Organizational Renewal or Decline

All organizations including businesses, ministries, missions and congregations have a predictable life cycle of missional growth, a plateau and then a slow slide into decline - unless there is direct and intentional intervention by leaders to renew the organization from within on a regular basis. All of us can name churches, for instance, that were once vibrant and missional but are not struggling to simply exist. In the business arena, General Motors is a great example of this life cycle and without the necessary renewal it ended up in bankruptcy. Denominations face the same laws of organizational life cycles as a recent report, for instance, of the Southern Baptist Convention indicates that they are facing the challenge of an aging organization now losing people and seeing fewer conversions.

If you are reading this and your organization does not face the challenge of plateau or decline, don't get too smug. No organization is exempt from this phenomenon unless there is direct intervention to prevent it. 

There are several factors that contribute to plateau or decline in organizations. First, organizations that start out missional can over time slip into institutional where the institution becomes more important than the mission. Here are churches who never change their bylaws or governance structures (which become sacred) even when they are strangling the congregation from responding to the needs of a new day.


Second, they forget the rule that "what got you to here will not get you to there" and become change resistant. Resistance to change will guarantee decline because what worked in one day will not work in another. This is the trap many missions find themselves in, doing ministry like they did in the fifties when the whole ministry context has changed around them. As a rule, the longer an organization has gone without major change the greater their risk of sliding into irrelevancy. Risk adverse ministries will go into decline.


Third, there is a tendency to worship the past and wish that the future could look like the past. I can think of congregations that were considered cutting edge flagship congregations twenty years ago who are in serious decline today but leaders still remember the good old days and just assume that they can make them come back. It won't happen without major change.


Finally, decline comes when the missional commitments of the ministry get lost in preserving the institution. Survival mode is rarely missional. The focus is on survival rather than moving forward and taking territory for Jesus. 


The only way to arrest this tendency toward decline is to continually renew the organization from within. This takes courageous leaders who care more about the effectiveness of their ministry than their own jobs because the only way to create ongoing renewal is to push the organization to take risks and get out of their comfort zone. Many will not like the discomfort of renewal. Here are some keys to such renewal.


First, there must be absolute clarity on the mission of the organization and what spells success. Declining ministries have inevitably lost their sense of clarity and unless a new and compelling clarity can be articulated renewal will not take place (see chapters two, three and four of Leading From The Sandbox). Can everyone in your organization clearly articulate a common compelling mission and vision? If not you are at risk!


Second, you can gauge your ability to renew by how change friendly your organization is because without regular and major change to meet the needs and opportunities of a new day decline is inevitable. Can you identify three to five significant changes that have taken place in your ministry in the past three years? If not, you are at risk!


Third, is there an openness and a strategy for getting new ideas on the table? This will usually happen when new people come on board and see what you don't see, or with younger staff members who are not stuck in the old ways of thinking. If you do not have an intentional strategy to bring new ideas and new people to the table, you are at risk! Long term employees will often work to guard the status quo which is comfortable for them rather than be initiators of new ideas which will stretch them.


Fourth, do you have the courage to move along leaders who are stuck in the past and who will not go with you into the future? Those who have quit growing and who guard the status quo are anchors to your ministry, holding it back. The mission is more important than job security. If you do not regularly evaluate leaders for their ability to lead the organization forward you are at risk! If you are the senior leader and realize that you have taken the ministry as far as you can, the best thing you can do is to step aside and let someone else lead into the future. Far from being a failure, you are opening the door to organizational renewal.


Fifth, are you annually driving a set of ministry initiatives that all can rally around, will help you achieve your mission better and keep improving the ministry results you are after? We call these the "game changers" that change the nature of the results in a significant way. If you cannot identify those annual game changers you are at risk!


The longer a ministry has been in existence, the more difficult it is to keep renewing it from within so that you don't move into the plateau and decline phase of life. In other words, leadership becomes more complex, not easier and the need for risk, new ideas, critical thinking and creating waves greater as the ministry matures. Take a moment and think about where your ministry is against some of these principles.

Viewing People Like Jesus Views Them

What we really think about people is most often revealed in private conversations about them. And how we choose to think and talk about them spills out in our attitudes toward them, words we use with them and the level of honor we afford them. Thus our private thoughts and conversations impact our relationships. Jesus Himself said that what is in our heart is what comes out in our words. The connection is clear.


Think of how we unconsciously judge people we see by their appearance, weight, mannerisms or obvious social class. In every instance we are looking at a man, woman, or child who is made in the Image of God, has inestimable eternal value and is a potential son or daughter of the King of Kings. Where our evaluation is different from God's evaluation, we violate His heart.


When we call people names to one another - "that pinhead" - we judge them and develop attitudes toward them. When we see only the negative in people, we do the same. All of this is human (fallen) nature as we evaluate people by our standards and against our grid which usually makes us feel good by keeping ourselves near the top. What this is not is a reflection of God's character or His evaluation of people which is one of love and compassion.


There are times, when we judge actions of people which can be wrong, egregious, unhelpful and foolish. But judging actions is very different from labeling people. The former evaluates actions while the latter evaluates a whole person including their heart. 


None of us is exempt from this challenge. But consider for a moment how lucky we are that God does not judge us the way we judge others. From his perspective we are sinful, rebellious, flawed and in  every way deserving of death. Yet God so loved the world that He gave His one and only son that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world but to save the world through Him John 3 16-17)."


When our attitudes are condemnatory, they violate the attitude of God toward us. His goal with all people is that they would find Him, find eternal life and it stems from His great love for us that wants to see all saved and accepts the unacceptable - all of us from a divine perspective.


It is a challenge, but it will impact our ability to love like He loved and to lead people to the Lord who loves completely and purely.

Two lives lived well: One Famous, One Not

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.