics and inertia can keep us from budgeting our priorities. How we have traditionally allocated resources should not be the test of how we allocate them in the future.
Here is an interesting exercise. Identify the top three priorities for your ministry and then ask the question as to whether you are allocating resources in a way that will help you achieve those priorities. If not, what is keeping you from budgeting your real priorities?
Budgeting should not start with the past but with what you intend to accomplish in the future. The starting point is where we want to go, not where we have been. Budgets should help us drive our ministry agendas.
Often budgets simply reflect what we have always done rather than what we say we intend to do. Politics and inertia can keep us from budgeting our priorities. How we have traditionally allocated resources should not be the test of how we allocate them in the future.
Here is an interesting exercise. Identify the top three priorities for your ministry and then ask the question as to whether you are allocating resources in a way that will help you achieve those priorities. If not, what is keeping you from budgeting your real priorities?
Budgeting should not start with the past but with what you intend to accomplish in the future. The starting point is where we want to go, not where we have been. Budgets should help us drive our ministry agendas.
Sunday, September 30, 2012
Paying attention to the hidden inner terrain of our lives
It is the inner terrain of our lives that determines who we are and who we become. Hidden, it is known to us alone although it's residual spills out in ways good or bad, depending on what is there. We often seek to ignore it, sometimes depress it but wise individuals develop a deeply sensitive barometer to their inner terrain - knowing its importance from a spiritual and personal perspective.
Let me suggest that there are seven rooms in our inner terrain that need to be understood and which we need to pay close attention to. These seven rooms are the source of much of who we are. When neglected they hurt us. When attention is paid to them and the Holy Spirit is allowed to inhabit them, they change us and help us. Seven rooms for seven drivers of our lives, hidden deep in the recesses of our hearts.
Conscience
Our creator endowed sense of what is right and wrong. It is a delicate gift because when we ignore it we harden its impact and to the extent that we set it aside it becomes increasingly less reliable which is why sinful tendencies can become normal in our lives when we neglect it.
Motivations
We can be motivated by Godly motivations or the motivations of our lower nature. Knowing the difference makes all the difference! Even those in full time ministry can be fooled that their motivations are spiritual when in fact they are base: success, fame, personal gratification, power or some other drive of our lower nature.
Thoughts
Hidden from others, we choose whether we take all "thoughts captive" in the words of Paul or whether we entertain baser instincts. Thoughts of envy, pride, anger, lust, impurity or those thoughts that lift self and suppress Jesus can be hidden from others until they spill over in our words, attitudes or actions.
Desires
What we desire is what truly defines our lives. Others may not know but we know. And Jesus knows. Paul described his desires this way: "I want to know Christ - yes, to know the power of his resurrection and participation in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow, attaining to the resurrection from the dead (Philippians 3:10-11)" but also acknowledged that he too fought the fight between desires of the higher and lower nature on a daily basis (Romans 7). Every day we define our lives by the desires we entertain and pursue.
Convictions
Our convictions are a direct result of the terrain of our inner lives. Those with strong and righteous convictions have cultivated their inner compass to align with God's Word and truth. Those who lack conviction do so because they have not. What we hold convictions on is a direct indicator of the place we derive those convictions.
Passions
Passions drive us toward good or toward evil. They are that inner force that compel us in ways that we don't always understand but they are the result of what constitutes the inner terrain of our lives. Those who have a passion for justice, or God, or righteousness have this because of what they have cultivated. Those whose passions reflect those of the world have them because they have allowed the priorities of the world to crowd out those things that God counts important.
Temptations
They are common to all of us. We either nurture them or starve them. There is no in-between. While temptation may not diminish until we see Jesus, our ability to deal with them can be strengthened depending on how we treat the inner terrain of our hearts and lives. The Holy Spirit is the difference maker along with whatever disciplines we nurture to keep Jesus central.
The inner terrain of our lives matters - a lot. Jesus says that what comes out of a man comes from the inside. Nurture the inside and we directly impact our attitudes and behaviors. To the extent that we neglect our inner lives, we pay the price both internally and externally.
Let me suggest that there are seven rooms in our inner terrain that need to be understood and which we need to pay close attention to. These seven rooms are the source of much of who we are. When neglected they hurt us. When attention is paid to them and the Holy Spirit is allowed to inhabit them, they change us and help us. Seven rooms for seven drivers of our lives, hidden deep in the recesses of our hearts.
Conscience
Our creator endowed sense of what is right and wrong. It is a delicate gift because when we ignore it we harden its impact and to the extent that we set it aside it becomes increasingly less reliable which is why sinful tendencies can become normal in our lives when we neglect it.
Motivations
We can be motivated by Godly motivations or the motivations of our lower nature. Knowing the difference makes all the difference! Even those in full time ministry can be fooled that their motivations are spiritual when in fact they are base: success, fame, personal gratification, power or some other drive of our lower nature.
Thoughts
Hidden from others, we choose whether we take all "thoughts captive" in the words of Paul or whether we entertain baser instincts. Thoughts of envy, pride, anger, lust, impurity or those thoughts that lift self and suppress Jesus can be hidden from others until they spill over in our words, attitudes or actions.
Desires
What we desire is what truly defines our lives. Others may not know but we know. And Jesus knows. Paul described his desires this way: "I want to know Christ - yes, to know the power of his resurrection and participation in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow, attaining to the resurrection from the dead (Philippians 3:10-11)" but also acknowledged that he too fought the fight between desires of the higher and lower nature on a daily basis (Romans 7). Every day we define our lives by the desires we entertain and pursue.
Convictions
Our convictions are a direct result of the terrain of our inner lives. Those with strong and righteous convictions have cultivated their inner compass to align with God's Word and truth. Those who lack conviction do so because they have not. What we hold convictions on is a direct indicator of the place we derive those convictions.
Passions
Passions drive us toward good or toward evil. They are that inner force that compel us in ways that we don't always understand but they are the result of what constitutes the inner terrain of our lives. Those who have a passion for justice, or God, or righteousness have this because of what they have cultivated. Those whose passions reflect those of the world have them because they have allowed the priorities of the world to crowd out those things that God counts important.
Temptations
They are common to all of us. We either nurture them or starve them. There is no in-between. While temptation may not diminish until we see Jesus, our ability to deal with them can be strengthened depending on how we treat the inner terrain of our hearts and lives. The Holy Spirit is the difference maker along with whatever disciplines we nurture to keep Jesus central.
The inner terrain of our lives matters - a lot. Jesus says that what comes out of a man comes from the inside. Nurture the inside and we directly impact our attitudes and behaviors. To the extent that we neglect our inner lives, we pay the price both internally and externally.
Saturday, September 29, 2012
Doing the grownup thing
Even as adults we act like children at times. Complaints, petty arguments, tit for tat, easily irritated, shifting responsibility, taking our ball and going home and the list could go on. When we were young we looked at grown ups as being wise and mature. As grownups we realize that we're not always wise or mature but sometimes behave like adolescents.
So I've been pondering the difference between children and grownups and suggest the following about living as a grownup.
Grownups deal with their stuff. We all have stuff to deal with - lots of it from our childhoods. Maybe we were not raised by perfect parents (who is?), or suffered some sort of trauma early in life or have some sort of failure in our past (It happens). Kids often hang on to baggage because they don't know how to handle it but grownups deal with it. You can only live with excuses for one's stuff for so long. Then it is time to deal with it and put it behind! Whatever it is, grownups deal with their stuff.
Grownups take personal responsibility. Kids easily play the blame game. Some adults have been known to as well (think Eve, and Adam). Real grownups take responsibility when they blow it and work to make things right. All of us make choices and some of them are wrong. Adults admit, make right and change course when it happens.
Grownups control their emotions. Sure grownups cry and get sad and experience great joy. What they don't do is fly off the handle, live with anger problems, say things that they cannot take back or treat others with less than honor. They have learned to control their negative emotions - those that hurt others and accentuate positive emotions - those that build others up.
Grownups use their money responsibly. Kids often love to spend money. Grownups love to save money and they have the discipline to put off purchases until they have the funds rather than living off of credit card debt. Instant gratification is a kid thing. Delayed gratification is doing the adult thing. Sorry for meddling on that one.
Grownups live in reality. We don't always like the realities with which we live but mature adults accept those realities and deal with them - whatever they are. We have all met people who try to ignore reality and responsibility. Grownups don't! We may try to change our reality (getting out of debt or dealing with other issues) but we don't ignore reality. Walter Mitty fantasies are for children, not grownups.
Grownups foster personal discipline. As children, a disciplined life was not a high value for most of us. For adults, it is the grownup thing to do. Disciplines with God, with work, with family, with ministry and even rest and recreation. There is no maturity without ongoing personal discipline.
My conclusion is that some grownups are not really grownups. But I want to be one. And there are always areas where we as grownups need to continue to grow up - with the help and empowerment of God's Spirit.
So I've been pondering the difference between children and grownups and suggest the following about living as a grownup.
Grownups deal with their stuff. We all have stuff to deal with - lots of it from our childhoods. Maybe we were not raised by perfect parents (who is?), or suffered some sort of trauma early in life or have some sort of failure in our past (It happens). Kids often hang on to baggage because they don't know how to handle it but grownups deal with it. You can only live with excuses for one's stuff for so long. Then it is time to deal with it and put it behind! Whatever it is, grownups deal with their stuff.
Grownups take personal responsibility. Kids easily play the blame game. Some adults have been known to as well (think Eve, and Adam). Real grownups take responsibility when they blow it and work to make things right. All of us make choices and some of them are wrong. Adults admit, make right and change course when it happens.
Grownups control their emotions. Sure grownups cry and get sad and experience great joy. What they don't do is fly off the handle, live with anger problems, say things that they cannot take back or treat others with less than honor. They have learned to control their negative emotions - those that hurt others and accentuate positive emotions - those that build others up.
Grownups use their money responsibly. Kids often love to spend money. Grownups love to save money and they have the discipline to put off purchases until they have the funds rather than living off of credit card debt. Instant gratification is a kid thing. Delayed gratification is doing the adult thing. Sorry for meddling on that one.
Grownups live in reality. We don't always like the realities with which we live but mature adults accept those realities and deal with them - whatever they are. We have all met people who try to ignore reality and responsibility. Grownups don't! We may try to change our reality (getting out of debt or dealing with other issues) but we don't ignore reality. Walter Mitty fantasies are for children, not grownups.
Grownups foster personal discipline. As children, a disciplined life was not a high value for most of us. For adults, it is the grownup thing to do. Disciplines with God, with work, with family, with ministry and even rest and recreation. There is no maturity without ongoing personal discipline.
My conclusion is that some grownups are not really grownups. But I want to be one. And there are always areas where we as grownups need to continue to grow up - with the help and empowerment of God's Spirit.
Friday, September 28, 2012
Four skill sets every good team and board can profit from
The best teams and boards (boards are teams) are deliberately created and they can profit from having a mix of wiring and skills. There are four key roles that people can play, depending on how they are wired that can bring strength to a team.
Initiators. These are the people who come up with new ideas and initiate needed action. They are creative, action oriented, and suffer from very little fear. They see what can be and want to push the boundaries for productive results.
Supporters. These are individuals who come along to support ideas and initiatives. While they are not often the initiators, they help make thing happen and become agents of support with others. No good ideas get put into play without supporters.
Challengers. The gift of a challenger is to turn over the rocks of ideas and initiatives and look underneath and ask the hard questions. They are often misunderstood because they are willing to ask the hard questions. Not because they want to be cantankerous but because they want to probe, look for unintended consequences and in the process help get to a better solution.
Processors. These folks can irritate initiators because they want to process everything. The truth is that without processors, the ideas and initiatives often don't proceed well. Processors think process: A to B to C to D as well as how people will respond to ideas proposed. They are key people to bring an idea to reality.
Think about which role you normally play - and the other members of your team or board. When working well together these four skill sets make a great combination.
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Can we talk? Three key questions in relational disconnect
It is amazing what a conversation can do - especially when there is conflict, disagreement or a relationship gone wrong. Conflict and misunderstanding thrive on silence and assumptions. Conversation makes even those we demonize human and at least understanding is possible when two parties are talking. None, when they are not.
Now there are times when further discussion is counter-productive, especially when dealing with passive aggressive individuals or those you cannot trust to not use the conversation against you. So there are times when we choose silence over conversation - strategically.
But in most cases the way to resolution between parties is a conversation with some good clarifying questions, a lot of non defensive listening, and a candid statement of where we are coming from. Several questions are key:
How did we get here?
Do we both want to find a way forward?
What will it take to resolve this?
The first question clarifies the facts or the perception of the facts. It is not about blame but about the facts as we can understand them.
The second question is critical because it calls the question on whether both parties actually want to find a common solution. If no, then further discussion is fruitless. If yes, there is hope for a common solution. Asking the question has the potential to change the conversation from blame and acrimony to "OK this is where we are, legs figure out how to move forward because we both desire that.
The third question is a collaborative one. It requires both parties to think together as to how they can resolve the issue at hand.
There is not always a way forward. There is not always a will for both parties to find a way forward. But without conversation you will never know.
Now there are times when further discussion is counter-productive, especially when dealing with passive aggressive individuals or those you cannot trust to not use the conversation against you. So there are times when we choose silence over conversation - strategically.
But in most cases the way to resolution between parties is a conversation with some good clarifying questions, a lot of non defensive listening, and a candid statement of where we are coming from. Several questions are key:
How did we get here?
Do we both want to find a way forward?
What will it take to resolve this?
The first question clarifies the facts or the perception of the facts. It is not about blame but about the facts as we can understand them.
The second question is critical because it calls the question on whether both parties actually want to find a common solution. If no, then further discussion is fruitless. If yes, there is hope for a common solution. Asking the question has the potential to change the conversation from blame and acrimony to "OK this is where we are, legs figure out how to move forward because we both desire that.
The third question is a collaborative one. It requires both parties to think together as to how they can resolve the issue at hand.
There is not always a way forward. There is not always a will for both parties to find a way forward. But without conversation you will never know.
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
14 questions if you want to manage others
Are you willing to make those you supervise a high priority?
Are you willing to lead collaboratively rather than by command?
Are you willing to give up other things so that you can put in the time and attention to lead others?
Are you willing to learn a new set of skills?
Are you willing to model a non-defensive, open, flexible, patient attitude?
Are you willing to say you are sorry when you blow it?
Are you willing to give up control and not micromanage?
Are you willing to let people do things their way instead of yours?
Are you willing to listen more than you talk?
Are you willing to let people blow it and fail and still support them?
Are you willing to take responsibility when things go wrong and give credit away when there is success?
Are you willing to model humility?
Are you willing to follow your supervisor as you desire your staff to follow you?
Are you willing to support the mission and the values of the organization as a whole and represent them well with your staff?
If yes, you have a shot. If no, you will get yourself into trouble.
Are you willing to lead collaboratively rather than by command?
Are you willing to give up other things so that you can put in the time and attention to lead others?
Are you willing to learn a new set of skills?
Are you willing to model a non-defensive, open, flexible, patient attitude?
Are you willing to say you are sorry when you blow it?
Are you willing to give up control and not micromanage?
Are you willing to let people do things their way instead of yours?
Are you willing to listen more than you talk?
Are you willing to let people blow it and fail and still support them?
Are you willing to take responsibility when things go wrong and give credit away when there is success?
Are you willing to model humility?
Are you willing to follow your supervisor as you desire your staff to follow you?
Are you willing to support the mission and the values of the organization as a whole and represent them well with your staff?
If yes, you have a shot. If no, you will get yourself into trouble.
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
False beliefs of the American church
There are a number of beliefs, whether spoken or not, which characterize much of the American church that need to be reexamined. These beliefs are culturally based but not Biblically based.
Bigger is better
Why? Healthy churches are better but why is a bigger church better? In God's economy every size church has a place, has its strengths and if it is seeing lives transformed is living out it's call. Defining success by church size (which in our competitive American space is popular) is a sad commentary on how we view the Bride. It also diminishes those who serve and happily attend smaller fellowships. Why did Jesus say "When two or more are gathered in my name?"
Success is numbers
By that definition any number of liberal or even cult groups are successful. Spiritual fruit in changes lives is success but not necessarily numbers as most church growth is simply a reshuffling of God's people. Counting buts, bucks and programs is not a biblical definition of success. The Book of Ephesians is pretty clear on what a successful church looks like: transformed lives with everyone using their gifts for Jesus in the places He has put them.
People need to be entertained
That is what television, rock concerts or whatever it is that entertains one is for. We come to worship the almighty, everlasting, all holy, omnipotent, creator of everything that is, redeemer of our very lives and the one before whom every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. Entertainment? Just the opposite: it is the worship of Him with all the attention going to Him and the focus is on Him. Entertainment is about making us happy. Worship is about making Him the center of all that we are.
Deep theology is passe
When Paul wrote to the Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, Thessalonians and the others he was not writing to the cream of society, the most educated or the sophisticated. He was writing to cobblers, slaves, the poor, the uneducated in many instances and plain ordinary people. And what did he do? He wrote to them about the great theological truths of the faith and even used big words like redemption, justification, gospel, incarnation, transformation and then made it all practical. Not only did he not shy away from theology (the study of God) but he put it front and center because he knew that if people didn't understand the basics of God that they could not follow Him as they should.
When we dumb down the message to make it more simple, palatable, self focused or easy to accept we do an injustice to the text and to those we preach to. Remember it is not our truth but God's truth and some of it is not politically correct or easy to accept. But it is His message to us and even the most unsophisticated are able to understand that message.
God blesses his people with health, prosperity and success
If that is true Jesus, Paul, and the Apostles somehow missed the memo. Jesus blesses us with an abundant life by His definition not by the world's definition. I am always amazed when Christians are surprised that they suffer or suffer setbacks, or see a loved one die, or face other reversals. We live in a fallen world and the impact of that fallen world impacts us as it does others. What we have in the midst of all of that is the faithfulness of Jesus (Romans 8). Nothing can separate us from His love but a lot of things can separate us from health, prosperity and success.
Come to Jesus and all will be well
We don't come to Jesus to fix our failing marriage, health, solve the bankruptcy or home foreclosure or whatever our issues are. We come to Him to fix our broken and sinful hearts, to cleanse our sin, and to give us a new transformed nature. May that have an influence on the rest of our lives? Absolutely. But it does not mean that all will be well or our problems solved. Therefore we should not promise that to people. What we should promise is that God wants to transform us, make us family, change our hearts and give us His Holy Spirit to live in our hearts.
In ministry, money is the key
If we had more money we could hire more staff, build that addition, renovate our worship facilities, get more ministry done and the list goes on. All of those may be good things but God is not dependent on our money in order to see His kingdom advance. It is a part of the equation but only a part. What God wants more than larger church budgets is the personal involvement of His people in living out their faith in their circles of influence at work, at play, and at home. In ministry God's people, filled with His Spirit and joining Him with His work is the real key.
What other false beliefs do you see in the American church? It is worth thinking about because we get so wrapped up in our culture that we don't realize that some of what we believe or take to be true may in fact be false.
Bigger is better
Why? Healthy churches are better but why is a bigger church better? In God's economy every size church has a place, has its strengths and if it is seeing lives transformed is living out it's call. Defining success by church size (which in our competitive American space is popular) is a sad commentary on how we view the Bride. It also diminishes those who serve and happily attend smaller fellowships. Why did Jesus say "When two or more are gathered in my name?"
Success is numbers
By that definition any number of liberal or even cult groups are successful. Spiritual fruit in changes lives is success but not necessarily numbers as most church growth is simply a reshuffling of God's people. Counting buts, bucks and programs is not a biblical definition of success. The Book of Ephesians is pretty clear on what a successful church looks like: transformed lives with everyone using their gifts for Jesus in the places He has put them.
People need to be entertained
That is what television, rock concerts or whatever it is that entertains one is for. We come to worship the almighty, everlasting, all holy, omnipotent, creator of everything that is, redeemer of our very lives and the one before whom every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. Entertainment? Just the opposite: it is the worship of Him with all the attention going to Him and the focus is on Him. Entertainment is about making us happy. Worship is about making Him the center of all that we are.
Deep theology is passe
When Paul wrote to the Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, Thessalonians and the others he was not writing to the cream of society, the most educated or the sophisticated. He was writing to cobblers, slaves, the poor, the uneducated in many instances and plain ordinary people. And what did he do? He wrote to them about the great theological truths of the faith and even used big words like redemption, justification, gospel, incarnation, transformation and then made it all practical. Not only did he not shy away from theology (the study of God) but he put it front and center because he knew that if people didn't understand the basics of God that they could not follow Him as they should.
When we dumb down the message to make it more simple, palatable, self focused or easy to accept we do an injustice to the text and to those we preach to. Remember it is not our truth but God's truth and some of it is not politically correct or easy to accept. But it is His message to us and even the most unsophisticated are able to understand that message.
God blesses his people with health, prosperity and success
If that is true Jesus, Paul, and the Apostles somehow missed the memo. Jesus blesses us with an abundant life by His definition not by the world's definition. I am always amazed when Christians are surprised that they suffer or suffer setbacks, or see a loved one die, or face other reversals. We live in a fallen world and the impact of that fallen world impacts us as it does others. What we have in the midst of all of that is the faithfulness of Jesus (Romans 8). Nothing can separate us from His love but a lot of things can separate us from health, prosperity and success.
Come to Jesus and all will be well
We don't come to Jesus to fix our failing marriage, health, solve the bankruptcy or home foreclosure or whatever our issues are. We come to Him to fix our broken and sinful hearts, to cleanse our sin, and to give us a new transformed nature. May that have an influence on the rest of our lives? Absolutely. But it does not mean that all will be well or our problems solved. Therefore we should not promise that to people. What we should promise is that God wants to transform us, make us family, change our hearts and give us His Holy Spirit to live in our hearts.
In ministry, money is the key
If we had more money we could hire more staff, build that addition, renovate our worship facilities, get more ministry done and the list goes on. All of those may be good things but God is not dependent on our money in order to see His kingdom advance. It is a part of the equation but only a part. What God wants more than larger church budgets is the personal involvement of His people in living out their faith in their circles of influence at work, at play, and at home. In ministry God's people, filled with His Spirit and joining Him with His work is the real key.
What other false beliefs do you see in the American church? It is worth thinking about because we get so wrapped up in our culture that we don't realize that some of what we believe or take to be true may in fact be false.
Monday, September 24, 2012
Signs of spiritual abuse
There are church leaders who engage in spiritual abuse to keep people in line with their culture, ethos and expectations. It is wrong, violates Biblical teaching and is deeply dysfunctional. This behavior has a cult like feel to it because it elevates spiritual leaders as those who we need to listen to and obey on issues of personal preference, conscience or decision making.
Here are some signs of spiritual abuse to be sensitive to.
1. When there is a personal disagreement and church leadership ask for repentance on the part of the individual who disagreed. Repentance is called for when we have wronged another or committed an offense against another. Disagreeing with someone else does not constitute sin. It is simply exercising our right to be self defined and a healthy individual. When one is pressured to repent over a disagreement, beware.
2. When you feel pressured to take an action because a church leader or someone else is is telling you should do so based on what "God told them." If God wants to talk to us he is perfectly able to do so. It is fair for others to talk to us about issues they might be concerned about but it is not OK for them to pressure us to take action they think we should take. Using the God card to force others to take action violates individual freedom to listen to their conscience and be sensitive to God themselves.
3. When you are told you are likely in sin because you made a decision that others disagree with. Unless that sin is obvious and clearly in violation of Biblical principles, this is blatent manipulation but of a powerful kind when it comes from a church leader. The mantra is, "I fear you have some deep hidden sin in your life because of the decisions you are making." Don't fall for it.
4. When a church leader tells you what you should do with your life. No one can tell us what to do with our lives except for God and our own desire to follow Him. Many people have a plan for our lives but only we can discern what God wants for our lives.
5. When there is an inordinate focus on "church unity" as a theme that stifles dissenting voices or the ability to speak one's opinion freely. Church unity should never be used to stifle discussions, dialogue or opinions that might differ from those of a church leader or pastor.
The priesthood of all believers means that the Holy Spirit and truth are not the exclusive purview of church leadership. Of course, we need to be respectful and loving when sharing our views but in the absence of truly causing division or heretical teaching, we should be able to do so without recrimination.
Independent thought is a threat in dysfunctional churches because it encourages others to think for themselves. When one takes an alternate view from leaders or the common line, it is a threat to the control of those leaders and is often resisted.
6. When church discipline is threatened for non ongoing egregiousness sin - beware! Church discipline should be a rare event, and the last in a series of steps where there is heresy, division or ongoing egregiousness sin. It should never be threatened or used to bring people into line.
7. When you are pressured to remain in the church if you start to pull away and desire a different fellowship. Cult like organizations like to control and they don't like it when people leave. It is a threat to them because they fear others will take note and consider the same thing. They will do everything they can to bring one back into the fold and may use both woo and threat in the process.
Here is the bottom line. If you feel that your leaders seek to control, to stifle honest dialogue, to manipulate with the God card or make you agree with their point of view, beware. Spiritual abuse is subtle but it is real. Just as abused spouses are duped into thinking the abuser is right so are those abused by those in church leadership positions. The book of Galatians is a good one to read if you feel others are trying to force you into their mold and to live by their rules. There are cults inside the church as well as outside the church.
Here are some signs of spiritual abuse to be sensitive to.
1. When there is a personal disagreement and church leadership ask for repentance on the part of the individual who disagreed. Repentance is called for when we have wronged another or committed an offense against another. Disagreeing with someone else does not constitute sin. It is simply exercising our right to be self defined and a healthy individual. When one is pressured to repent over a disagreement, beware.
2. When you feel pressured to take an action because a church leader or someone else is is telling you should do so based on what "God told them." If God wants to talk to us he is perfectly able to do so. It is fair for others to talk to us about issues they might be concerned about but it is not OK for them to pressure us to take action they think we should take. Using the God card to force others to take action violates individual freedom to listen to their conscience and be sensitive to God themselves.
3. When you are told you are likely in sin because you made a decision that others disagree with. Unless that sin is obvious and clearly in violation of Biblical principles, this is blatent manipulation but of a powerful kind when it comes from a church leader. The mantra is, "I fear you have some deep hidden sin in your life because of the decisions you are making." Don't fall for it.
4. When a church leader tells you what you should do with your life. No one can tell us what to do with our lives except for God and our own desire to follow Him. Many people have a plan for our lives but only we can discern what God wants for our lives.
5. When there is an inordinate focus on "church unity" as a theme that stifles dissenting voices or the ability to speak one's opinion freely. Church unity should never be used to stifle discussions, dialogue or opinions that might differ from those of a church leader or pastor.
The priesthood of all believers means that the Holy Spirit and truth are not the exclusive purview of church leadership. Of course, we need to be respectful and loving when sharing our views but in the absence of truly causing division or heretical teaching, we should be able to do so without recrimination.
Independent thought is a threat in dysfunctional churches because it encourages others to think for themselves. When one takes an alternate view from leaders or the common line, it is a threat to the control of those leaders and is often resisted.
6. When church discipline is threatened for non ongoing egregiousness sin - beware! Church discipline should be a rare event, and the last in a series of steps where there is heresy, division or ongoing egregiousness sin. It should never be threatened or used to bring people into line.
7. When you are pressured to remain in the church if you start to pull away and desire a different fellowship. Cult like organizations like to control and they don't like it when people leave. It is a threat to them because they fear others will take note and consider the same thing. They will do everything they can to bring one back into the fold and may use both woo and threat in the process.
Here is the bottom line. If you feel that your leaders seek to control, to stifle honest dialogue, to manipulate with the God card or make you agree with their point of view, beware. Spiritual abuse is subtle but it is real. Just as abused spouses are duped into thinking the abuser is right so are those abused by those in church leadership positions. The book of Galatians is a good one to read if you feel others are trying to force you into their mold and to live by their rules. There are cults inside the church as well as outside the church.
Sunday, September 23, 2012
When success can be an enemy
It may sound counter intuitive but ministry success can be an enemy in at least two ways.
First, when a ministry has seen a great period of success in its past, it often spends the next decades either thinking they are still living in that glorious past when they are not. Or, they are trying to recreate that past when they cannot. This is often true of local churches who saw a "heyday" that people remember. That past success keeps them from making the needed changes to move into a different future since "it worked in the past and so should work in the future."
Of course it rarely does and the ministry usually does not move on until it can bless the past as the past and embrace a new vision for the future. What got you to here got you to here: it will not get you to there.
Success can also be a blinder in the present. Success does not mean that a ministry is healthy. It just means that for some reason it is seeing greater momentum than it has in the past. I watched one church move to a new location and quickly triple in size. Yet there were many issues internally that needed to be resolved. However, because of the rapid growth (from a move) it was assumed by some leaders that all was well (it was not).
Momentum should not keep us from asking hard questions about the health of an organization for two reasons. First, because there may be other reasons for that momentum. Second, because momentum does not last forever and the most important issue is the internal health of staff, leadership and long term viability and fruitfulness. Momentum and "success" can mask issues for a time but not forever. Eventually they surface!
The moral is that past success is not the key to future success and present success is not a reason to let our guard down and assume all is well. That success, past or present can bring with it both arrogance and carelessness, each of which are an enemy.
First, when a ministry has seen a great period of success in its past, it often spends the next decades either thinking they are still living in that glorious past when they are not. Or, they are trying to recreate that past when they cannot. This is often true of local churches who saw a "heyday" that people remember. That past success keeps them from making the needed changes to move into a different future since "it worked in the past and so should work in the future."
Of course it rarely does and the ministry usually does not move on until it can bless the past as the past and embrace a new vision for the future. What got you to here got you to here: it will not get you to there.
Success can also be a blinder in the present. Success does not mean that a ministry is healthy. It just means that for some reason it is seeing greater momentum than it has in the past. I watched one church move to a new location and quickly triple in size. Yet there were many issues internally that needed to be resolved. However, because of the rapid growth (from a move) it was assumed by some leaders that all was well (it was not).
Momentum should not keep us from asking hard questions about the health of an organization for two reasons. First, because there may be other reasons for that momentum. Second, because momentum does not last forever and the most important issue is the internal health of staff, leadership and long term viability and fruitfulness. Momentum and "success" can mask issues for a time but not forever. Eventually they surface!
The moral is that past success is not the key to future success and present success is not a reason to let our guard down and assume all is well. That success, past or present can bring with it both arrogance and carelessness, each of which are an enemy.
Saturday, September 22, 2012
Independence is a killer of organizational excellence
Organizational excellence - in any ministry or organization requires leaders to work in cooperation toward common goals. Too often, however, leaders want independence rather than interdependence, leaving the organization with multiple directions and a significant lack of alignment.
In recent conversations with a large church staff, one of the staff members made the comment that what had been rewarded on their staff was the development of successful ministries rather than cooperative efforts - leaving the church with ministry silos without a common direction. There was no incentive to work together.
Here is an irony: Leaders insist that those on their team play ball together and follow their direction. In many cases, those very leaders are unwilling to to play ball with other leaders or to make themselves accountable for their own alignment and cooperation. They insist on alignment below them but do not submit or work toward alignment above them.
The independence of ministry leaders - doing their own thing - hampers many churches from experiencing greater impact and other ministry organizations the same.
The sad thing is that they are modelling the antithesis of what they tell their own teams. And it does not go unnoticed. The sadder thing is that lack of interdependence, the humility to get on the same page with others and intentional cooperative efforts keeps the organization from experiencing the impact it could otherwise have.
It raises an interesting question. Why do those who lead so often find it hard to follow? And if I cannot follow (if I am part of an organization) do I have the moral authority to lead? Our fierce independent streak is remarkably close to how Isaiah describes our sinfulness - "each of us has turned to our own way (Isaiah 53:6)."
Organizational ministry is not an individual sport like golf. It is, rather a team sport like football, basketball or soccer where unless everyone knows their position and cooperates with the rest of the team and executes plays together there will not be a winning team. Often ministries who could be a winning team are leaving great spiritual influence on the table because they are in a team sport but their leaders are doing an individual thing and ignoring their coach.
Before I am a leader, I am a follower. Even when I am a leader I am a follower. Leaders lead - and they follow, if part of an organization. When they don't, they lose their moral authority to lead.
In recent conversations with a large church staff, one of the staff members made the comment that what had been rewarded on their staff was the development of successful ministries rather than cooperative efforts - leaving the church with ministry silos without a common direction. There was no incentive to work together.
Here is an irony: Leaders insist that those on their team play ball together and follow their direction. In many cases, those very leaders are unwilling to to play ball with other leaders or to make themselves accountable for their own alignment and cooperation. They insist on alignment below them but do not submit or work toward alignment above them.
The independence of ministry leaders - doing their own thing - hampers many churches from experiencing greater impact and other ministry organizations the same.
The sad thing is that they are modelling the antithesis of what they tell their own teams. And it does not go unnoticed. The sadder thing is that lack of interdependence, the humility to get on the same page with others and intentional cooperative efforts keeps the organization from experiencing the impact it could otherwise have.
It raises an interesting question. Why do those who lead so often find it hard to follow? And if I cannot follow (if I am part of an organization) do I have the moral authority to lead? Our fierce independent streak is remarkably close to how Isaiah describes our sinfulness - "each of us has turned to our own way (Isaiah 53:6)."
Organizational ministry is not an individual sport like golf. It is, rather a team sport like football, basketball or soccer where unless everyone knows their position and cooperates with the rest of the team and executes plays together there will not be a winning team. Often ministries who could be a winning team are leaving great spiritual influence on the table because they are in a team sport but their leaders are doing an individual thing and ignoring their coach.
Before I am a leader, I am a follower. Even when I am a leader I am a follower. Leaders lead - and they follow, if part of an organization. When they don't, they lose their moral authority to lead.
Friday, September 21, 2012
The General Motors Syndrome. Why good people in good organizations resist needed change in the face of incontrovertible evidence that it is needed
As an organizational leader and consultant I see the General Motors Syndrome played out in churches, ministry organizations, missions and denominations: Those inside the organization cannot see the need for change while those outside look in and wonder why in the world good people don't see what they see - the world has changed but they have not.
Why, for instance, did the organizational structure and culture of General Motors not change until bankruptcy when Toyota, and others where light years ahead of them in efficiency and quality? Why do even large churches resist changing antiquated structures that hinder them and no longer work for them? Why do mission organizations who have seen their entire context change but continue to operate as if they were in the pre globalized world? Why do denominations struggle with changing structures that served them 50 or 100 years ago but no longer?
The why question is even more powerful when one realizes that there is almost always demonstrable evidence that change is needed. Even in the face of that evidence, change can be hard to come by and is met by resistance. So why do good people in good organizations resist needed changes in the face of incontrovertible evidence that it is needed?
Let me suggest three key reasons.
One, organizations like families are systems that resist any changes to the status quo. It is why missional is often subverted by institutional. Institutional is comfortable while missional is a threat to the status quo of the system (organizational). In families, if one individual tries to pull away from the family system, the rest of the family applies pressure to bring them back in. That is why it is called a family "system." A perceived threat to the status quo can be met with fierce resistance that to others makes no sense but within the "system" it makes all the sense in the world.
When I proposed major change in the mission I lead, the "system" worked to try to pressure the system back to where it had been previously which was known and comfortable. The organizational family system was threatened and wanted equilibrium again. This is why organizations find change so hard. The existing family system resists even change that outsiders think is a no brainer.
Two: organizations, like individuals have an EQ quotient. A major part of individual EQ is the ability to know oneself, our strengths and weaknesses and how we are perceived by others. All of us have met people who lack that quality. Others see what they cannot see and to a certain extend that is true even for an individual of healthy EQ.
Organizations are no different. What did the executives of GM think sitting up in their executive dining room surrounded by luxury as the world around them changed radically? Their corporate EQ was severely lacking.
I once consulted with a church that had gone from 500 to 50 in a 2 million dollar facility and when I told them they were not healthy they asked what the evidence was! That is a corporate EQ issue. It is also why organizations need outside counsel when looking at significant change. Others can see what they no longer see. We become so entrenched in the system that we no longer see ourselves with any degree of objectivity. We have become the system! We no longer see objectively.
Three, and this is less neutral than the first two. When Patrick Lencioni published his book Silos, Politics and Turf Wars they flew off the shelf, were avidly read, people saw themselves in the mirror and many of their organizations saw no change. Why? Because the politics, silos and turf wars were too strong to allow change. People do not easily give up their turf, even for good reasons. Turf and autonomy are power and they don't easily yield power. This is a spiritual issue while the first two issues are organizational system and EQ issues.
Fifteen years ago, the team I served on, the senior team of the EFCA made a decision to give up a measure of our individual and departmental autonomy in order to get on the same page and serve the whole with greater effectiveness. There was blood on the floor in some of our initial meetings. We were tearing down silos, addressing the politics and declaring there was no more turf. Responsibility for our areas - yes. Turf - no. And our mission and the accomplishment of that mission had to take precedence over our "individual rights" and sometimes preferences.
It was a hard necessary change. So let me put it candidly. Without the humility to give something up for the sake of the whole, no organization goes to the next level. This applies to church boards where a member is guarding their sacred ministries or organizational structure, to team leaders who are more concerned about their ministry than the whole ministry, staff who are guarding their ministry portfolio or in the case of missions, individuals who want to be independent contractors rather than members of an organization and in alignment with the whole.
This one is a heart issue. And it keeps many Christian organizations from moving forward in ways that would be far more effective and results driven.
This one is a heart issue. And it keeps many Christian organizations from moving forward in ways that would be far more effective and results driven.
Why do good people in good organizations resist change even in the face of incontrovertible evidence it is needed? Their organizational family system resists it, the corporate EQ of the organization may not be healthy enough to see it and people are unwilling to give up the politics, silos and turf wars.
What does it take to see real change in change unfriendly environments. First, the family system must champion honest, candid, truthful dialogue without seeking to pressure people back into the fold. It takes courage to speak up and be a change agent when there is significant resistance to resist that change. And there will usually be loud voices in opposition.
Second it takes the willingness to face the "brutal facts" as they are, look in the mirror, listen to outside voices who do not have a vested interest and who can see with greater objectivity and be willing to count the cost of the status quo. If one waits until the organization has plateaued and gone into decline it is often too late to resurrect what could have been. Now is usually the time to face the facts rather than later.
Third, it takes the humility to give up the parts of our autonomous nature that keep the organization from being all that it can be. It is pride and power and guard silos and turf. It is humility and missional commitment that break them down. Does it matter? It will on the day we give an account to the Lord of the church. Ironically, it often matters more to those we serve than to us who lead. They often see what we cannot see and when they do not see their leaders act, they often decide to invest their lives elsewhere.
What does it take to see real change in change unfriendly environments. First, the family system must champion honest, candid, truthful dialogue without seeking to pressure people back into the fold. It takes courage to speak up and be a change agent when there is significant resistance to resist that change. And there will usually be loud voices in opposition.
Second it takes the willingness to face the "brutal facts" as they are, look in the mirror, listen to outside voices who do not have a vested interest and who can see with greater objectivity and be willing to count the cost of the status quo. If one waits until the organization has plateaued and gone into decline it is often too late to resurrect what could have been. Now is usually the time to face the facts rather than later.
Third, it takes the humility to give up the parts of our autonomous nature that keep the organization from being all that it can be. It is pride and power and guard silos and turf. It is humility and missional commitment that break them down. Does it matter? It will on the day we give an account to the Lord of the church. Ironically, it often matters more to those we serve than to us who lead. They often see what we cannot see and when they do not see their leaders act, they often decide to invest their lives elsewhere.
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Three transgressions of local church staff that hurt ministry effectiveness
I call them transgressions because they have spiritual impact and leave a great deal of spiritual opportunity on the table. These three transgressions include one transgression of omission and two of commission Bear with me.
Transgression One: Lack of significant clarity in the local church as to what the church is about, where it is headed, what its non-negotiables are and what it is committed to achieving.
I work with many churches who cannot define ministry clarity. It is a sin of omission that significantly impacts the spiritual effectiveness of the congregation. In the absence of maximum clarity every leader and team define their own clarity which is a recipe for confusion and competition. Eventually that lack of clarity creates silos, competing directions, and the proliferation of ministries which may or may not be effective. In the absence of clarity one does not know what is truly effective or whether or not we have achieved what we need to achieve. Lack of clarity is a sin of omission and it is endemic in the church.
Transgression Two: Lack of alignment around clarity. Church staff members can often be an independent lot who drive their own agendas and build their teams and ministries around their agendas. Don't get me wrong. It does not mean that they are not after good things. What I am saying is that many staff leaders are not committed to a common clarity and vision of the church but rather their own. This is a sin of commission.
No organization can maximize its impact unless its leaders are willing to get on the same page and work toward common goals. This means that we give up a certain amount of autonomy for the sake of a common strategic direction, mutual cooperation and a deep concern for the whole rather than a concern for our slice of the pie. Not committing ourselves to alignment with the whole is a sin of commission. It is a choice we make that hurts the whole and therefore our missional effectiveness. Thus it matters - a lot.
Transgression Three: Lack of accountability for results based on the missional clarity. Unless we can clearly show that our ministries are achieving results based on the ministry clarity of the church, we have no way of knowing whether we are being successful or not - which is why ministries are rarely ever cancelled but drift on and on whether they are delivering on the promise or not.
Too many churches look like the Winchester House in San Jose, CA (Google it) with ministry built upon ministry with no common blueprint and no common direction. And, with each leader defending their piece of the turf and their section of the pie. It is why Patrick Lencioni's book, Silos, Politics and Turfwars has sold so many copies both in the ministry and secular world. In the ministry world it is a sad commentary on our lack of common vision, purpose and direction.
If you are on the staff of a church, I would encourage you to ask the question as to whether these three transgressions apply to your staff. If they do, put the issue on the table because none of us want to waste our lives or leave spiritual opportunity on the table. I know that Jesus does not want us to leave opportunity on the table.
If you need help in these areas, the book, Leading from the Sandbox can be a practical and valuable resource. Whatever you do, don't settle.
Transgression One: Lack of significant clarity in the local church as to what the church is about, where it is headed, what its non-negotiables are and what it is committed to achieving.
I work with many churches who cannot define ministry clarity. It is a sin of omission that significantly impacts the spiritual effectiveness of the congregation. In the absence of maximum clarity every leader and team define their own clarity which is a recipe for confusion and competition. Eventually that lack of clarity creates silos, competing directions, and the proliferation of ministries which may or may not be effective. In the absence of clarity one does not know what is truly effective or whether or not we have achieved what we need to achieve. Lack of clarity is a sin of omission and it is endemic in the church.
Transgression Two: Lack of alignment around clarity. Church staff members can often be an independent lot who drive their own agendas and build their teams and ministries around their agendas. Don't get me wrong. It does not mean that they are not after good things. What I am saying is that many staff leaders are not committed to a common clarity and vision of the church but rather their own. This is a sin of commission.
No organization can maximize its impact unless its leaders are willing to get on the same page and work toward common goals. This means that we give up a certain amount of autonomy for the sake of a common strategic direction, mutual cooperation and a deep concern for the whole rather than a concern for our slice of the pie. Not committing ourselves to alignment with the whole is a sin of commission. It is a choice we make that hurts the whole and therefore our missional effectiveness. Thus it matters - a lot.
Transgression Three: Lack of accountability for results based on the missional clarity. Unless we can clearly show that our ministries are achieving results based on the ministry clarity of the church, we have no way of knowing whether we are being successful or not - which is why ministries are rarely ever cancelled but drift on and on whether they are delivering on the promise or not.
Too many churches look like the Winchester House in San Jose, CA (Google it) with ministry built upon ministry with no common blueprint and no common direction. And, with each leader defending their piece of the turf and their section of the pie. It is why Patrick Lencioni's book, Silos, Politics and Turfwars has sold so many copies both in the ministry and secular world. In the ministry world it is a sad commentary on our lack of common vision, purpose and direction.
If you are on the staff of a church, I would encourage you to ask the question as to whether these three transgressions apply to your staff. If they do, put the issue on the table because none of us want to waste our lives or leave spiritual opportunity on the table. I know that Jesus does not want us to leave opportunity on the table.
If you need help in these areas, the book, Leading from the Sandbox can be a practical and valuable resource. Whatever you do, don't settle.
The journey from individual producer to leading through team
Many pastors and Christian organizational leaders did not sign up for ministry to lead others. They heard the call of God, wanted to make a difference for His Kingdom and entered ministry. It was a shock for some to wake up one day and realize "I am a leader and I've got to lead a staff, and I don't really like doing it."
I remember when I was an independent producer. I was a staff of one with an assistant. It was convenient: one person to oversee, my schedule was my own, I could focus on things I wanted to focus on and, while my work affected others, I was not personally responsible for them.
Today, the picture is different. I have a staff of over 550 with 10 senior leaders who directly or indirectly report to me. What I do, how I spend my time, and what my priorities are all directly affect others - and my ability to lead them well.
The transition from independent producer to the leader of a staff of various sizes was not without its bumps and its lessons because the two kinds of responsibilities are very different.
Life for an independent producer is fairly simple. Life for a leader who leads staff or a team is much more complex. A leader of others must make critical transitions in how they think and act. They must transition:
From thinking about "How I drive ministry myself" to "how I facilitate ministry through other good people." It is no longer about me as much as it is about us.
From "how I would do things" to "empowering other good people to do things as they would do them" - in line with their gifting and skills.
From "I can do life as I like to arrange it" to "I need to take into account all those on my team and how I can best serve them and help them become the best they can be."
From player to coach. The larger my staff (volunteer or paid), the more I must transition from player to coach. It is not possible for me to ignore my team. If I do, they go south attitudinally or we develop silos without alignment.
From "hands on: in the details to helping define the "big rocks" and allow others to figure out the details.
From "I can determine the plan and strategy" to "we need to determine and own a common strategy."
From "I have a meeting to go to" to "I have a meeting that I need to carefully prepare for and lead."
From "my opinion is the one that counts" to "I need to be collaborative in my thinking, and decision making." And, "I need to encourage robust dialogue around issues and take a non-defensive posture when others disagree with me."
I remember when I was an independent producer. I was a staff of one with an assistant. It was convenient: one person to oversee, my schedule was my own, I could focus on things I wanted to focus on and, while my work affected others, I was not personally responsible for them.
Today, the picture is different. I have a staff of over 550 with 10 senior leaders who directly or indirectly report to me. What I do, how I spend my time, and what my priorities are all directly affect others - and my ability to lead them well.
The transition from independent producer to the leader of a staff of various sizes was not without its bumps and its lessons because the two kinds of responsibilities are very different.
Life for an independent producer is fairly simple. Life for a leader who leads staff or a team is much more complex. A leader of others must make critical transitions in how they think and act. They must transition:
From thinking about "How I drive ministry myself" to "how I facilitate ministry through other good people." It is no longer about me as much as it is about us.
From "how I would do things" to "empowering other good people to do things as they would do them" - in line with their gifting and skills.
From "I can do life as I like to arrange it" to "I need to take into account all those on my team and how I can best serve them and help them become the best they can be."
From player to coach. The larger my staff (volunteer or paid), the more I must transition from player to coach. It is not possible for me to ignore my team. If I do, they go south attitudinally or we develop silos without alignment.
From "hands on: in the details to helping define the "big rocks" and allow others to figure out the details.
From "I can determine the plan and strategy" to "we need to determine and own a common strategy."
From "I have a meeting to go to" to "I have a meeting that I need to carefully prepare for and lead."
From "my opinion is the one that counts" to "I need to be collaborative in my thinking, and decision making." And, "I need to encourage robust dialogue around issues and take a non-defensive posture when others disagree with me."
These are not easy transitions and there is significant leadership pain and even attrition when leaders go from being solo producers to team leaders and don't understand the need to do life differently. It is not uncommon for pastors who suddenly find themselves saddled with reports and a team who have not made the transitions above to face considerable unhappiness or conflict with staff. Often they are not aware of why the conflict is occurring.
If you lead others, have you made the transition?
If you lead others, have you made the transition?
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Timing and Change: They work together
Timing on key decisions can be the key to either success or failure. A decision or direction can be the right one but if the timing is wrong, the right decision can go south - making it all the harder to move in that direction at a later time. This is particularly true with major change in an organization.
Leaders are always thinking ahead and it is not unusual for them to figure out a new direction (which may be a great direction for the organization) but in their impatience to make it happen, try to move before the organization is ready - and find that there is greater resistance to the change than they anticipated. The resulting "failure" of the effort undermines the leader's credibility and paints the direction as wrong even though it may not be.
Timing and change strategy go hand in hand. If you are a leader who desires to bring change to your organization, here are some questions that should be asked before you pull the trigger. Knowing the answers to these questions will help you determine whether the timing is right (or premature).
Do you have your key leaders with you so that when resistance to the new direction kicks in you are confident they will be your advocates?
Organizations that need change often have the wrong leaders in place. A new leader at the top may be critical but it is not enough. Unless that new leader has the support of the key organizational leaders the change will be sabotaged by the very people whose support you need.
It is not unusual that before introducing major change you need to change out leaders who will not go with you or who cannot be evangelists for that change. Wise leaders do not pull the trigger until they know that their key people will go with them.
Has the need for a major change been adequately communicated to the whole organization?
People are naturally change resistant. Entrepreneurial leaders are not and often do not take that resistance into account. Some people will never view change positively. Most people will agree to change if a higher value than their resistance can be called on and if the reason for change is properly communicated. That takes time, strategy and patience.
Senior leaders bringing change will not know whether there is adequate understanding and buy in from enough people unless they have dialogued with people throughout the organization - in person. In essence, one needs to create a crisis that is in proportion to the scale of the change needed. Crisis gets people's attention, life as normal does not.
For many ministries, the issue is simple. Unless we change and adapt to a changing world, we will no longer be effective. Ministries are notoriously behind the rest of the world in adapting to necessary change. The bottom line is that no matter what an organizational leader thinks, unless a good percentage of those he/she leads, agree, the change will not happen.
Is there a guiding coalition of folks who will champion what you intend to do?
This is the hard behind the scenes work necessary before rolling out major change. The board or governing authority needs to be with you. The line leaders need to be with you. And you need key people of influence in the organization with you.
As a leader you cannot be everywhere, all the time. You need people who are as passionate about what you are proposing as you are and who can be convincers of others at crucial moments. Major change without an adequate guiding coalition is doomed to fail.
Are you as a leader clear as to what your proposed change looks like?
It is one thing to know that change needs to happen. It is another to be clear as to what it looks like. If you are not clear you can be sure others will not be clear. While you may not be clear on everything, it is critical to be clear on the big issues so that you can clarify rather than confuse.
Many people will accept clear direction even if it is not the direction they would have chosen. Lack of clarity, however, brings apprehension rather than support.
Can you define the outcomes that you want to see and allow your line leaders and people to figure out strategies to get you there?
Your leaders and people need to have a stake in the change process and frankly, they are more likely to figure out the strategies to get you to your preferred outcomes than you will.
When the organization I lead, ReachGlobal, went through major change, one of our objectives was to move from "addition" to "multiplication" in all of our strategies. I could define the outcome, and in certain situations could give suggestions or possibilities but it was our missionaries who had to figure out what multiplication looked like in their context. They were the experts in their area, not me.
If you can define desired outcomes, giving good people a stake in figuring out strategy will go a long way in creating organizational buy in and common goals. Declaring how it must be done is rarely a good strategy for leaders.
Do you have the personal credibility to drive major change?
If you are a new leader, your coinage may be low (perhaps you came in from the outside) or it may be high (people are excited about what you bring). If you are an existing leader, your bank may be full of good will or it may be low if you have had to deal with difficult situations.
In any event, having a good feel for whether you have the personal credibility with your people to drive major organizational or cultural change is important. If you do not have the credibility or coinage - don't move forward until you do - or leave it to another leader who does not have the baggage you have.
Lack of personal credibility, whether fair or unfair, will likely cause your effort to fail. It is not worth the fallout to you or to the organization if it does. If change needs to happen and you dont' have the credibility to pull it off, do the right thing for the organization and let someone else with greater credibility do it.
If you can answer these questions in the affirmative, your timing is probably favorable for a positive outcome. If you cannot, wait! Trying to drive change prematurely hurts the organization in the long term and will make it all the more difficult to try again. In change, timing is critical. And wisdom is necessary to be able to answer the questions to determine the timing.
Monday, September 17, 2012
A sobering assessment of Middle East events for the safety of missionaries globally
The following statement from Assist News Service is an important one for all missionaries and agencies in light of the events of the past week around the world and particularly in the Middle East. I am quoting it in its entirety (with permission). These events should be a cause for increased prayer for missionaries and for our Christian brothers and sisters who are today at greater risk given the animosity between the Christian and Muslim world and the Muslim world and the West.
ASSIST News Service (ANS) - PO Box
609, Lake Forest, CA 92609-0609 USA
Visit our web site at: www.assistnews.net -- E-mail: assistnews@aol.com
Visit our web site at: www.assistnews.net -- E-mail: assistnews@aol.com
Saturday, September 15, 2012
‘The World Changed Today for Christians,’ says Mary Marr, Founder and President of the Christian Emergency Network
She gives vital recommendations of how Christians and missionary groups can protect themselves and their staff during this time of unparalleled violence
By Dan Wooding
Founder of ASSIST Ministries
She began by saying, “These events beg the questions: If the U.S. cannot or will not defend embassies, what will be defended? If the embassy staff, in Libya or elsewhere, is not defended, what will the aid be to any U.S. citizen traveling in a country who may be at risk? Apart from domestic security in the U.S. what does this mean for Christians, churches and missionaries around the globe?
“Missionaries have long lived with an eternal perspective in that each day their lives may be at risk in many countries where they minister. And, those with U.S. citizenship may have long relied upon the belief the U.S. embassies were not only symbolic, but bastions of security, while traveling or residing in another country.
“However, the events of this week are putting that assumption into question. As responsible caring believers, we must not refuse to examine the consequences for Christians (or any U.S. citizen) living or traveling abroad after this week nor to ignore the consequences domestically.
“It is not a matter of simply making ‘a statement’ with our wallets by curtailing tourist travel as some in the media have called for, or demonstrating anger over a foreign sovereign country not securing our embassies called for under international law. It is a matter of realistically assessing the security of our citizens. And, that includes Christians and missionaries residing around the world.”
“Historically in times of battle when a fort is taken a victorious flag rises as a symbol of defeat, such as we have seen with the U.S. flag in many countries being replaced by a black Islamist flag in recent days.
“When Francis Scott Key was awaiting word on a British or U.S. victory, he began writing what was to become the American National Anthem with the words, ‘And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air, Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there….’ This was a symbol of victory and an inspiration for a fledgling new nation standing for the freedom, including a nation built upon religious freedom for all faiths.”
Marr, who founded CEN after Sept 11, 2001 to “help the Body of Christ respond more biblically, intentionally and collaboratively to national emergencies,” went on to tell ANS, “During WWII, when fellow soldiers raised the flag over Iwo Jima the infamous photograph was formed into a memorial, which still stands as a remainder and symbolic declaration of strategic victory inspiring the war was at an end. Just as words have meaning, flags have meaning.
“And, just as the Christian flag has meaning for followers of Christ, so the Islamic flag has meaning for many Muslims around the globe. Erecting the Islamist flag over our embassies has meaning in that it makes the statement the Islamist flag has replaced the sovereignty of the country and it is no longer recognized as a place of security and defense for that country or the citizens who reside in those countries.
“The boldness of taking down one flag of an embassy of a sovereign nation and replacing it with a religious flag should not be minimized as bold consequences may follow as result. Just this week the U.S. Department of Homeland Security issued a rare security bulletin putting faith-based organizations on alert as the situation escalates in the Middle East and beyond.
“Rather than retreating in denial or avoidance, as those without the 'Hope of Christ' as we have been prone to do, the situation before us means a vital question must be decidedly answered.”
When asked what Christians, churches, Christian ministries and missionary organizations specifically should do right away regarding to their own global security from a Biblical perspective, she replied, “First, they should not minimize the consequences of the security risks of their Christians missionaries in countries around the globe. Prayerful and intentional decisions need to be made by the missionary organizations, apart from their traditional decision-making processes, since these are unprecedented times.”
Marr said that the U.S. government "may be distracted, unable or unwilling to be efficient in aiding missionaries, so it is incumbent upon the missionary organization itself to ask tough questions.”
She then listed them as:
1. Is the current environment in a given country secure for Christians and missionaries? What does security mean to your organization?
2. Are the missionaries “in country relationships” reliable, silent, less valuable, or becoming less constrained related to matters of security?
3. Do we stay the course as a missionary organization regardless of the security risk and cost or pull our missionaries out for another day when they may minister more effectively?
Two Scriptures, which may apply in making this decision, are: “Beat your plowshares into swords and your pruning hooks into spears. Let the weakling say, ‘I am strong!’” (Joel 3:10 NIV) or, “He will judge between the nations and will settle disputes for many peoples. They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore.” (Isaiah 2:4 NIV).
Marr continued by saying, “When Rome was encountering the plague, many Christians stayed to assist those in need, for the cause of the Gospel. There is a place biblically for the first responder, as we know full well, and the soldier who sacrifices his life for the lives of many. Yet, the ultimate sacrifice should not be given without cause. Self-sacrifice is not always called for as there is also the biblical perspective to survive another day and fulfill the mission by going on.
This perspective is in fact the first recommendation! However, God is the only one who is able to guide us in which biblical principle applies in every situation.
“However, regardless of which Scripture and biblical perspective applies to any situation the primary responsibility for securing Christians within the church facility while in worship is the church itself for example. And, the primary responsibility for securing missionaries is the mission organization itself, not the missionary in the field. Regardless of risk and cost, whether it is Church leadership, ministry or missionary organizations Christian leaders need to make prayerful, intentional, and deliberate decisions based upon the reality of the situation, as no decision is a decision, and the most dangerous decision of all!
“We cannot stand idly by and wait for government to address the security of our churches, ministries or families whether domestically or abroad. The responsibility primarily resided with us. What should churches, missionaries, and Christians do right now whether they are clearly in an 'at risk' situation abroad are this week or domestically in the future?"
Marr added, “To assist you, your family, church and local Christian community to assess your level of biblical readiness, develop emergency operations plans, build spiritual, emotional, mental and physical resiliency to biblically respond in crisis of all kinds, CEN (www.christianemergencynetwork.org) provides three helpful training programs - ReadyChristian, ReadyChurch, and ReadyCity.”
She then suggested the following immediate steps for churches, ministry and missionary organizations:
* Train staff to be aware of unusual activities such as loitering or taking photos of facilities
* Sign up for CEN Alerts ongoing for timely updates on unfolding crisis
* Develop emergency operation plans
* Establish safe rooms, shelter in place actions, and communication plans
* Post sentries during events and worship services who rotate and rove
* Establish relationships with local law enforcement and report suspicious any activity immediately
* Limit vehicle access to the perimeters of facilities
* Lock windows and doors, use fencing and gate locks
* Review your faith-organization’s website for any information that may be sensitive
* Identify entry exits clearly to emergency evacuations and conduct an evacuation drill
Mary Marr’s expertise is in providing a unique Christian worldview to emergency preparedness and response, working with Department of Homeland Security and FEMA faith-based initiatives, developing the Biblical Readiness Standard, and offering a biblical perspective on any crisis situation provides a unique and valued service to the Christian community worldwide. In addition to being a seasoned radio broadcaster, educator, speaker, and author of Lighting the Way, Mary is also the author of CEN's three core ready training programs: ReadyChristian, ReadyChurch and ReadyCity.
She concluded by saying, “Every Christian should be ready to respond biblically to emergencies large or small. Christian Emergency Network unites Christian volunteers, community leaders and emergency professionals in equipping the Church to be aware and ready to respond in emergencies large and small.
To learn more about how you or your Christian organization can be prepared to respond to emergencies go to www.christianemergencynetwork.org.”
Note to the media: If you would like to schedule an interview with Mary Marr, please contact her at: mary.marr@christianemergencynetwork.org. Also you can contact: Misti McHatton, CEN's Public Information Officer (misti.mchatton@christianemergencynetwork.org) or by phone at either (800) 260-5637 or 480-326-9132.
Sunday, September 16, 2012
Those who get their way though intimidation in the church
Intimidation is a great way to get your way in church settings, mainly because most people are conflict adverse and don't want to go head to head with people who are bullies in their tactics. Bullies are no different in the church than in other arenas of life - their tactic is simple: intimidation.
Online Your Dictionary defines it this way: "To frighten into submission, compliance or acquiescence." It is the use of force of personality to get one's way because one is too intimidated to go up against them. By they way, those who do this know exactly what they are doing They know they are trying to force others to agree with them or to a decision or direction they want. Bullies have learned over time that they can bully others into submission.
In church settings, this intimidation may well have a spiritual veneer wrapped around it. Often, the bully will underhandedly bring a few other key voices into his/her circle in order to strengthen their case. Sometimes those they bring in are more vociferous in their tactics than the one who influenced them in their direction which is why one often needs to ask the question, who is the voice behind the voices when common issues are being voiced by several.
Whenever you have one board member who can effectively veto decisions of the board as a whole you have a bully. Whenever there is someone in the church who can veto decisions of the board, you have a bully. In case you feel the word "bully" is not gracious, Paul calls them "wolves" in Acts 21. This kind of behavior ought to be illegal in the church.
Here is something to know about bullies. They play unfair because they have learned that it is how they can get their way which is what bullying is all about - getting their way. What is also true is that when they are confronted on their behavior they get very nervous because at their root they are often insecure people which is why they use dysfunctional means to get their way and bully others. When confronted they will often back off quickly.
At the board level, one prevents this behavior by a board covenant which does not allow unhealthy behaviors to prevail and when they do it gives them permission to remove the offender from the board.
At the congregational level, the loud, intimidating voices must be met by reasoned response from others who are willing to take them on. Congregations often assume that the loud voices represent a large faction of the congregation when in fact, they usually represent a very small faction (often just themselves) and when another person with courage challenges their position the congregation understands that there are others like themselves out there who have a reasoned position. To let people make loud, intimidating and obnoxious statements without a measured response is irresponsible.
Where it is clear that one has a divisive individual in the congregation it is up to the leaders to confront the individual's behavior and make it clear that it is unacceptable. Most bullies last as long as they do because no one has the courage to confront them. This is wrong.
Paul mentions three kinds of wolves the hurt the flock in the New Testament: The wolf of heresy, the wolf of ongoing unrepentant sin and the wolf of division. We do pretty good on the first two but the most common wolf in the evangelical world - division - is one that we usually don't deal with well. And it does our congregations a great deal of harm.
In one church I am very familiar with, the board, congregation, district leaders and denominational leaders were unwilling to deal with a wolf of division which led to two decades of division within a congregation. Think of the pain because of a failure of courage.
Bullies and intimidators don't like accountability. Putting into place measures that bring accountability and then following through is the best remedy for dealing with them. Give them their way and they will disempower and destroy a congregation.
Online Your Dictionary defines it this way: "To frighten into submission, compliance or acquiescence." It is the use of force of personality to get one's way because one is too intimidated to go up against them. By they way, those who do this know exactly what they are doing They know they are trying to force others to agree with them or to a decision or direction they want. Bullies have learned over time that they can bully others into submission.
In church settings, this intimidation may well have a spiritual veneer wrapped around it. Often, the bully will underhandedly bring a few other key voices into his/her circle in order to strengthen their case. Sometimes those they bring in are more vociferous in their tactics than the one who influenced them in their direction which is why one often needs to ask the question, who is the voice behind the voices when common issues are being voiced by several.
Whenever you have one board member who can effectively veto decisions of the board as a whole you have a bully. Whenever there is someone in the church who can veto decisions of the board, you have a bully. In case you feel the word "bully" is not gracious, Paul calls them "wolves" in Acts 21. This kind of behavior ought to be illegal in the church.
Here is something to know about bullies. They play unfair because they have learned that it is how they can get their way which is what bullying is all about - getting their way. What is also true is that when they are confronted on their behavior they get very nervous because at their root they are often insecure people which is why they use dysfunctional means to get their way and bully others. When confronted they will often back off quickly.
At the board level, one prevents this behavior by a board covenant which does not allow unhealthy behaviors to prevail and when they do it gives them permission to remove the offender from the board.
At the congregational level, the loud, intimidating voices must be met by reasoned response from others who are willing to take them on. Congregations often assume that the loud voices represent a large faction of the congregation when in fact, they usually represent a very small faction (often just themselves) and when another person with courage challenges their position the congregation understands that there are others like themselves out there who have a reasoned position. To let people make loud, intimidating and obnoxious statements without a measured response is irresponsible.
Where it is clear that one has a divisive individual in the congregation it is up to the leaders to confront the individual's behavior and make it clear that it is unacceptable. Most bullies last as long as they do because no one has the courage to confront them. This is wrong.
Paul mentions three kinds of wolves the hurt the flock in the New Testament: The wolf of heresy, the wolf of ongoing unrepentant sin and the wolf of division. We do pretty good on the first two but the most common wolf in the evangelical world - division - is one that we usually don't deal with well. And it does our congregations a great deal of harm.
In one church I am very familiar with, the board, congregation, district leaders and denominational leaders were unwilling to deal with a wolf of division which led to two decades of division within a congregation. Think of the pain because of a failure of courage.
Bullies and intimidators don't like accountability. Putting into place measures that bring accountability and then following through is the best remedy for dealing with them. Give them their way and they will disempower and destroy a congregation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)