It was forty years ago this year that as a youngster of fifteen I sat captivated through a week long series of talks by John R.W. Stott at the St. Andrews Church on Nathan Road in Kowloon, Hong Kong. Never had I heard such a cogent series of messages on Christ by a man with rosy cheeks, unruly hair, easy smile and a warm heart. After the sessions he would mingle and talk to us about matters of faith.
That mission, opened my eyes to what clear, expositional preaching should look like and it influences my preaching to this day. Over the years I have stayed in tough with John from time to time and he always had time to reply. Early I adopted him as one of my heroes and role models for his faith, ministry, simple lifestyle, commitment to evangelism, fine writing, prophetic voice on many issues and his amazing approachability. To this day, "All Souls Church in London reflects the character that he instilled when he became rector at 29 years old.
There are few people I have admired more than John R.W. Stott. Heaven is rejoicing today and I am once again reminded of the kind of person I desire to be. Farewell John to a much deserved reward with a savior you loved and served with your whole being.
And then my friend Honson Lee who died suddenly of a heart attack in China this week. Honson is not well known. He was an engineer for a major firm in Holland for much of his career but took early retirement to come back to his home, Hong Kong, and work with ReachGlobal in reaching Asia for Christ. Placing his faith and followership above comfort and money, he and his lovely wife Manling threw themselves into full time ministry at a time when many others were opting for a life of leisure.
Both of these men have my utmost honor and respect for their love of Jesus, concern for the gospel, humility, sacrificial lifestyle and service to the King. Not only do I honor them but I want to be like them. I mourn their loss but know that heaven celebrates their arrival.
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Sick churches and corporate repentance
It is a fact of faith that when we have engaged in sin, the price of moving forward is always deep repentance, and acknowledgement of our sin to Christ and a commitment to take on new practices. We understand this in the individual arena but what about situations where congregations have sinned. Can they move forward in strength without dealing with their sin and acknowledging that sin publically? I believe not.
In fact, I would suggest that there are many churches who have lived with sinful practices in their midst - gossip, unresolved conflict, negative attitudes, ill treatment of pastors, prideful boards, and you name it - who will never move into a place of spiritual health until they publically acknowledge the sinful practices, repent of them, commit to new practices and seek the forgiveness of those who have been hurt.
Interestingly, these are the very things that have been key features of revivals when they have occurred. Coming clean, acknowledging failure and seeking forgiveness are hallmarks of spiritual revival. So why would we believe that we can move forward in congregations when such sin has occurred without the spiritual renovation that must take place first?
Why don't more congregations practice confession and repentance? I believe the operative reason is pride. It means that we have to admit we were wrong, that we have accepted sinful practices, that we hurt someone and public hurt must be followed by public acknowledgement and confession. Rather than do that, we would rather take the easy way and retain our pride.
Years ago I was deeply wounded by a church I served. Years later the leaders asked to meet with me in private. They apologized for what happened but they never did so publically. Yet, the wounds has been public. They took the easy route which did nothing to heal the church nor to heal me.
Daniel nine gives us a great example of public repentance for public sin. On behalf of the nation of Israel, Daniel pleads for God's forgiveness after enumerating the sins of the people. Public sin calls for public repentance.
What is the price that congregations and church leaders pay for not being willing to repent of public sins? I believe that God simply withholds his blessing from them. God does not bless proud hearts but humble hearts. Public confession of public sins is a sign of a humble heart. Most congregations won't go there but those who do see God do extraordinary things.
In fact, I would suggest that there are many churches who have lived with sinful practices in their midst - gossip, unresolved conflict, negative attitudes, ill treatment of pastors, prideful boards, and you name it - who will never move into a place of spiritual health until they publically acknowledge the sinful practices, repent of them, commit to new practices and seek the forgiveness of those who have been hurt.
Interestingly, these are the very things that have been key features of revivals when they have occurred. Coming clean, acknowledging failure and seeking forgiveness are hallmarks of spiritual revival. So why would we believe that we can move forward in congregations when such sin has occurred without the spiritual renovation that must take place first?
Why don't more congregations practice confession and repentance? I believe the operative reason is pride. It means that we have to admit we were wrong, that we have accepted sinful practices, that we hurt someone and public hurt must be followed by public acknowledgement and confession. Rather than do that, we would rather take the easy way and retain our pride.
Years ago I was deeply wounded by a church I served. Years later the leaders asked to meet with me in private. They apologized for what happened but they never did so publically. Yet, the wounds has been public. They took the easy route which did nothing to heal the church nor to heal me.
Daniel nine gives us a great example of public repentance for public sin. On behalf of the nation of Israel, Daniel pleads for God's forgiveness after enumerating the sins of the people. Public sin calls for public repentance.
What is the price that congregations and church leaders pay for not being willing to repent of public sins? I believe that God simply withholds his blessing from them. God does not bless proud hearts but humble hearts. Public confession of public sins is a sign of a humble heart. Most congregations won't go there but those who do see God do extraordinary things.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Leadership in Crisis
Unfortunately, every ministry finds itself in a crisis mode from time to time. How leaders lead in times of crisis either gives them added credibility or causes them to lose credibility. Here are some critical elements of crisis management.
First, be utterly transparent as to why the crisis has occurred. As I wrote in a recent blog, spin management does not work because people have the ability to sense whether the explanation is the real story which goes to honesty, openness and the credibility of leaders. I once listened to a leader explain why his ministry had lost a great deal of money in a certain year leading to a financial crisis. He spiritualized the situation rather than simply telling the truth that there had been some bad management and he lost credibility in the eyes of many. Rule one is come clean and while you may take some short term shots, you will be better off in the long run.
The issue of total honesty is important. Many ministry leaders complicate a crisis by not being transparent about the crisis. Transparency creates trust even where mistakes have been made. Lack of transparency creates mistrust which further erodes the leader's ability to lead. If mistakes have been made and leaders are honest about it, people will forgive. If mistakes have been made and leaders try to hide them, people will lose confidence.
I cannot stress the importance of transparent honesty on the part of leaders enough. Think of the corporations that have tried to deal with their public problems without being transparent - it does not work and causes all kinds of additional problems. Be transparent, take your lumps if necessary but don't tell untruths or color the truth. It does not work and will cause further damage. Falsehoods under any guise cause damage to an organization while truth brought into the light can bring healing. This takes leaders who are courageous enough to speak truth even when it is hard.
One of the results of not coming clean in crisis is that people are left confused. Some know that the story does not add up. Others want to believe their leaders explanation even if it is not totally trustworthy. If on the other hand, leaders are totally transparent, there is little confusion. Truth brings clarity while dishonesty under any guise brings confusion. It is the way of truth and falsehoods.
Honesty and transparency reflect humility on the part of leaders while spin control and dishonesty reflect pride on the part of leaders. People intuitively understand which they are getting and humility breeds respect while pride breeds cynicism.
Second, tell people how you are going to deal with the crisis in clear, unambiguous language. If hard things need to be done, give it to people straight. Stability for them is knowing that someone has a plan and that they are being let in on the plan. Generally there are not more than a handful of key actions that must be taken in a crisis so concentrate on those and leave ancillary things aside.
Third, give people forums where they can talk to leaders so that their issues are clarified and they can share their own perspectives. Leaders need to hear what others have to say and they often know more than leaders think they know (or want them to know). Everyone in a congregation or organization is a stakeholder so after leaders have been forthcoming and laid out a plan, give people a chance to clarify, respond and speak. The only ground rules are that there are no personal attacks or hidden agendas.
Fourth, find some common commitments that the whole group can commit to in order to weather the crisis. If the crisis is financial, there should be financial commitments. If it is spiritual, there should be spiritual commitments. If it is a result of leadership mistakes there should be leadership commitments. The commitments should reflect the reality of the reasons for the crisis and an organization wide response to it. This is possible only if leaders have been upfront initially.
Crisis is the ultimate test of leadership courage. All too often, leaders fail the test because they want to protect themselves. When leaders do what I have outlined above they gain credibility even if they have made mistakes along the way. People respect honesty and despise dishonesty.
First, be utterly transparent as to why the crisis has occurred. As I wrote in a recent blog, spin management does not work because people have the ability to sense whether the explanation is the real story which goes to honesty, openness and the credibility of leaders. I once listened to a leader explain why his ministry had lost a great deal of money in a certain year leading to a financial crisis. He spiritualized the situation rather than simply telling the truth that there had been some bad management and he lost credibility in the eyes of many. Rule one is come clean and while you may take some short term shots, you will be better off in the long run.
The issue of total honesty is important. Many ministry leaders complicate a crisis by not being transparent about the crisis. Transparency creates trust even where mistakes have been made. Lack of transparency creates mistrust which further erodes the leader's ability to lead. If mistakes have been made and leaders are honest about it, people will forgive. If mistakes have been made and leaders try to hide them, people will lose confidence.
I cannot stress the importance of transparent honesty on the part of leaders enough. Think of the corporations that have tried to deal with their public problems without being transparent - it does not work and causes all kinds of additional problems. Be transparent, take your lumps if necessary but don't tell untruths or color the truth. It does not work and will cause further damage. Falsehoods under any guise cause damage to an organization while truth brought into the light can bring healing. This takes leaders who are courageous enough to speak truth even when it is hard.
One of the results of not coming clean in crisis is that people are left confused. Some know that the story does not add up. Others want to believe their leaders explanation even if it is not totally trustworthy. If on the other hand, leaders are totally transparent, there is little confusion. Truth brings clarity while dishonesty under any guise brings confusion. It is the way of truth and falsehoods.
Honesty and transparency reflect humility on the part of leaders while spin control and dishonesty reflect pride on the part of leaders. People intuitively understand which they are getting and humility breeds respect while pride breeds cynicism.
Second, tell people how you are going to deal with the crisis in clear, unambiguous language. If hard things need to be done, give it to people straight. Stability for them is knowing that someone has a plan and that they are being let in on the plan. Generally there are not more than a handful of key actions that must be taken in a crisis so concentrate on those and leave ancillary things aside.
Third, give people forums where they can talk to leaders so that their issues are clarified and they can share their own perspectives. Leaders need to hear what others have to say and they often know more than leaders think they know (or want them to know). Everyone in a congregation or organization is a stakeholder so after leaders have been forthcoming and laid out a plan, give people a chance to clarify, respond and speak. The only ground rules are that there are no personal attacks or hidden agendas.
Fourth, find some common commitments that the whole group can commit to in order to weather the crisis. If the crisis is financial, there should be financial commitments. If it is spiritual, there should be spiritual commitments. If it is a result of leadership mistakes there should be leadership commitments. The commitments should reflect the reality of the reasons for the crisis and an organization wide response to it. This is possible only if leaders have been upfront initially.
Crisis is the ultimate test of leadership courage. All too often, leaders fail the test because they want to protect themselves. When leaders do what I have outlined above they gain credibility even if they have made mistakes along the way. People respect honesty and despise dishonesty.
Giants and Grasshoppers
“There are giants in the land” was the report of the spies who went in to spy out the land of Canaan for the Israelites prior to their infamous mutiny from God and subsequent wandering in the desert for forty years (Numbers 13-14). For ten of the twelve spies, those giants were insurmountable barriers to taking the land. Only Joshua and Caleb saw the giants in light of God’s power and ability to take them. The rest of the spies looked at them through human and therefore fearful eyes.
All of us have giants in our lives – those people, circumstances or situations that cause fear and anxiety, wake us up at night and which we struggle with. Those giants are real; they often pose a significant threat and are not to be discounted.
The game changer for giants, of course, is God himself, who is not intimidated by those things that cause us fear because He has the power to deal with them. His words to His disciples are encouraging to us. “I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world (John 16:33).” Wow! We know of the “many troubles” but do we live with the daily knowledge that He has “overcome the world and therefore we may live in peace?” His overcoming power trumps any trouble we could face. Not that he promises to take those troubles away but that He gives us what we need to deal with them no matter how fierce they are.
I have a friend who recently received the devastating news of a diagnosis of mesothelioma. Not only is this an incurable disease of the lungs but it’s typical progression is rapid and its symptoms are terrible. There is nothing nice or comforting about that kind of “trouble:” and absent God’s miraculous healing it is a one way street. This friend and his wife are not despairing of this giant, as great as it has invaded their world. Rather they are facing it with courage and faith and his whole focus now is preparing to meet Jesus who he has served for many years.
Giants create fear while God gives peace and divine perspective if we will allow Him. We confront giants when we give them to God and press into Him with faith knowing that there is no giant he cannot overcome. Ironically the spies reported to the Israelites that compared to the giants “we seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes and we looked the same to them (Numbers 13:33).” What they did not realize is that compared to God’s power, the giants they faced and those we face are mere grasshoppers in God’s eyes: fearful to us, grasshoppers to Him. As Jesus said in John 16:33 it is all a matter of perspective.
I recently confronted one of my giants. The details are unimportant but realizing that God’s power was greater than my giant was everything. It was not without much prayer and faith on my part. Today the giant has been put into its proper perspective (a mere grasshopper in God’s eyes) and for that I am grateful. Our giants are very real. Only God can put them into proper perspective. Are you living with giants or grasshoppers?
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Rupert Murdock and a failure of leadership
Rupert Murdock failed his ultimate leadership test this week when asked whether he was ultimately responsible for "this whole Fiasco" in British Parliament. He tersely replied "No." When asked who was he said "The people that I trusted to run it and then maybe the people they trusted (The Nation, Thursday July 21, 2011)."
Murdock failed his leadership test on three counts. First leaders always take responsibility when something goes south in their organization. His explanation that he has 35,000 employees and cannot keep track of what they do means nothing. Leaders take responsibility when there is trouble. They do not point fingers at others and blame them for ultimately the buck stops a the senior level. Further, if you are going to blame others that you hired, who is ultimately responsible if not the one who did the hiring! And, if your senior leader ducks the blame, why should not everyone else down the chain?
This is not only a failure of leadership but a failure of courage. It is like a kid getting caught and pointing his finger at another kid and saying, "He did it." Leaders man up! They don't blame others.
Second, Murdock failed his leadership test by hiring and keeping individuals who did not have a strong moral compass. Perhaps they made money for him and that was enough. Leaders lead through the quality of the people they hire - first their moral convictions and second their business expertise. He certainly had business expertise but he failed to hire people with high moral convictions. If there is one failure common to many such situations it is that corporations have filled their ranks with many who have no moral foundation allowing the widespread practices as in this case of immoral and illegal behavior.
Third, Murdock failed as a leader by failing to set a high standard to ethical, legal and moral practices that were the expectation of all those who worked for him. It strains credulity to believe that he did not know that corners were being cut - all he needed to do was to read his own papers and it would be obvious that there was something going on. If others could figure it out, so could he. But the company lacked a moral compass that only he could both model and insist on. Obviously it was possible to work in a culture where illegal and unethical practices were either ignored or accepted.
These three failures of leadership are fundamental flaws that would sooner or later have come to light. Those of us who lead ought to take notice and ask if we share any of these three threats to our own leadership.
Murdock failed his leadership test on three counts. First leaders always take responsibility when something goes south in their organization. His explanation that he has 35,000 employees and cannot keep track of what they do means nothing. Leaders take responsibility when there is trouble. They do not point fingers at others and blame them for ultimately the buck stops a the senior level. Further, if you are going to blame others that you hired, who is ultimately responsible if not the one who did the hiring! And, if your senior leader ducks the blame, why should not everyone else down the chain?
This is not only a failure of leadership but a failure of courage. It is like a kid getting caught and pointing his finger at another kid and saying, "He did it." Leaders man up! They don't blame others.
Second, Murdock failed his leadership test by hiring and keeping individuals who did not have a strong moral compass. Perhaps they made money for him and that was enough. Leaders lead through the quality of the people they hire - first their moral convictions and second their business expertise. He certainly had business expertise but he failed to hire people with high moral convictions. If there is one failure common to many such situations it is that corporations have filled their ranks with many who have no moral foundation allowing the widespread practices as in this case of immoral and illegal behavior.
Third, Murdock failed as a leader by failing to set a high standard to ethical, legal and moral practices that were the expectation of all those who worked for him. It strains credulity to believe that he did not know that corners were being cut - all he needed to do was to read his own papers and it would be obvious that there was something going on. If others could figure it out, so could he. But the company lacked a moral compass that only he could both model and insist on. Obviously it was possible to work in a culture where illegal and unethical practices were either ignored or accepted.
These three failures of leadership are fundamental flaws that would sooner or later have come to light. Those of us who lead ought to take notice and ask if we share any of these three threats to our own leadership.
Spin control
We hear it every day on the news channels. The government, businesses or individuals who have something to explain engaging in spin control. At its best, spin control is designed to get your facts out in as favorable a light as possible, knowing that others will spin your story in highly unsavory ways. At its worst, and perhaps all too common, spin control is used to rewrite the actual facts when they are not in our favor which amounts to dishonesty and lying. It is one of the reasons that many are rather cynical when listening to people who are obviously "spinning" reality to try to convince us of an alternative reality.
It is sad that many churches and ministry organizations do the same thing when confronted with situations that they need to explain and the simple facts of the situation will make them look bad. It is sad because truth is one of the fundamental characteristics of God's character and deceit or lying is one of God's all time "hates" (see Proverbs).
I am not suggesting that all facts about all situations must be shared. What I am suggesting is that what is shared must be consistent with the truth and would stand up to scrutiny if all the relevant parties were present. Church leaders who are not as candid as they ought to be - either because it will make them look bad - or because they don't want to deal with the fall out find that their spin goes out of control when people start to realize that they have not been given the full story - or even a truthful story. Even when done in the spirit of "we need to protect the congregation" it does not work - and that is often an excuse not to be truthful.
I know of a recent situation where allegations of sexual abuse in a mission agency's past came to light. Rather than bringing it into the open, the board simply fired the chief executive (who had nothing to do with that era of mission history). He became the scapegoat and the agency tried to hide the facts of the past. The latter will not work.
I know of a pastor who recently left his pastorate over deep conflict with his board but the situation was spun all ways to Sunday rather than simply acknowledging what many in the congregation already know - leaving the board with even less trust than they had before.
Why are we afraid of truth? Again, not everything needs to be said but people are not stupid and truth, no matter how hard builds trust while lack of transparency kills trust. Organizations that engage in dishonest spin find that they get caught in that spin for years rather than just being honest, taking the lumps and moving on. Even secular consultants will tell you to get whatever is going to get out on the table quickly, apologize where necessary, share your next steps and start to move on and rebuild trust. It is always the best way.
Covering up has to do with our pride. Transparency has to do with humility.
It is sad that many churches and ministry organizations do the same thing when confronted with situations that they need to explain and the simple facts of the situation will make them look bad. It is sad because truth is one of the fundamental characteristics of God's character and deceit or lying is one of God's all time "hates" (see Proverbs).
I am not suggesting that all facts about all situations must be shared. What I am suggesting is that what is shared must be consistent with the truth and would stand up to scrutiny if all the relevant parties were present. Church leaders who are not as candid as they ought to be - either because it will make them look bad - or because they don't want to deal with the fall out find that their spin goes out of control when people start to realize that they have not been given the full story - or even a truthful story. Even when done in the spirit of "we need to protect the congregation" it does not work - and that is often an excuse not to be truthful.
I know of a recent situation where allegations of sexual abuse in a mission agency's past came to light. Rather than bringing it into the open, the board simply fired the chief executive (who had nothing to do with that era of mission history). He became the scapegoat and the agency tried to hide the facts of the past. The latter will not work.
I know of a pastor who recently left his pastorate over deep conflict with his board but the situation was spun all ways to Sunday rather than simply acknowledging what many in the congregation already know - leaving the board with even less trust than they had before.
Why are we afraid of truth? Again, not everything needs to be said but people are not stupid and truth, no matter how hard builds trust while lack of transparency kills trust. Organizations that engage in dishonest spin find that they get caught in that spin for years rather than just being honest, taking the lumps and moving on. Even secular consultants will tell you to get whatever is going to get out on the table quickly, apologize where necessary, share your next steps and start to move on and rebuild trust. It is always the best way.
Covering up has to do with our pride. Transparency has to do with humility.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Courage
Courage is one of the essential traits of anyone who desires to make a difference for Christ. Courage to follow His leading. Courage to go to places that are uncomfortable for us. Courage to change when God points out areas of our lives that need such change. Courage to try things for Him that we have not tried before.
Why is courage so important? Because most people are adverse to change and love the comfort of the status quo. I have had people tell me in my own organization, "Do what you want to do but don't expect me to change." That is a failure of courage! Others have said, "It is hard for me to go there but I will go with you." That is a victory for courage. People fit into predictable categories of innovators, early adapters, middle adapters, late adapters and laggards (they will never change). While these may be standard responses to change, courage says, "If God calls me out of my comfort zone, I will go, no matter what."
Those who lack courage will never make much of an impact for Christ and frankly don't belong in full time ministry. God does not take His people to predictable places but to the unpredictable. The game changer is that He never leaves us to our own devices but continually says, "Do not be afraid for I am with you." If I cannot move forward with that promise, what will help me do so?
The opposite of courage is cowardice. No one likes to have that word used for them. Yet, when we say no to God, when we refuse to go to new places, when we will not leave our own comfort zone, it is cowardice that characterizes our lives. God's workers are never called to live in cowardice but in courage. After all, we never go alone, but always with the presence of the Holy Spirit.
Many congregations and ministry organizations live with a lack of courage. There are mission agencies I know that will not pull the trigger on change because of fear. There are missionaries who will not go to new places because of fear. There are congregations who will not change what they have been doing for fifty years (mostly unsuccessfully because of fear. It is a failure of courage that results in a failure of effectiveness.
As a ministry leader, I do not apologize for looking for courageous people. Nothing of substance is accomplished when we are unwilling to go to new places, to risk for the sake of the Gospel. And that courage must start with me as the senior leader. Are you willing to risk for the sake of the Gospel? Are you willing to live on the side of courage rather than the side of cowardice? OK that is a strong way of putting it but it is the choice each of us must make.
Why is courage so important? Because most people are adverse to change and love the comfort of the status quo. I have had people tell me in my own organization, "Do what you want to do but don't expect me to change." That is a failure of courage! Others have said, "It is hard for me to go there but I will go with you." That is a victory for courage. People fit into predictable categories of innovators, early adapters, middle adapters, late adapters and laggards (they will never change). While these may be standard responses to change, courage says, "If God calls me out of my comfort zone, I will go, no matter what."
Those who lack courage will never make much of an impact for Christ and frankly don't belong in full time ministry. God does not take His people to predictable places but to the unpredictable. The game changer is that He never leaves us to our own devices but continually says, "Do not be afraid for I am with you." If I cannot move forward with that promise, what will help me do so?
The opposite of courage is cowardice. No one likes to have that word used for them. Yet, when we say no to God, when we refuse to go to new places, when we will not leave our own comfort zone, it is cowardice that characterizes our lives. God's workers are never called to live in cowardice but in courage. After all, we never go alone, but always with the presence of the Holy Spirit.
Many congregations and ministry organizations live with a lack of courage. There are mission agencies I know that will not pull the trigger on change because of fear. There are missionaries who will not go to new places because of fear. There are congregations who will not change what they have been doing for fifty years (mostly unsuccessfully because of fear. It is a failure of courage that results in a failure of effectiveness.
As a ministry leader, I do not apologize for looking for courageous people. Nothing of substance is accomplished when we are unwilling to go to new places, to risk for the sake of the Gospel. And that courage must start with me as the senior leader. Are you willing to risk for the sake of the Gospel? Are you willing to live on the side of courage rather than the side of cowardice? OK that is a strong way of putting it but it is the choice each of us must make.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)