Does your team understand and practice robust dialogue? Want to know more?

Robust dialogue is the ability to put any issue on the table for discussion with the exception of hidden agendas or personal attacks. The truth is that most teams do not have the permission or the ground rules for candid and frank discussion and it hurts them. This applies to teams and boards alike. In this short video I talk about how to engage in healthy robust dialogue in your setting. I hope it can encourage leaders and teams to take the next step in learning how to communicate for maximum ministry impact.

Hit this link to my short talk.

Avoiding paternalism in missions through a round table approach with ministry partnerships

Missions is changing radically. We are moving from a paradigm of missionaries being primarily doers to being primarily equippers. The following short video unpacks this change and addresses the issue of paternalism in the missions enterprise.

Link to Develop Empower and Release video

The poverty mentality in many churches

One of the challenges of working in the majority (poor) world is that there is often a "poverty mentality," which focuses on what they do not have rather than what God has actually given them to use for his purposes. Some of the training we do in these contexts is to help folks look around them and discover the resources God has given them and then how to use those resources for ministry, rather than thinking they are poor and need outside resources for everything they do.

A poverty mentality is not only the domain of the majority world, however. There are many church staffs who believe that "if only they had more resources," they could get more done for Jesus. This sometimes translates into heavy handed and even manipulative "God talk" from the front on how the congregation should be more generous in their giving. I have seen this in churches of 5,000 and churches of 500. 

Often this reflects the dreams of a leader more than the intentions of God for a congregation. I believe that God is fully capable of providing a congregation with whatever they need to do what God is actually calling them to do. If we don't have enough, perhaps we are doing things God has not called us to do. Or going about it in the wrong way.

Furthermore, the answer to all ministry opportunities is not simply money. We have people who have skills and gifting that can be brought to the table. My experience is that God's people are generally very willing to be involved personally in ministry when it is in line with their gifting. What they resist is the pressure by staff to get involved in things that they are either not gifted to do or programs that fulfill a dream of church staff that they feel no compulsion from the Spirit to participate in.

We need to get away from the thinking that ministry is simply what happens inside the four walls of the church or must be a program of the church. What would happen in terms of impact if every individual was simply living out the "good works God prepared in advance for them to do (Ephesians 2:10)" in their places of influence. That takes no money, no staff, no programs. It is just us living out the calling of God on our lives.

Don't get caught up in a poverty mentality. God provides what we need for what He has called us to do. And remember, it is not all about money.

Celebrity Christianity

I get the fact that some Christian leaders will become well known. And, that they will be pushed to become celebrities because that is our culture. We celebrate celebrities, we love to rub shoulders with them, name drop that we know them, visit their churches and buy their newest book. Even quote them - almost like Jesus. And perhaps we often treat them a bit like Jesus.

Celebrity Christianity is very foreign to the humble ministry of Jesus which pointed people to the Father and made it clear that He was doing what the Father told Him to do. Here was a member of the Godhead pointing people to the Father through Him. He served others rather than wanting to be served. He humbled himself by becoming a creature and like those he created. He was not interested in being a celebrity - He was interested in people hearing the Good News and He went to the most unpretty people to share it as they were the most receptive. I wonder if He would even recognize the celebrity Christianity of our day.

Again, some will be well known whether they like it or not. But there is a great difference between those Christian leaders in that category who live with humility and servanthood and those who use their star status for self promotion, book sales and a platform for themselves. I can name well known individuals in both camps. For examples of the humble side consider John Ortberg, Rick Warren and Timothy Keller. You can contrast those with individuals who fit the other description. 

The bottom line is that when we turn the spotlight on us we have turned it away from Jesus. When we promote ourselves we have ceased to promote the Father. When we use our ministry for personal gain we have crossed a line from calling to self aggrandizement. In ministry, our platform is simply one of turning the spotlight on Jesus continuously. The larger the platform He gives, the more focused we must be on where the light is shining.
If we represent Jesus we must be sure that we look like Jesus. 

Ten things that drive me crazy about working for a church

Very interesting and a quick read

Ten Things that drive me crazy about working for a church

Optimistic leaders often need to temper their optimism with realism

Optimism is a wonderful trait and I share that outlook on life. It is an outlook that sees the best, believes that barriers can be overcome and that God and we can do great things. Who wants to work for a pessimist! After all, we work for a God who can do far more than we could ask or imagine (Ephesians 3:20). 

Sometimes, however, optimism can become a handicap just as any strength can become a weakness if not managed well. Optimism as an outlook on life is a positive trait. There are many situations we face as leaders, however, that require realism more than optimism.

Take a staff situation where there is regular under performance. My optimism may get in the way of critical evaluation and understanding that unless something is done, the staff member will likely not succeed. Simply wanting them to succeed does not make it so. Realism is required to figure out the cause of the performance problem and resolve it.

Optimistic leaders often overlook the difficulty of getting something done by their staff. In their "gung ho" spirit they can simply assume that the requests they are making are easy to carry out when in fact they may may be causing a great deal of difficulty as staff scramble to meet their expectations. Often they need a dose of realism to understand the impact of their requests.

Highly optimistic leaders often assume that the results of their ministry are significant when in fact they can be simply marginal. Why? Because in their optimism they neglect to take a realistic look at what is actually happening. Optimism should never be a substitute for realistic evaluation.

I would much rather be an optimistic leader than the alternative. But I must also be a realistic leader if I am going to lead well.

For a cause greater than us!

One of the great privileges in my travels has been to visit the US armed forces cemeteries: Arlington, France, Hawaii, Manila and others. It is not easy to comprehend the names upon the wall, or the perfect rows of silent white crosses and the Stars of David. It is a visual and mute testimony to men and women who gave their lives for a cause greater than themselves. I think of the families who gave their sons and daughters to the cause of freedom. Conversations in these sacred places takes place in whispers as we acknowledge the hallowed ground as such.

Whenever I walk the rows of the fallen I think of another group who has no cemetery, whose numbers equal those fallen in war and who also gave their lives for a cause greater than themselves: The men and women through the ages who gave their lives for the Gospel of Jesus.  Their honor is yet to come but it was their sacrifice that continues to fuel the growth of the church. Just as soldiers went into harms way for the cause of freedom so these went to hard places knowing the possible cost.

There are causes in life that are greater than our individual lives. We are recipients of those who understood that and were willing to pay the price. We are indebted to them. Let us never forget.

Ensuring that our greatest strengths do not become fuel for our greatest weakness

We rightly celebrate our strengths as they are God given and when we live in their lane we are often very effective at what we do. I call it "our lane" or "sweet spot." However, these very strengths can become our greatest weaknesses if not managed well. Every strength casts a shadow and the greater the strength the greater the shadow. 

So the very strengths we were given from God can become a weakness if not managed. Take three of mine: Achiever, maximizer and strategist. As an achiever I want to get something done but the down side is that it could cause me to be driven. As a maximizer I want to maximize ministry opportunity but the down side is that I could "use people" in the process with more concern about the end product than than the people in the process. As a strategist I often understand how to get to where we need to go and can become impatient with those who don't. In other words, each of my strengths can, if not managed become a significant weakness that impacts those around me.

I find it immensely helpful for a team to discuss their strengths together so that they understand one another. It is equally helpful to then ask the question, what is the dark side of those strengths and how do they get us in trouble if not managed well? That is the discussion where I see most light bulbs go on because we don't often think about the dark side of our strengths.

When not managed, the very strengths that go us to where we are in life can conspire against us to destroy what we have accomplished. Pride fueled by a lack of management of our weaknesses will destroy quickly what it took long years to build. When leaders crash and burn it is often this situation that causes the loss. Success is a delicate thing easily undercut by pride and carelessness that can quickly lead to a fall.

A major way that leaders disempower staff

Picture this all too common scenario. A staff member has been given a responsibility or a project. They spend days or months working on it. When they show it to their supervisor he/she makes significant changes to what has been done so that it fits their preferences.

It is one of the most disempowering actions a leader can take and they often don't realize the damage they do by redoing what they have asked someone else to do.

Some leaders do this routinely, blithely unaware that every time they do it they lose coinage with staff who wonder why they were asked to design something in the first place when it is going to be redone by their leader.  If one is going to delegate authority one must also delegate responsibility and be willing to live with the result unless there are glaring issues unaddressed. 

Leaders who routinely change the work of their staff are usually doing so because something does not fit their own personal preferences. But how is a staff member to know what those preferences are and why are preferences of a leader fair game to change the work that has been delegated? Preferences are just that - preferences - and not non-negotiables. If a leader has a preference they ought to state it up front so the work they have delegated does not need to be redone after the fact - a disempowering action.

Inherent in delegation is the fact that things may not be designed as I would design them. The key is that the objective is reached, not how it is reached in most cases. If I have to redo the work of staff I either have the wrong staff or I am not flexible enough to allow for things to be done in ways other than my own. And that demonstrates a lack of humility as I must have my way. 

The more we embrace this practice, the more influence we have

It is a very simple practice: Being an encourager of others. The staff you have who encourage other staff are invaluable staff. Those in the church who encourage bring hope and life to hurting people to keep going - cold water for the weary. We rub shoulders every day with people who need a kind word of encouragement which is why there are so many "encouragements" in Scripture to "encourage one another."

I remember one particular vacation years ago when one of my sons was in a phase of life that specialized in sullen silence. It was frustrating and irritating. We were with friends and I said something to them about my frustration which they observed. One of them kindly said, "He will grow out of it and it will be just fine, relax." To this day I remember those words and have often quoted them to other parents in a similar situation. Those words were just what I needed from someone who had gone before and could see what I could not see. In fact, some of the most powerful words that stick in my memory are words of encouragement spoken to me in a time of discouragement. We remember harsh words and we remember encouraging words.

We should never underestimate the power of encouragement. It is why Scriptures say that God encourages us, the Holy Spirit encourages us, the Scriptures encourage us, fellow believers encourage us and we are to be a constant encouragement to others. And everyone can do that. It is not reserved for a select few. Encouragers are amazingly influential in a world that specializes in discouragement.

If we want to be like God who is the ultimate encourager (Romans 15:5) make this a daily practice. The more we embrace this practice the more influence we have and the more we look like the Father.

Good EQ in crisis situtations

It is in crisis situations that our EQ and character are truly forged. Whether it is a situation where we have some control or one where we are in a position of no control, what we do, what we say, how we manage our emotions and the actions we choose to take say much about our Emotional Intelligence and character. 

Here are some of the EQ tests that crisis brings:

• Am I able to manage my anxiety and emotions when I face uncertainty, am angry or otherwise disappointed? It is not that we don't feel those emotions but keeping our powder dry is critical to responding well.

• Am I able to control my conversations and words? Words are powerful things and what is spoken cannot be taken back. There are many instances where keeping our own counsel is far wiser than not.

• Am I able to be patient enough to let matters play out when that is a necessary part of the equation? Impatience almost always works against you while patience almost always works for you. Impatience prompts actions and words that are problematic while patience allows others to come to the same conclusions you may have.

• Am I trusting God in the situation or trying to solve an issue myself? When we get in front of God we inevitably cause ourselves problems.

• Am I able to treat those involved with dignity or in my anxiety to solve something will I hurt someone that I should not? How we treat people matters and in a crisis it is easy to forget that.

Wise individuals learn that acting out of fear, anxiety, or without thinking through the ramifications is unwise. The wise manage their EQ even when under pressure.

Healthy board/pastor relationships in the church

A key factor in leadership health in the church is the relationship between the senior pastor and the board. When this relationship becomes conflictual, dysfunctional or unhealthy it hurts the ministry of the congregation. Here are some things to consider in that equation.

While senior pastors are accountable to their board and an employee they are also members of the board and should be full participants of that board. Senior leaders should have significant influence in the crafting of the ministry in a collegial board atmosphere. When boards treat their senior leader merely as an employee in an employee/employer relationship they have moved from ministry to business and away from the model we see in the New Testament. In my experience, where this happens, leaders also tend to lead the church/ministry as a business rather than as a ministry (acknowledging that good business practices are always important).

Where boards seek to control their leader or the leader seeks to control the board and ministry it becomes about power rather than a healthy team under the lordship of Christ. Mutual respect, humility, deference for one another and a willingness to submit to the will of the majority after prayerful consideration of issues is the sign of board health. The desire to control is not healthy, nor is it in any way biblical.

Boards and pastors have many common ministry issues but they may also have issues of special concern to one party or the other. The ability to appreciate those concerns and the ability to speak candidly and respectfully about them is a sign of good relationship. The marginalization by pastors of concerns of the board, or of boards of the concern of the senior pastor is the sign of dishealth. I have met pastors who will not listen to their board and boards who marginalize the concerns of the senior pastor. Neither are healthy.

We all operate under authority and in most churches the accountability of the senior leader is the board. Accountability matters and when senior pastors are unwilling to be accountable to their board or resist it, they have stepped away from being under authority. 

Clarity between the roles of the senior pastor and his staff and the role of the board is critical to a good relationship. Management and governance are two separate responsibilities. Staff designs and  board refines! Too many boards get into management responsibilities that should be the purview of staff. Clarifying what each group is responsible for removes ambiguity and potential conflict.

If there is tension between the senior leader and the board, don't let it fester. Bring in someone you trust who can speak to the relationship, help clarify the issues and chart a way forward. The relationship between a senior pastor and board must remain healthy for the church to remain healthy. Don't allow it to deteriorate. Often tensions can be resolved if attended to early.

Never stop developing the health of the board. Candid discussion and growing the board is always a best practice. Talk about how the board is doing, read some good books on leadership together, study the Scriptures and pray together. Bring Jesus into the equation all the time. Jesus is reason that we serve in church leadership and we are simply His undershepherds.

Every board ought to have a board covenant that spells out acceptable behaviors and how the members relate to one another! Poor behavior without the will of the board to police itself is one of the major causes of dysfunction in the church. It is also a major discouragement to pastors. See my blog: Operate without a board covenant at your own risk.

A real time picture of globalization: Most commonly spoken language (other than English) in each London borough

See this amazing picture of globalization

The Church: Helping people grow up

Here is an interesting concept: The church is a place where we help people grow up! We have a Father and the Father wants us to grow up in Him from kids to maturity. Jesus accepts us for who we are but wants us to become like who He is. Maturity is the goal according to Paul in Ephesians 4. 

Think about some of the implications of this. Many people expect the church to be the source of their spiritual growth. That is the perspective of immaturity. Growing up means that I take responsibility for my spiritual life and don't outsource it to others.

How many congregations deal with petty conflicts? Growing up means that we treat one another with honor and dignity, allow others to think differently than ourselves and living in peace rather than in conflict.

Many leadership groups in the local church find it hard to agree to corporate decisions. We want our way like toddlers who won't let others play with their toys. Growing up means that we have respectful discussion, make corporate decisions and agree to live by them.

Often our congregations think that the church is primarily for their benefit. Growing up means that we choose to live like Jesus and reach out to those who are not yet in the church. If the church is about me I am living from immature selfishness. If the church is about others who need to hear the Good News I am living in maturity and generosity.

Growing up is a great metaphor for what the church is about and what the Christian life is about. Where do you (and I) need to grow up? Where does our congregation need to grow up? 

When I have to deal with problematic situations as a leader

Leaders regularly face issues that have consequences depending on how they are handled. Many times we act either too fast out of anxiety or too slow out of fear. So how should we process such situations in our own minds? Let me suggest four issues we ought to be concerned about.

The first is discernment! Problematic situations are often more complex than they seem on the surface. Take a church conflict, for instance, or a dysfunctional staff - there are usually multiple dynamics that play into the situation and acting too quickly and without understanding the full picture can cause additional problems.

Discernment is the process of seeking to understand what is actually happening, who is involved and why there are issues. Getting to discernment is often a matter of thinking, talking to the right people, and taking the time to ensure that we have adequate undertanding.

Discernment is critical but so is the wisdom to know how to address the issue at hand. Understanding one's problem is only part of the puzzle. Knowing what to do about it, and when and how is another. This is about process. One can make the right decision but cause additional problems through a poor process.

Wisdom asks questions like: "How do I address the issues at hand in a way that is not going to cause additional problems?" "If I take this action what are the potential ramifications or unintended consequences?" "Am I prepared to deal with those consequences?" "Is this the right time to address the problem?" "If the issues become public do I know my response?" Wisdom is all about knowing how to do what we need to do and be smart in the process.

This often requires courage! It is one thing to understand what needs to happen and it is another to have the courage to do what needs to be done, knowing that there are risks involved. Many leaders live with unresolved issues in their organization precisely because they do not have the courage to deal with them. Unfortunately this usually complicates the situation.

The fourth component is favor with those involved. Actions we take, if not supported by those around us, including staff are problematic. But if people believe that we have run due process, have acted in fairness and integrity and with grace, we gain the favor we need to do what is necessary. Favor is also generated by enough relationship that trust can be granted.

So here are the four questions we ought to ask ourselves when dealing with problematic situations:

• Have I discerned the situation clearly?
• Am I addressing the situation with wisdom?
• Do I have the courage to act?
• Do I have the favor of those who will become aware of my actions and if explained will they see my actions as necessary and reasonable.

Of course, praying for all four of these is what wise leaders do. They practice all four and they pray for all four.

For MKs everywhere

I love MKs. Growing up cross culturally is an amazing experience. I would not exchange it or anything. This video is for MKs everywhere!

For MKs everywhere

Neither Christians nor LGBT individuals should be punished or fired for their lifestyle.

See this column in USA today by an evangelical pastor

Neither Christians nor LGBT individuals should be punished or fired for their lifestyle.

Why defensiveness can be deadly

Defensiveness seems to be common among ministry leaders. I believe that this is because it is very difficult for them to separate themselves from their ministry and therefor any perceived disagreement with something in the ministry is seen as a personal attack against them. Whatever the reason for defensiveness, it can have deadly consequences.

Defensive behavior can take many forms. It can be anger, the shutting down of discussion, using one's authority to intimidate staff, communicating by body language that one is unhappy that a topic has been broached, marginalizing people who disagree with them. All of us are guilty of it from time to time but healthy individuals work hard to live non-defensively with a nothing to prove, nothing to lose attitude.

Why is defensiveness so unhealthy?

First, it comes from our own dishealth or poor EQ. Not once in the gospels do you see Jesus defensive no matter what the pharisees goaded Him with - and they tried hard! He listened to them, He was rarely reactive and when He was it was never without a purpose (driving the moneylenders from the temple). He often responded to the goading of the Pharisees with a question. On the other hand the Pharisees were continually displaying defensive attitudes. 

Defensiveness is part of our sinful nature and the need to prove something or to be right or to keep our pride. It is really self righteousness. Non-defensiveness, on the other hand is not worried about any of those things. It comes from a healthy place that is self-defined but not needing to prove anything. For healthy people, life is a journey toward not needing to prove things to others. We are OK with their opinions because we are OK with ourselves and our positions. 

Second, defensiveness hurts relationships. For those of us who are married, think of how damaging some of our conflict with our spouses has been because neither of us was willing to admit fault or give on our position! Defensiveness pushes others away while non-defensiveness invites them into relationship. 

Third, defensiveness hurts us. Usually we are defensive over something because we don't want to be challenged, and know that there is some truth in what is being said. Why would we be defensive if there is not some truth involved?  If we listened and asked some questions it might be that we would learn something. We have everything to gain by listening and nothing to lose. 

Again, I would look to the example of Jesus in the Gospels and the Fruit of His Spirit and ask whether defensiveness should be part of our lives. 

For those who need to proof-text all truth from Scripture

OK, so I will make some unhappy on this one. While all Scripture is truth, not all truth is found in Scripture! Don't get me wrong, Scripture is the final revelation of God until He returns and we realize His personal presence for eternity. The Scriptures give us what we need to understand God, ourselves, salvation and what it means to be transformed into His image. It is not, however, designed to prove all things. While you can reference many things back to Scripture (like theology), it was never meant to be the proof text for all things.

I am bemused by those who desire a verse to "prove" all things. Without the verse, some will reject any proposal related to the church or the Christian life. That is frankly an unnecessary exercise in many cases. Ironically, those who need a text for all issues often misuse that text. 

But there is another issue. The Scriptures talk a great deal about wisdom. In fact, one could argue that wisdom is the central theme of the book of Proverbs. What is wisdom? It is the application of intelligence, common sense, shrewdness, astuteness, judiciousness, judgement, prudence and circumspection to issues at hand. For the believer, the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom for it informs all of our decisions but life and leadership is full of issues where we must apply our common sense, intelligence and wisdom to the issue at hand.

God gave us minds to think. He did not give us a manual to look up all situations in the Bible. In most cases, we must make appropriate applications to the issues at hand. 

In a recent blog I suggested that the New Testament gives us implicit and explicit suggestions as to who makes for a good leader in the church.

An anonymous reader left this message: "Perhaps you could add some biblical support to this article, so we know how you arrived at your conclusions, eg. A verse for each leader qualification. Thanks!"

I answered: "With respect, it is not necessary to find a proof text for each of these. For instance it is self evident that an individual who is not passionate about Jesus cannot draw others to him. It is self evident that a leader must love people as Jesus loved people. It is self evident that humility is a requirement as that is the heart of Jesus and in a team setting one must submit themselves to the will of the majority (speaking of healthy church leaders)."

Anonymous replied: "TJ, how do you know that that these things of which you write are self-evident?"

Evidently if there is not a verse this individual won't buy it. I don't get that. What I do get is applying good thinking to good theology and coming up with good practices.

Great article on the costs of constant ministry innovation

There are leaders who love to innovate and do it all the time. Often they are simply imitating others. This is a great article on the subject. If you are addicted to innovation it will give you pause.

Link: 3 Costs to constant ministry innovation

Thanks to the Vision Room for the article

Who is best qualified to be an elder or church leader?

I am in a friendly dialogue with a large church regarding the qualifications of those who would serve on the elder board (the leadership board) of the church.

They have traditionally taken the posture that anyone who meets the Biblical qualifications of an elder is eligible to serve on the leadership board. These are the character qualifications spelled out in the New Testament. When I suggested that there are some other issues that need to be considered, the suggestion was made that these are "extra biblical" qualifications. I do not agree with that assessment.

While the Scriptures are clear on the character and spiritual qualifications of church leaders there are in fact other implicit or explicit issues that are laid out in the New Testament. For instance there are six responsibilities that leaders are given in the Scriptures. They are to keep the spiritual temperature of the congregation high, ensure that the congregation is taught well, that they are cared for, protected from the wolves of division, heresy and serious ongoing sin, that people are released into meaningful ministry and led well.

There are many Godly people who by character and spiritual health are qualified to serve as elders but who are not necessarily be qualified to carry out these responsibilities. For instance, there are many conflict avoidant individuals who do not like to confront problematic behaviors. There are people who do not have a leadership bone in their body but simply love others. There are many who cannot think systems which is how you carry out some of these responsibilities in a larger church. There are others who can only drill down to tactics but who cannot think big picture.

My point is that character and spiritual qualifications are fundamental but that there are other characteristics of good leaders that must be taken into account. The very reason that the vast majority of churches in the United States are plateaued or in decline goes to the heart of this issue of leadership. Leadership requires a skill set and not all Godly individuals have the skill set.

If the above are the six key responsibilities of church leaders, what is the personal profile of a good church leader? If we look at the New Testament for its explicit and implicit statements on the matter we see 13 non-negotiable characteristics of an effective church leader.

1. They exhibit a Godly character and lifestyle
2. They have a deep passion for Jesus
3. They exhibit personal humility
4. They love people
5. They are life long learners
6. They agree with God's leadership assignment for church leaders
7. They are able and willing to grapple with the future
8. They are team focused
9. They are a willing leader
10. They have a positive influence on others
11. They are purveyors of hope
12. They have an action bias
13. They have good emotional intelligence

We are frankly naive to believe that just because someone is Godly means they can lead well. It simply is not true. I encounter many church leaders who are Godly but who cannot lead effectively and it hurts the church. Just look at the state of many churches today and you realize that unless you guard the gate of church leadership you pay a high price! The larger the church the more complex leadership becomes and the more expertise that is required to lead well.

The most powerful group in any church are those who choose who will be in leadership because the quality, skill, wisdom and discernment of leaders will either contribute to church health or to dysfunctional and unhealthy ministry. As one who consults with many churches I see the latter all to often and the former all to seldom. Be smart in leadership selection! You get what you choose. 

The following blog links may also to helpful to you:

Eight kinds of people who should not serve on a church board

Choosing the right leaders in your church: You get what you choose

Rethinking leadership selection for the church

Choosing and preparing new board members

Toxic team and board members

Did you train the individual you put into a supervisory role?

One of the most common errors in staffing is to put someone into a supervisory role without training them what it means to supervise. Yet it happens all the time in both the ministry and the for profit world. Consider the skills necessary to lead a team:

• Ability to run a productive meeting
• The skill to empower staff and hold them accountable
• The ability to not micromanage
• Understanding how to position people for their greatest effectiveness
• Moving from an independent producer to leading through team
• Providing clarity to the team as to what they are about and how to get there
• Good emotional intelligence that allows for robust dialogue and the clash of ideas
• The ability to resolve conflict
• Understanding how to develop people

I could go on. What should be obvious is that we should never assume that an individual who has not supervised before knows the necessary skills. Even bright people need training in order to supervise well. Just because someone has been successful in their position does not mean they will supervise others well without some intensive and intentional training.

And if we don't provide that training? You doom those being supervised to frustration! You disempower a whole team when you do not provide them with good leadership.

Ten things every church board should pay attention to for the congregation they lead

1. That Jesus is the center of all that we do
2. That we live in spiritual and relational health
3. That we are seeing life change on a regular basis
4. That people are coming to Jesus regularly
5. That leaders are leading intentionally
6. That members of the congregation are being developed and released into ministry in line with their wiring and gifting
7. That we have a balance of ministries focused on the body and ministries focused outside our church body
8. That we are clear on who we are and where we are going
9. That our church "culture" is supportive of our church "mission"
10. That we evaluate the above nine regularly

Pastors who see leadership as an anti value

From time to time I come across senior pastors who either don't like to lead and so they choose not to or, who believe that leadership apart from preaching is not necessary and largely ignore it. In either case, this is a problematic posture and one that hurts the church.

For context, the issue of leadership in the church has not always even been a value in the seminary context. A whole generation of pastors was taught that all you really needed to do was to preach the word and everything else would take care of itself. My own father pretty much believed this and I remember our conversations on the necessity of a pastor leading in his church of 1,000 plus. I have watched over the years as some good preachers built significantly sized churches due to their preaching and then lost those churches when they did not provide the requisite leadership.

The larger the church the more important the quality of its leadership because large congregations need missional glue - a common and relevant ministry direction - to remain healthy. When that is absent, the church loses its way, staff wonder what they are to do and people become restless.

The metaphore of a shepherd for a pastor is instructive. Shepherds feed their flock, protect their flock, care for their flock and lead their flock. If a shepherd is not leading his/her flock to the next place of healthy grazing the flock dies. Shepherds are in fact leaders of their sheep. The sheep don't simply wander around themselves to find good grass and left to their own devises they often get lost.

I understand pastors who are not wired naturally to lead. Unfortunately those same pastors often don't want anyone else to lead for them. If one is not going to lead, then someone must be empowered to lead for them. It is not an option to say, "I don't like to lead." Left without leadership long enough, the congregation will flounder and prescient individuals will find another church because they understand the necessity of missional leadership and direction and are unwilling to settle for less.

A more difficult situation arises when a pastor has an anti leadership bias: They don't think leadership is that important, do not do it themselves and resist giving away any authority to someone who could. This leaves the congregation in a bind. Not only will their leader not lead but resists allowing someone else to lead. Their pastor simply wants to preach the text assuming that this is all that matters. Well and good for them but not for others!

When this occurs the first place that dysfunction shows up is usually in the staff who need a leader in order to function as a healthy team. Eventually staff become frustrated: some leave, some try to fill in the leadership void and all live in ministry silos because there is not a leader to integrate a common philosophy, direction or ensure cooperation. It is a no win situation for staff.

Eventually the issue will get to the  board level and the board must figure out how to deal with the lack of leadership. It is now their leadership wisdom that is necessary to find a solution that does not hurt the church but rather strengthens it. When boards are not able or willing to deal with the leadership dysfunction the issues eventually spill over into the congregation and become more serious to the church. 

If a pastor has an anti leadership value, boards must initiate a conversation to find a way for the church to be led by someone. If the senior leader is unwilling to provide that leadership in a satisfactory way, they must be willing to allow another the authority and empowerment to lead and themselves stay out of the way. No organization will remain healthy in the absence of leadership. 

(Posted from Oakdale, MN)

Antiquated church governance systems that hurt the mission of the church

A fundamental concept for any governance system (how you do leadership) is that the system should serve the mission. Unfortunately, there are still many churches that are living with antiquated and ineffective governance systems that actually hurt the congregation's ability to do what Jesus called them to do. In these cases, the mission ends up serving the governance system - the opposite of what ought to be the case.

Poor governance systems tend to be "permission withholding" structures rather than "permission granting" structures. 

In permission withholding structures:

• Decisions must be made more than once
• Permission and agreement must be negotiated with multiple groups
• Timely decisions are tough
• There is confusion of authority and responsibility
• Church bylaws are confusing and bureaucratic
• It is hard to make decisions and implement them
• The mission of the church is compromised

In permission granting structures:

• Decisions are made once
• There is no need to negotiate permission with multiple groups
• There are clear lines of authority and responsibility
• Church bylaws are brief and allow for flexibility
• It is easy to make decisions and implement them
• Timely decisions are easy
• The mission of the church is easier to implement because the systems support the ability of leaders to lead.

Jesus designed the church to be the most effective, flexible, and missional organization on the face of the earth. Permission-withholding structures (most antiquated church governance systems) make the church inflexible, relatively ineffective and certainly compromise its mission. If your governance systems are antiquated and no longer help fulfill your mission, be courageous enough to change them. The third section of "High Impact Church Boards" provides a roadmap for changing your governance systems.

Continuing the conversation on whether staff should serve on the elder board

Recently I reposted a blog on whether staff should serve on the elder board of a church. You can see that blog here. My answer was that as a practice it is a bad idea apart from the senior pastor and in a large church the regular attendance (but not a voting member) of the executive pastor. 

This generated some comment from those who believe that all pastors are "elders" and therefor should be on the board. I will not repeat what I said in the earlier blog but would like to point out some fallacies of trying to "prove" everything we do in church governance from Scripture.

First, Scripture gives some overall guidance on what leadership in the church should look like but it does not give specific guidance on this. What we do know is that there were overseers or elders and deacons and deaconess. And their qualifications are spelled out in the text. We also know that the church was flexible and responded to the needs it had as in the book of Acts when the Apostles appointed a team to look after the widows.

Because Scripture is not overly specific on these issues is why you can "prove" various ecclesiastical models from the same text! 

Second, God designed the church to be the most flexible, missional and effective organism on the face of the earth so that it can flourish in any political, economic or social system. That very flexibility will demand different models for how we do church governance. A house church in rural China is very different from the typical church in the United States. Context and size make a difference in how one can govern and lead well. You do not lead a church of 100 like you do a church of 1,000 or more. For that matter, the early church was more likely to be a house church than what has become the norm in the west. 

Third, God tells us to use wisdom in all that we do. In other words, while Scripture gives us very broad principles in the area of church leadership and expects us to use wisdom in how we apply them to our situation. What is clear is that leaders are responsible for the spiritual climate of the church, that the congregation is taught, protected, cared for, released into ministry and led well. How that happens is not spelled out and of course will depend on the size and context of the church. We must figure out how to accomplish these Biblical mandates in our own situation.

This leads to the final thought. Governance and management of the day to day activities of ministry are not the same thing. We know that the early church made a distinction between teaching elders and non-teaching elders so why would we not make distinctions as well. Taken to the extreme, a large church with 30 pastors could have 30 pastors on the board as they are qualified as "elders." We all know that you cannot lead a large church with a huge group. Just because one is qualified to be an elder does not mean that they serve on the governance or leadership board of a church. For that matter there are many people in a larger congregation who are Biblically qualified as elders who do not serve in that role.

My point is that you cannot "proof text" the details of good church leadership but need to use wisdom and best practices to accomplish it. Be smart in how you lead not because the church is a "business" but because God designed it to be missional, effective and flexible and we must figure out how to do that in our context.

(Posted from Oakdale, MN)

Five things congregations need to know about crisis management in the church

Church leaders are periodically called to the unenviable position of needing to deal with crisis situations in their church. I say unenviable because crisis management is not an easy task and every member of the congregation has an opinion as to what should be said and done making it very difficult for leaders to negotiate the multiple opinions people have. 

Having served in this role as a church leader and consulting with churches walking through crisis situations, here are a number of things congregations need to know before they become critical of their leaders.

One. While I am always in favor of being more candid than less the truth is that leaders often cannot divulge everything they may know. There are people involved, legalities involved and "telling everything" is often not possible or helpful. Just because I am a member of a congregation does not mean that I have the right to know everything, especially in messy situations. Further, be wary of criticizing when you don't have all the facts.

Two. Remember that we choose leaders to lead on our behalf and we have a choice to either trust them or not. Too often, when leaders don't do what we want them to do (and we don't have all the information) we choose to mistrust their actions. That is deeply unfortunate as they are often deep in the muck solving issues on our behalf. 

Three. The more significant the crisis, the greater the chances that leaders will make some missteps along the way. This is not because they are unwise leaders but because it is the nature of crisis management. Before we criticize their actions, give them time to deal with the multitude of issues they are juggling. If we were in their shoes we would not get it all correct either.

Four. Unless the leaders themselves caused the crisis they are managing (usually this is not the case) remember that they are in the unenviable position of cleaning up a mess someone else created. What they need is our support and encouragement, not our criticism and our mistrust. It is easy to criticize. It is a lot harder to actually clean up or deal with a crisis situation.

Five. Often the crisis that leaders are dealing with have to do with sinful actions on the part of someone. Often, the most vocal critics of leaders as they handle the situation are doing so with sinful attitudes, words and actions. Don't compound the issues with responses that are un-Christlike. All that does is compound the issues.

What is the appropriate response of a congregation in a crisis situation? Pray for your leaders. Avoid gossip. Seek the unity of the church. Encourage those who are cleaning up on our behalf. Be patient. Do not judge motives of leaders. Be part of the solution, rather than adding to the problem.

(Posted from Charlotte NC)

Ministry whiteouts

Those who have ever experienced them know that whiteout conditions are dangerous. And they can hit suddenly leaving one with a sense of sudden fear and wondering where the road is - or isn't.

This is not unlike crisis we face in our ministry lives. A pastor returns from a conference and finds that the staff have essentially staged a coup! A moral failure of a leader or staff member turns everything upside down! A budget shortfall creates a crisis! Someone you had relied on and trusted turns on you and uses what they know about you to hurt you!

A whiteout is when life comes undone and it can come undone in many different ways. The result, however, is uncertainty as to where the road is and how to maneuver so that one does not end up in the ditch or tangled with another car.

The thing about whiteouts is that there is a period of time when you really can't do much except to pull over the wait till the blowing snow conditions let up. You cannot deal with what you cannot see and there is often a period of time when things are not clear: they are ugly but not clear!

Because things are not clear this is a dangerous time. If we act we may act badly or unwisely. This is a time not to act but to let stuff clear enough that we can see some of the road ahead. It is time to "Be still and know that I am God," and trust Him in spite of the anxiety we feel. Just as it is dangerous to keep driving in a whiteout, it is equally dangerous to act in a crisis before one has a handle on what all is happening.

Once the whiteout conditions start to let up, proceed with caution. Our anxiety pushes us to make hasty decisions which may or may not be in our best interests. This is a time to think, talk to key advisers and keep your options close to your chest as a leader but not to act precipitously.

When Nehemiah was threatened by Sanballat and Tobia when rebuilding the wall, he prayed, rallied his people and answered these guys without fear. He read through their motives and plans because he did not panic and responded appropriately. He also knew that only God could protect his reputation so he continued to do what God had called him to do and left his reputation to God.

Whiteouts require all the wisdom one has. Part of wisdom is to trust God, not to panic or act out of anxiety, to seek the wisdom of others and to do what God has called us to do. It may not end up the way we wanted it to but we will have handled ourselves with honor, integrity and faith. And in the end, that is what matters.

(Posted from High Point, NC)

The ultimate betrayal

The ultimate betrayal for any staff or congregation (in the case of a church) is to discover that their leader has lived a double life and that he has been teaching truth while living a lie. It is a dissonance that does not compute, often negates in the minds of those betrayed the truth that has been taught and is almost impossible to reconcile apart from acknowledging the fallenness of man.

Truth and lies cannot co-exist forever. And when it becomes known it is as if a fraud has been perpetuated on the organization, especially when it has a long history. It begs the question, "Is everything I have known about this individual a fraud?" "Is it all a lie?" The answer is probably not but the question lingers in the mind and one is never sure.

One cannot underestimate the pain caused by a double life. In the aftermath it leaves confusion, anger, cynicism, a sense of betrayal, chaos and unanswered questions. It can split churches, hurt organizations and wound staff and constituents. The wound takes years to heal.

The personal life of a leader is not an optional concern for those who lead. In taking up the leadership mantel they take up the responsibility to live the life they espouse: Not perfectly but with disciplined attention. If one is not willing to live the life of a leader they should not lead. There is a higher standard because there must be integrity in both the words and the example of those out front. The compromise of either or both leads to betrayal. It is why Paul told Timothy to watch both his life and doctrine closely.

Anyone who has lived through the revelation of such a betrayal knows the wake of pain left behind. Others must come in and clean up the mess, bring healing to wounded hearts and there is anger that sometimes never dissipates as people carry their animosity toward the one responsible. 

Can God bring restoration to the one who betrayed and healing to those betrayed? Yes! Only He can take any sin and use it for His purposes. Only He can redeem and forgive and give us the ability to forgive. But the road back for all is hard. Memories may fade but they don't go away. Forgiveness must be given time and time again. It is a road no one wants to walk.

The slippery slope for leaders is that they see success, begin to believe their own press, marginalize those who don't agree with them, become isolated and isolation breeds the arrogance that the rules don't apply to them. They do!

(Posted from High Point, NC)

Short term gains at the expense of long term wins

Too often in ministry we look for the short term gains rather than charting a course for long term success. The problem with this is that it often results in regular shifts in emphasis which confuses our constituency and keeps us from moving in a single, clear, healthy direction over the long term. Staff often see it as the flavor of the month approach - which it is - and become cynical at worst and nonchalant to the latest thing at best.

Healthy leaders are not enamored by the short term but want to chart a course for long term stability, health and ministry impact. This is a harder leadership for it requires deeper thinking and long term focus. It requires a picture of the future that is clear, an understandable path to get there and the resolve to stay the direction for long term gain.

This may well mean that ministry results in terms of numbers are not fast. But fast results are often shallow results and can disappear as fast as they appeared. Flash attracts but when it is gone, so are the people. Long term discipleship, relationships and clarity grow slower but last a great deal longer with deeper impact.

I am far less interested in where a ministry wants to be in one year than I am in ten years and if they cannot answer the latter I know they are banking on short term gains at the expense of long term wins. Which are you focused on?

(Posted from High Point, NC)

Spiritual maturity and its responsibility. For those 50 years old and older

Congregations can be messy places. They are a constant challenge of relational issues, diverse points of view, differences in the "way we should do things" and the list goes on. Things can get messy! Oh, and there is that issue of change and people who mess with the way things were or should be. 

I have been around the church for a long time now, some 58 years and my observation would be that some of the most difficult people in the church are those like me who have been around a long time. We have opinions. We may have influence from our long tenure and, well, as we age, we can become less tolerant of change and get cranky about it.

Before I say what I really want to say, I would add this caveat. What irritates me personally is not change or the way we do things but young pastors who think that those who are over 50 are irrelevant to their plans, dreams and future of the church. And who because of this ignore them or marginalize them. I have seen it happen all too often and it is plain wrong. It is also stupid (did I just say that?). These are the folks who for the most part pay the bills and who have been faithful through the years. The church is not about the young, it is about all people which some people would be surprised includes those over fifty.

Having said that, those of us who are older and who have been in the faith for a long time have a special responsibility. We need to model relationships, behavior, responses to change that are Godly, loving, conciliatory, and mature. It is true we may not like everything we see but it is also true that we need to live up to the maturity to which we have (hopefully) come. 

I am sad when I see cranky seniors (I am technically one so I think I can say this) who seek to keep the church from moving forward because it violates the way things have been done in the past. I see them on church boards and they cause conflict and often bring more disunity than unity. Differences of opinion are not the issue but the way they are expressed and the way people are treated can be. Those of us who have a history in the faith ought to be the best at loving, accepting, graciousness and peace making. 

I have watched former denominational officials threaten to sue church boards because they didn't agree with their direction (it had nothing to do with theology). Former pastors who were divisive when the church didn't look any more like the church they were used to. Threats by folks to withhold funding when things did not go their way and just plain bad attitudes. It is sad and it does not reflect the character of mature believers. And this in the church, the Bride of Jesus! Sometimes it has taken the "blessed subtraction" of a home going to bring peace to a congregation.

As a young senior, I don't want to be a barrier to the church moving forward as I age (hopefully with grace). There are far more important things than the things that often divide congregations and as a believer of many years I (and many reading this) have a special responsibility to model the very best behavior of Jesus - for the sake of His church. 

(Posted from High Point, NC)

The tragic killing of Christians at an Afghanistan hospital

The tragic killing of Christians at an Afghanistan hospital a few days ago demonstrates the love and power of the Gospel in the face of danger and hatred. Why would Christ followers go and serve those who are not like them and why would they do so in such a dangerous setting where their very presence was an invitation to danger? Why would they serve a people who have many among them that would like to kill them?

These men knew something. The Gospel, the Good News of Jesus is of such great value that it is worth our lives. As the news of these killings reverberates across our globe how can one not ask "Why such hatred of Jesus?" and "Why such love of Christ followers?" From the earliest days of the church, God's people have gone into harms way to demonstrate the love of Jesus - compelled by the love they have experienced. They have started schools, cared for the sick, established hospitals and taken in "the least of these." Often in the face of persecution, hardship and danger.

Every time those sharing God's love are targets of hatred, the chasm between God's amazing love and man's amazing lostness is highlighted. What the gunman did not realize is that no weapon can win against God's love lived out by His people. It is for this reason that we have the ancient saying that "the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church." Our Savior is the only one who can take absolute tragedy and redeem it for His sovereign purposes. Nothing happens in our world, good or bad, that does not first pass by the hand of God and which He does not use to build His church.

Against the hatred that prompted this act, is the response of the wife of one of the lost. ""Our family and friends have suffered a great loss and our hearts are aching,"Jan Schuitema told reporters in front of the couple's Kenwood home Thursday afternoon.  "While our hearts are aching for our loss, we're also aching for the loss of the other families as well as the multiple losses, that the Afghan people have experienced." See the article in the Chicago Tribune.

In spite of this terrible act, God's people will continue to go to Afghanistan and every place where He is not known. His love compels us. Once we have truly experienced His Grace, how could we not share that most awesome of news. These servants of God join a long procession of those who have given their lives for the Gospel, a crowd that grows until the coming of Christ. Compelled by His love!

(Posted from Oakdale, MN)

Taking responsibility for our own spiritual lives

One of the unintended consequences of the amazing array of programs and worship options available to us today in the west is that it is easy for people to assume that all of their spiritual needs will be met by a good church. And, some churches seem to promise this to be the case. And then they wonder why people eventually become dissatisfied with their offerings.

It is a false assumption and a false promise. We can never outsource the responsibility for our spiritual lives to any church, no matter how wonderful. No church will satisfy the thirsting of our souls - only Jesus can. No church will meet all of our spiritual needs - only Jesus can. Ultimately we must take responsibility for our spiritual lives and make the investment in living daily with Jesus. 

In our church we find a community of pilgrims with whom we share the journey of faith. How people negotiate the issues of life without a faith family I don't know. It is God's plan for us. But, it is not a substitute for our own need to grow daily with Jesus. Many complaints about the church are pointed in the wrong direction. The church was never meant to meet all of our spiritual needs. Only Jesus can.

Healthy ministries keep people oriented toward Jesus. They encourage us to live in His presence, stay in His Word and live out the Gospel in every relationship and circumstance of our lives. No one can do that for us. He is the source of our joy, our satisfaction and the object of our worship and lives. 

If we are pastors, we ought not promise what the church cannot deliver. And all of us ought to make the investment in our relationship with Jesus. 

(Posted from Oakdale, MN)

Why passive leadership is so disempowering to staff

Actually the term "passive leadership" is an oxymoron since it is not leadership at all. It is someone who is in a leadership position but who does not lead his/her staff. It is deeply disempowering to staff for a number of reasons.

First, non-leadership leaves staff in a quandary. They often lead a team and a ministry. How do they contribute to the whole when there is not overall missional direction? They are forced by virtue of the passive leader to determine what that direction should be and you end up with multiple directions as different staff members fill the void of leadership in their own way.

Second, none of us want to waste our lives. Good staff see the potential around them and deeply desire to make a difference. The opportunity they see and the lack of missional direction create great frustration over opportunity wasted. The end result is cynicism toward the non leading leader and often the loss of good staff who are looking for meaningful direction.

Third, just because a leader is passive does not mean that they don't have opinions and this is one of the most frustrating aspects of passive leadership. Because passive leaders don't set the directional agenda their staff end up doing so. But, passive leaders often don't like what they see so they step in and either change or challenge the hard work that has been done. Thus staff are in a double bind. They are not given the information up front as to the direction and they face the prospect of being disempowered on the back end after they have done their work. It is truly a no win proposition.

Fourth, passive leaders are often threatened by those who step in to fill the void and good staff will try to do just that as organizations need and want directional focus. This creates tension between the passive leader and his/her staff and it is not the staff's doing but the natural result of a passive leader who is not leading. The passive leader wants to be in charge even though they don't know how to steer a healthy team in a healthy direction. Thus they live with an inner conflict that spills over into the team in unhealthy ways.

The bottom line is that no matter how good someone is in some area of work, if they cannot lead they should never be put in a leadership role. Passive leadership is not only bad leadership but it is deeply disempowering to everyone around the passive leader.

(Posted from Oakdale, MN)

Spiritual discernment in ministry leadership

Individuals who have the gift of spiritual discernment are needed components in any ministry leadership team or board. Spiritual discernment is the ability to identify aberrations in theology or character issues in those who propagate those aberrations, who use theology for their own agendas or who are engaged in church power plays.

In First and Second Timothy, Paul tells Timothy to stay away from individuals who promote theological controversies. In 2 Corinthians (10-11) he takes the congregation to task for following so called super apostles who were using position and theology to rally people to their followership. Wherever there are people there will be those who use leadership or theology for their own agendas and it takes people of discernment to call it for what it is. 

Paul called it for what it was: "For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an agent of light. Is it not surprising, then if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve (2 Corinthians 11:13-15)." 

What is interesting is that there were many in the church in Corinth who did not discern the issues Paul is talking about. Obviously the spiritual cloak these individuals wrapped themselves in was effective in hiding their true motives.

The reason discernment is so critical is that when one is using Scriptures to make their case, there is enough truth that it takes discernment to identify its misuse. For instance, when a leader is always talking about money and the need for the congregation to give more and is using Scripture to try to force or manipulate individuals to give, you have moved from inviting people to be generous to "spiritual coercion." While it sounds Scriptural its application has become more about manipulation than the Holy Spirit's leading. 

As one who works with troubled churches what often fascinates me is that members of the congregation are often more discerning than the leadership of the church. When Scripture is being misused for the personal agenda of the pastor for instance, prescient  individuals often quietly leave while elected leaders remain unaware of the issues. And it is not necessarily pastors but others, especially who have the ability to teach and who have theological agendas who can promote controversies in the congregation that if discerned early can be dealt with.

Spiritual discernment also comes into play when there are people with power agendas in the congregation. We are often naive in the name of grace to name power games for what they are. As a congregational consultant they seem blatant to me but leaders have been reluctant to entertain the notion that a nice guy (or gal) might have poor motives and personal agendas for the church. Those with spiritual discernment usually read those situations for what they are. The fact the boards are often clueless tells me that we have too few with this ability in church leadership.

The early warning system of any church should be found in its leadership rather than the congregation at large. But that presupposes that there are individuals in leadership who are deeply spiritually discerning. And listened to! Can you point individuals in leadership of your church who have the gift of spiritual discernment?

(Posted from Oakdale, MN)

We play our role and then yield the stage

At 58 I am acutely aware that there is a finish line to my professional life lurking in the next decade or so. Not my influence as that can continue long after my final paycheck but our jobs don't last forever. We play our role and then yield the stage.

At least that is the way it should be. My predecessor yielded the stage to me with grace. Not only did he not meddle with me but he chose to support me even as I made significant changes to the organization. I had so much trust in his character that I invited him to a new part time role that allowed him to do what he loved to do.

Yielding the stage is a hard thing to do. Our ego is often wrapped up in our work. We have put strategies and philosophies in place that we believe in and don't want others to mess with them. We hired staff who we will be leaving behind and who will be giving allegiance to a new leader. And, it is hard to reconcile that our time is now over at least in the official sense. If one has had a job they loved and seen some success I doubt this is ever easy.

While not easy it is a test of our maturity and character. Maturity to understand that there are seasons and they come to a close so that new seasons can begin. Character to leave in a way that blesses the ministry rather than hurting it in any way. How many pastors, for instance, hang on long after they should and elders must literally pry their fingers from the ministry so that they can move on. Or board members whose time has come. And ministry founders who need to allow the ministry to go to a new level that they cannot lead but cannot yield their control.

Humble leaders understand the concept of seasons and that it is not about them but about the mission of the organization. The moment I lose my passion for the job I have is the moment that I need to hand it over to another even if that comes before the end of my professional career. It is true for all of us.

Think about this issue long before you need to implement its principles. The day comes for all of us to yield the stage, often faster than we expected or wished but come it does. How we handle the end of our careers is just as important as how we stewarded our role along the way.

(Posted from Atlanta)

Who is responsible for the well being of the staff of a church?

In most cases, the responsibility for the staff of a church falls ultimately on the senior pastor, whether or not he directly supervises them. But here is an irony. While senior pastors usually want staff reporting up through them (makes sense from an organizational point of view) those same pastors don't always take the time to care for their staff (an abrogation of their responsibility). Some ignore them altogether while others go through the motions of leading and caring in a superficial way. Fortunately some take the responsibility seriously and develop cultures that are life giving.

Here though is an irony. While churches talk about transformational ministry many staff cultures are far from transformational: being instead marginally healthy or even toxic. Often this stems from a senior pastor's focus on the congregation at the expense of his staff. Untransformational staff cultures cannot contribute to a transformed congregation so this is a great disconnect for the ministry.

Where this is the case there are at least four possible explanations in play.

One: The senior leader is so self absorbed that they don't see the necessity of building into their staff who actually make their own success possible. This form of narcissistic behavior is damaging in the long run to the trust and strength of the staff team.

Two: The senior leader is ill equipped to supervise, not having the training to supervise well. In this case, if the leadership of the church cares about staff health (and most do) why not get your senior leader management/supervisory training as they are ultimately responsible for the well being of their staff.

Three: The senior leader has not learned that his greatest leverage point is a strong team that is aligned and focused on the same things. This only happens when the leader has taken the time to make this a reality. 

Four: The senior leader just is not interested and therefor thinks they don't need to pay staff much attention. After all they are professionals, let them do what they do and fare for themselves. Caring for your staff, building mutual trust, being on the same page, contributing to their growth and success is not only the job of a leader but a responsibility of a leader. One should not lead if they are not willing to take the time to build and nurture a team.

None of these possible explanations are good excuses for not nurturing, growing and supporting the pastoral and support staff of a church. There are things we do because we like to do them and other things that come with the territory. If we are not going to care for staff then we need to empower someone else to do so but the issue cannot be ignored. 

I believe strongly that boards should hold their senior leader directly responsible for the health and happiness of the staff. It is one of the most basic requirements of leadership. How the senior leader chooses to organize for the health of staff is their business. But it is ultimately their responsibility and they should be held accountable for the result. 

(Posted from Santiago, Chile)

How do we know if we truly empower our staff?

How do we know if we truly empower our staff or simply pay lip service to the concept. None of us as leaders would want to believe that we disempower staff, but it is often exactly what we do. Because leaders are intent on what they are doing they often do not realize that their actions can be disempowering to those around them. If you lead others, think through these behaviors which can disempower and annoy/irritate those who work for us.

We expect our staff to be flexible with us but we are not flexible with them.

We frequently make last minute changes without explanation that have a ripple impact down the line. An example would be pastors who make changes to the service on Friday after everything has been planned and expect that folks will simply comply even though it means a whole team of people must then respond at a most inconvenient time.

We feel free to be harsh or critical because we can with people who cannot push back. Leaders have an unfair advantage in venting on their staff as they do not have the freedom to vent back. Just because we have the positional authority does not mean we can be careless with our words, emotions or attitudes. In fact, it is precisely because we have authority that our standard must be higher.

We delegate responsibility without full authority. This happens when we give someone the responsibility to solve a problem but we still feel free to change the solution at the last minute. If we feel that we have that freedom we should solve the problem ourselves rather than giving someone else responsibility and then ripping the rug from under their feet.

We tell people what to do rather than dialogue and ask for their input. This feels very much like a parent communicating with a child rather than a colleague talking to another colleague. Every time we choose to tell or demand without conversation we lose valuable relational points.

We make assumptions about motives or actions without first ascertaining the facts. Facts matter a lot. If I hear something and say something without first getting the actual facts which includes talking to those involved I will inevitably make unfair statements that hurt. It is careless and hurtful on our part.

We don't prepare for and lead meetings well. When this happens we communicate to staff who must be at the meeting, "you were not important enough to me to prepare for you." Waste your staff's time in meetings and you create cynicism and irritation. Many leaders are guilty of this one.

We don't spend quality time with our staff. If we ignore our staff, do not engage with them beyond a surface level, they pick up on this quickly. They know what it means: "We are not important to you." "You do not value or trust us." It is a dangerous move because when push comes to shove, staff will only go to the wall for leaders with whom they have a healthy relationship.

We shut down discussion on issues we are uncomfortable with. This communicates to staff that they are not free to interact with us except on those issues we are willing to talk about. If this becomes a pattern it effectively keeps staff from telling us what they think, as if that means that all is OK. It is not. Those same staff will talk to one another and to others if they cannot talk to the leader leading to dysfunctional relationships that the leader is responsible for creating.

We are passive leaders. How does a passive leader disempower staff? By not creating a vision, cohesive mission and the missional clarity that is at the core of leading a team. Passive leadership is one of the most disempowering of all leadership actions. Even worse than bad leadership. Why would I want to invest myself in an organization that is going nowhere? Passive leaders squander the gifts of their staff and should not be in leadership.

(Posted from Santiago, Chile)