There are ministry leaders whose primary leadership trait is that of fear. Before any decision is made, there are endless discussions of whether the decision is right, lots of second guessing, revisiting of the issue, dragging feet on pulling the trigger and anxiety about whether they should move forward or not. If some leaders are too impulsive, fear based leaders are so risk adverse and fearful of something going wrong that they become paralyzed by that fear.
This is crazy making for staff who want to get on with things and become frustrated when their decisions or recommendations get the same scrutiny, questions, and reservations as their boss's. Endless meetings are had, issues rehashed time and again, decisions made and then revisited.
Why? Because the senior leader is so driven by not making a mistake, not communicating something improperly, not doing something that might fail. It is caution gone amok. It causes him or her not only to scrutinize their own decisions but those of others and leads to micromanaging the work of others out of the same fear. It is fear based leadership and is not true leadership at all.
Fearful leadership comes out of a lack of self confidence, deep anxiety about making a bad call and fear of what others will think if they make a poor decision. The fear paralysis of the leader becomes a paralysis for the organization as a whole. Because leading is about being in front of others, leading them into the future, fear based leadership is not leadership at all but is really just the opposite: keeping the organization from moving forward out of an abundance of caution.
Fear based leaders need serious coaching or counseling to get at the root of the fear that haunts them. Unless they can understand those fears and face them they will not be able to lead or if they do will not attract and keep other good staff.
If you suffer from decision making fear ask yourself, "What is the absolute worst thing that could happen if the decision went south?" How likely is that worst thing to happen? If it did would it be so bad? One soon realizes that the fear is not only unfounded but silly when you play out the scenario.
Monday, May 21, 2012
Sunday, May 20, 2012
Empowerment that actually disempowers.Leadership by benign neglect
Think of empowerment as a horizontal line. On the left hand side is the manager or leader who micromanages - highly disempowering to those they lead. At the extreme right side of the continuum is total empowerment or actually neglect of staff which is equally disempowering.
Leaders on the right end of the continuum often think that they are highly empowering leaders. After all they rarely if ever tell staff what to do. But what they are actually doing is neglecting their staff to the point that staff must figure out what their job and priorities are without any structure, framework or guidance. They also have to solve problems without the help of their leader. This is leadership by benign neglect. More accurately it is a lack of leadership that usually makes for frustrated staff.
Leaders who lead by benign neglect think that they are doing their staff a favor. In reality they are not doing their staff any favors.
Here is why.
First, when there is a leadership vacuum, someone will fill it. If a leader or manager is not leading someone else will exert their influence. That someone else may or may not be a favor to the rest of the team. They are free to control others and drive their agenda, however, because the organizational leader is not providing adequate oversight.
Second, people want and need clarity about their role and what the organization is up to. I have actually had staff who work for benign neglect leaders tell me that they don't know what they are supposed to be doing or what their role is. Staff who must fend for themselves are generally frustrated.
Third, staff often feel as if their manager or leader is not engaged in the team or organization. The truth is they are right! The leader is engaged in his or her personal agenda but not in helping the staff of the organization if they lead by benign neglect. Neglect is of course not leadership but an abdication of leadership.
In my experience this situation occurs for a number of reasons. It may be that the leader has grown an organization by the force of their vision but does not have the skills to be an organizational leader. It may be that the leader is more interested in their own world than providing the leadership that the group needs. Either way, their staff feel disempowered.
If a senior leader is not wired to organize, lead, provide clarity to staff, mentor and coach staff they need to find someone who can and will. This is where a strong COO role is needed but in order to be successful, the senior leaders needs to cede organizational authority to the COO and then stay out of staff and management issues. In the absence of a strong internal leader, benign neglect leaders will eventually stall or plateau their ministry because the larger a ministry the more critical clarity and good organizational structures become.
Back to the empowerment continuum. The place to be is in the middle. Not micromanaging but not neglecting. It is empowerment withing boundaries with clarity and accountability. No favors are done staff with micromanagement an no favors are done with benign neglect. Both disempower rather than empower.
Leaders on the right end of the continuum often think that they are highly empowering leaders. After all they rarely if ever tell staff what to do. But what they are actually doing is neglecting their staff to the point that staff must figure out what their job and priorities are without any structure, framework or guidance. They also have to solve problems without the help of their leader. This is leadership by benign neglect. More accurately it is a lack of leadership that usually makes for frustrated staff.
Leaders who lead by benign neglect think that they are doing their staff a favor. In reality they are not doing their staff any favors.
Here is why.
First, when there is a leadership vacuum, someone will fill it. If a leader or manager is not leading someone else will exert their influence. That someone else may or may not be a favor to the rest of the team. They are free to control others and drive their agenda, however, because the organizational leader is not providing adequate oversight.
Second, people want and need clarity about their role and what the organization is up to. I have actually had staff who work for benign neglect leaders tell me that they don't know what they are supposed to be doing or what their role is. Staff who must fend for themselves are generally frustrated.
Third, staff often feel as if their manager or leader is not engaged in the team or organization. The truth is they are right! The leader is engaged in his or her personal agenda but not in helping the staff of the organization if they lead by benign neglect. Neglect is of course not leadership but an abdication of leadership.
In my experience this situation occurs for a number of reasons. It may be that the leader has grown an organization by the force of their vision but does not have the skills to be an organizational leader. It may be that the leader is more interested in their own world than providing the leadership that the group needs. Either way, their staff feel disempowered.
If a senior leader is not wired to organize, lead, provide clarity to staff, mentor and coach staff they need to find someone who can and will. This is where a strong COO role is needed but in order to be successful, the senior leaders needs to cede organizational authority to the COO and then stay out of staff and management issues. In the absence of a strong internal leader, benign neglect leaders will eventually stall or plateau their ministry because the larger a ministry the more critical clarity and good organizational structures become.
Back to the empowerment continuum. The place to be is in the middle. Not micromanaging but not neglecting. It is empowerment withing boundaries with clarity and accountability. No favors are done staff with micromanagement an no favors are done with benign neglect. Both disempower rather than empower.
Saturday, May 19, 2012
The fear factor
Fears: we all have them. It is what keeps us up at night and lives in the pit of our stomach, rearing its ugly head over some trigger that sets them off. They may be real fears or imagined fears (what if that happened?) but in a world where bad things do happen and the nightly news is mostly bad (and exaggerated) we cannot escape our fears.
But we can manage them with the help of God. It fascinates me that the most often repeated command in Scripture is to fear not. Do not be afraid! Often coupled with the statement "I am with you" (see Joshua 1). This is because faith is the currency of God's Kingdom while fear is the currency of our world. Fear kills faith (which is why the evil one loves it) while faith builds confidence in God's ability to handle any situation we could ever face. Fear holds us back while faith drives us forward.
The great pantheon of heroes of faith in Hebrews 11 all had much to fear - and most of them paid for their faith dearly. But in each case they chose faith over fear, trusting even in what they could not yet see because they believed the promises of God. They countered fear with trust and faith.
The great pantheon of heroes of faith in Hebrews 11 all had much to fear - and most of them paid for their faith dearly. But in each case they chose faith over fear, trusting even in what they could not yet see because they believed the promises of God. They countered fear with trust and faith.
One of the great advantages of memorizing scripture (yes even adults can do it) is that the truth of God's word is a powerful antidote to the many untruthful or fearful messages stored in our brain. The Holy Spirit is a master at pulling out of our minds the very truth that we need at the moment we need if - if we have been diligent in putting it there.
King David, the head of state in Israel made constant reference to the words of God that he had hid in his heart. Those words were the realignment mechanism for him when he faced even the most difficult circumstances.
When I was in a Thailand ICU wondering if I would live or die, on a ventilator and unable to do anything about my circumstances and in excruciating pain, fear was very real! I battled that fear with the words of Jesus to Peter when Peter got out of the boat in the storm. "Fear not." "Why are you afraid?" "I am with you." Those few, simple words fought back the storm of fear, kept it at bay and allowed me to trust God in a very hard time. It was not without a colossal struggle but faith won over fear. And it can for you as well.
Fear is a normal human reaction but faith is the currency of God's Kingdom (Hebrews 11). Fear can only be fought back with the truth of God found in His word. Put it in your heart and the next time fear raises its ugly head, counter attack with God's word.
Friday, May 18, 2012
Choosing joy today
It is one of the fruits of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22) but how many truly joyful Christ followers do you meet? Living with joy is both a gift (the Holy Spirit gives it to us) and a choice (I will choose to live in His joy). He gives the gift. We decide whether we will choose joy over pessimism, sadness or sorrow.
Unlike typical self help talk, the joy that Jesus gives is not the discipline of talking ourselves into a happy state regardless of our circumstances. Rather it is a joy based on the presence of Christ and the hope of Christ in the midst of our circumstances. He is the source of our hope and joy. He is the one who never leaves us or forsakes us (Romans 8). He is the one who promises to work His will in our lives, go before us, provide us with what we need for the day and be our advocate for the circumstances we face.
This, then is no self help "joy" but a joy based on God's presence and promises. In those days when we don't feel joy we can choose joy, knowing that it is a gift from Him. In those days when our circumstances don't dictate joy we can choose joy knowing of his presence in our circumstances.
Living with joy is choosing to see life through God's eyes and in light of His promises. It is living in His presence and remembering His promises. It is rejecting pessimism in light of God's gifts which He showers on us. It is choosing Him and hope over our circumstances and all the problems we see around us.
Joy is a wonderful gift. I choose joy today.
Unlike typical self help talk, the joy that Jesus gives is not the discipline of talking ourselves into a happy state regardless of our circumstances. Rather it is a joy based on the presence of Christ and the hope of Christ in the midst of our circumstances. He is the source of our hope and joy. He is the one who never leaves us or forsakes us (Romans 8). He is the one who promises to work His will in our lives, go before us, provide us with what we need for the day and be our advocate for the circumstances we face.
This, then is no self help "joy" but a joy based on God's presence and promises. In those days when we don't feel joy we can choose joy, knowing that it is a gift from Him. In those days when our circumstances don't dictate joy we can choose joy knowing of his presence in our circumstances.
Living with joy is choosing to see life through God's eyes and in light of His promises. It is living in His presence and remembering His promises. It is rejecting pessimism in light of God's gifts which He showers on us. It is choosing Him and hope over our circumstances and all the problems we see around us.
Joy is a wonderful gift. I choose joy today.
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Five reasons we don't confront needed changes
Because of the work I do, I am surrounded by ministries - churches, mission agencies and Christian non-profits who need to make major changes or face significant issues if not decline and death. Here is what they need to know:
If you don't like change
you're going to like irrelevance even less
What keeps so many leaders and ministries from confronting the need for significant change in order to grow, take advantage of new opportunities and re-envision for the next run? There seem to be some common factors.
First, we become comfortable and change is uncomfortable. I am amazed at the ability of comfort to cause people to ignore even major risks they face by choosing comfort over change. Comfortable is the nemesis of faith, vision and new ideas.
Second, we don't want to confront the idea that major change is needed. This is simply intellectual laziness that does not want to put in the hard work of figuring out what needs to change in order to go to the next level or simply avoid falling to a new low.
Third, we resist the idea of getting outside help when it is most needed. In our self sufficiency and pride, we choose to keep the discussion in house with the limited knowledge that got us to where we are today (in need of change) rather than reaching out to someone who can look with fresh eyes at the challenges you face and suggest fresh ideas.
Fourth, we underestimate the pace of change around us, thinking that we have plenty of time to address it. You don't! Change is rapid and our turtle pace responses often overwhelm us leaving us with few choices when we could have had more choices.
Fifth, we lack the courage to name our current reality in honest, candid, stark terms which would create a crisis among thinking people. In not naming the true nature of the threat we allow ourselves and others to minimize the need for change.
What is your reason for not confronting the need for change?
See also:
When ministries need to change
Paradigm shifts and the job of leaders
Bringing change to your organization
Convincing the unconvincible
See also:
When ministries need to change
Paradigm shifts and the job of leaders
Bringing change to your organization
Convincing the unconvincible
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
When it is time for ministry founders to transition
Ministry founders are special people. They took risks to get the ministry up and running and took it through the hardest period - the early years. The ministry vision was theirs. The decision making was theirs and others largely acceded to their wishes because the founder represented the vision and heart of the ministry. Often, for many years their decisions went unchallenged even by those who they brought into leadership around them. The ministry is seen as the founders ministry.
Founders often forget, because of the role they play that the ministry is not theirs. In fact, once a ministry goes beyond one person (the founder) it is no longer His or Her ministry and they are simply stewards of that ministry.
Once there is a board there is an acknowledgement that there is also accountability to others and the ministry is no longer a sole proprietorship. In other words, even though the founder played and plays a special role, it does not belong to them and they are now accountable to steward well and accountable to those in leadership above them.
The transition from being in control to being accountable to others is often a hard transition for founders to make. After all, they are entrepreneurs who figured out how to get the ministry to where it is today. In their minds, nothing has really changed except that the ministry is larger and they now have more structure. They believe that they made the right calls in the past and can and should continue to make the calls in the future.
In reality, though, a lot has changed: The ministry is not larger but different, there is now a formal leadership structure that even the founder is under, others legitimately want a seat at the leadership table and what was once "mine" is now "ours" and the founder is just one of the players. Whether the founder realizes it or not, the whole world around them has changed and it is a new day that relies much less on them than it once did.
In addition, and this is a very hard thing for founders to grapple with: there often comes a time when the leadership needs of the organization have moved beyond the leadership skills of the founder. This poses a delicate issue for them and their board. For founders, because admitting that they are no longer the needed leader is very tough - they got the ministry to where it is. It is in their minds their ministry. For boards, because they need to make a transition while acknowledging the special part that the founder has played.
I have watched high profile ministries do this well and do it poorly - it depends on how the board handles it and how the founder responds to it. However, these dynamics hold true in small ministries and churches as well. Many times, founders hold on and their fingers need to be pried open to allow the ministry to move on and flourish in the next run. Sometimes, when founders hold on tenaciously they end up seeing the ministry they built go into a sad decline.
In ministry, founders are not owners but play the start up role. Whether they can transition from the start up role to that of leading a different and more mature organization depends on their skill set. Some can and some cannot. Both boards and founders, however, need to acknowledge that the ministry does not belong to the founder. It is not unlike parenting. My kids grew up and now make their own independent decisions - and organizations grow up and start to make their own independent decisions.
Founders are special people. Most people cannot start something like they did with their faith, courage and entrepreneurial spirit. But they and their organization need to understand that this does not mean that the ministry belongs to them. And there will come a time when they need to release the ministry to the next leader.
Founders often forget, because of the role they play that the ministry is not theirs. In fact, once a ministry goes beyond one person (the founder) it is no longer His or Her ministry and they are simply stewards of that ministry.
Once there is a board there is an acknowledgement that there is also accountability to others and the ministry is no longer a sole proprietorship. In other words, even though the founder played and plays a special role, it does not belong to them and they are now accountable to steward well and accountable to those in leadership above them.
The transition from being in control to being accountable to others is often a hard transition for founders to make. After all, they are entrepreneurs who figured out how to get the ministry to where it is today. In their minds, nothing has really changed except that the ministry is larger and they now have more structure. They believe that they made the right calls in the past and can and should continue to make the calls in the future.
In reality, though, a lot has changed: The ministry is not larger but different, there is now a formal leadership structure that even the founder is under, others legitimately want a seat at the leadership table and what was once "mine" is now "ours" and the founder is just one of the players. Whether the founder realizes it or not, the whole world around them has changed and it is a new day that relies much less on them than it once did.
In addition, and this is a very hard thing for founders to grapple with: there often comes a time when the leadership needs of the organization have moved beyond the leadership skills of the founder. This poses a delicate issue for them and their board. For founders, because admitting that they are no longer the needed leader is very tough - they got the ministry to where it is. It is in their minds their ministry. For boards, because they need to make a transition while acknowledging the special part that the founder has played.
I have watched high profile ministries do this well and do it poorly - it depends on how the board handles it and how the founder responds to it. However, these dynamics hold true in small ministries and churches as well. Many times, founders hold on and their fingers need to be pried open to allow the ministry to move on and flourish in the next run. Sometimes, when founders hold on tenaciously they end up seeing the ministry they built go into a sad decline.
In ministry, founders are not owners but play the start up role. Whether they can transition from the start up role to that of leading a different and more mature organization depends on their skill set. Some can and some cannot. Both boards and founders, however, need to acknowledge that the ministry does not belong to the founder. It is not unlike parenting. My kids grew up and now make their own independent decisions - and organizations grow up and start to make their own independent decisions.
Founders are special people. Most people cannot start something like they did with their faith, courage and entrepreneurial spirit. But they and their organization need to understand that this does not mean that the ministry belongs to them. And there will come a time when they need to release the ministry to the next leader.
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Conflict, reconciliation, Jesus, the church and us
The church, in general, has a pretty bad reputation when it comes to one of the most fundamental calls of the Christian faith - reconciliation. As a church consultant I have seen the road kill and carnage of congregations that fight with one another, people who don't forgive one another, spirits of animosity that poison relationships, recrimination, power plays and church splits.
Pastors are guilty, board members are guilty and paritioners are guilty. Sometimes, whole congregations are guilty. All of us at one time or another have been guilty. Think of the conflicts we experienced with friends early in life let alone as the years went on.
Paul, himself, who I will quote below had severe conflict with his partner Barnabas, John Mark as well as with the Apostle Peter. None of us are exempt in a fallen world. Fortunately it seems there was reconciliation in later years. Time has a way of bringing perspective and healing.
While I understand the sinful nature we still deal with as Christ followers, I cannot help but believe that the heart of God is deeply grieved over the divisions within His family - especially the unwillingness of people to seek reconcile their differences (however that is able to be done) and at the least live at peace with one another and at the best understand each other. Our inability to do so is really a rejection of that which Christ did for us in His death on the cross.
The story of God with a rebellious creation is that of reconciliation. The overarching story, of course is that through Jesus we can be reconciled to God - because of His substitutionary death on the cross for us. This reconciliation brings forgiveness of our sin and therefore peace, fellowship and friendship with God which is what our Creator meant for His created in the first place.
This reconciliation, however has further implications. In Jesus, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:28). The many things that have divided us, race, ethnicity, social status, education, political party or gender have all been broken down by the cross where we meet God and one another as equals. In God's family, the distinctions that divided us are erased by the Holy Spirit who has made us part of a new family.
Jesus anticipated this breaking down of barriers when He prayed His high priestly prayer in John 17:23: "May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me."
Likewise, Paul, wrote frequently of the unity of the body because of our adoption into God's family and the work of the Holy Spirit. Consider these words in Ephesians 4:1ff. "As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received. Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit - just as you were called to one hope when you were called - one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all."
Here is my question: If God was willing to send His very son to make reconciliation with us possible why, after receiving that gift, are we not willing to go the smaller distance to seek to reconcile ourselves with others in the family of God?
Is it any wonder that society as a whole is cynical of the work of God when His own people cannot live at peace with one another and fight the same personal and political battles as are fought in Washington between differing political parties? We can be just as nasty, just as vociferous and just as unforgiving and stubborn as the most unregenerate unbeliever. Yet we claim the name of Jesus!
We cannot control what others do or don't do but we can control what we do or don't do. Are we willing to be peacemakers rather than divisive? Are willing to forgive rather than to live in bitterness? Are we willing to overlook the failures of others since love covers a multitude of sins?
I also believe that we need to do a better job of helping our congregations understand the central place that reconciliation is to play in the life of a congregation. The church should look different than the rest of society! We are, after all His people with His Spirit which is a Spirit of unity. This is an issue that needs to be addressed regularly in a world that is so deeply divisive.
Living on this side of eternity conflict is inevitable - even among God's people. It is how we handle that conflict that is the important issue. Reconciliation is all about how we choose to handle conflict and broken relationships when they occur.
What reconciliation does and does not mean:
It does not mean that the conflict was wrong or bad. Without disagreements important issues do not get clarified and addressed. Conflict itself is not bad. In fact it can be exceedingly healthy because it reveals the need to clarify some issue. What it does mean is that we choose to resolve the conflict in a way that is God honoring. As much as it is possible!
It does not mean that we must agree with the other party but it does mean that we can choose to disagree and not hurt one another any longer. Some issues will not be sorted out until eternity when we see fully and where our emotions are no longer in the way.
It does mean that there must be a cease of hostilities, slander, gossip and bad attitudes toward one another. The reputation of Jesus trumps my personal need to be right or vindicated. Carnal behavior in conflict is sin and must be resisted.
It does mean that we try to understand the other party's point of view even if we believe it to be wrong and misguided. The ability to listen, empathize and understand (even if we don't agree) goes a long ways to damper hostilities.
It does not mean that we need to change our minds on an issue if after discussion we remain convinced that we are being true to our beliefs and the facts as we understand them.
It does not mean that we need to be close friends, or even friends. It does mean that we will not be enemies any longer. We can choose to bless one another without trying to be friends or to force relationships that have been broken. Sometimes keeping a distance is smarter than closeness when conflict has been severe and where it is clear that there cannot be a common solution.
It does not mean that we will always be able to sort through the issues. It takes reasonable, humble and teachable people to sort through issues and that is not always possible. Sometimes we must simply choose to put the issue behind us for the higher value of Christian unity. It does mean that if we have sinned in our attitudes during the conflict we ask forgiveness for our part.
It does not mean that we forget the offense. That may or may not be possible. It does mean that we choose to forgive the offense because we are commanded to by Jesus who forgave our offences.
It does not mean that we pretend that the issues did not matter. Often they do and pretending that they did not or that all is now well when this is not true is a disservice to the concept of reconciliation. The hardest kind of reconciliation is when we cannot fix the issue but we choose to live at peace in spite of the issue.
Who do you need to reconcile with?
See these other blogs:
Incarnation and reconciliation
Reconciling irreconcilable differences
Unfinished business
Pastors are guilty, board members are guilty and paritioners are guilty. Sometimes, whole congregations are guilty. All of us at one time or another have been guilty. Think of the conflicts we experienced with friends early in life let alone as the years went on.
Paul, himself, who I will quote below had severe conflict with his partner Barnabas, John Mark as well as with the Apostle Peter. None of us are exempt in a fallen world. Fortunately it seems there was reconciliation in later years. Time has a way of bringing perspective and healing.
While I understand the sinful nature we still deal with as Christ followers, I cannot help but believe that the heart of God is deeply grieved over the divisions within His family - especially the unwillingness of people to seek reconcile their differences (however that is able to be done) and at the least live at peace with one another and at the best understand each other. Our inability to do so is really a rejection of that which Christ did for us in His death on the cross.
The story of God with a rebellious creation is that of reconciliation. The overarching story, of course is that through Jesus we can be reconciled to God - because of His substitutionary death on the cross for us. This reconciliation brings forgiveness of our sin and therefore peace, fellowship and friendship with God which is what our Creator meant for His created in the first place.
This reconciliation, however has further implications. In Jesus, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:28). The many things that have divided us, race, ethnicity, social status, education, political party or gender have all been broken down by the cross where we meet God and one another as equals. In God's family, the distinctions that divided us are erased by the Holy Spirit who has made us part of a new family.
Jesus anticipated this breaking down of barriers when He prayed His high priestly prayer in John 17:23: "May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me."
Likewise, Paul, wrote frequently of the unity of the body because of our adoption into God's family and the work of the Holy Spirit. Consider these words in Ephesians 4:1ff. "As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received. Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit - just as you were called to one hope when you were called - one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all."
Here is my question: If God was willing to send His very son to make reconciliation with us possible why, after receiving that gift, are we not willing to go the smaller distance to seek to reconcile ourselves with others in the family of God?
Is it any wonder that society as a whole is cynical of the work of God when His own people cannot live at peace with one another and fight the same personal and political battles as are fought in Washington between differing political parties? We can be just as nasty, just as vociferous and just as unforgiving and stubborn as the most unregenerate unbeliever. Yet we claim the name of Jesus!
We cannot control what others do or don't do but we can control what we do or don't do. Are we willing to be peacemakers rather than divisive? Are willing to forgive rather than to live in bitterness? Are we willing to overlook the failures of others since love covers a multitude of sins?
I also believe that we need to do a better job of helping our congregations understand the central place that reconciliation is to play in the life of a congregation. The church should look different than the rest of society! We are, after all His people with His Spirit which is a Spirit of unity. This is an issue that needs to be addressed regularly in a world that is so deeply divisive.
Living on this side of eternity conflict is inevitable - even among God's people. It is how we handle that conflict that is the important issue. Reconciliation is all about how we choose to handle conflict and broken relationships when they occur.
What reconciliation does and does not mean:
It does not mean that the conflict was wrong or bad. Without disagreements important issues do not get clarified and addressed. Conflict itself is not bad. In fact it can be exceedingly healthy because it reveals the need to clarify some issue. What it does mean is that we choose to resolve the conflict in a way that is God honoring. As much as it is possible!
It does not mean that we must agree with the other party but it does mean that we can choose to disagree and not hurt one another any longer. Some issues will not be sorted out until eternity when we see fully and where our emotions are no longer in the way.
It does mean that there must be a cease of hostilities, slander, gossip and bad attitudes toward one another. The reputation of Jesus trumps my personal need to be right or vindicated. Carnal behavior in conflict is sin and must be resisted.
It does mean that we try to understand the other party's point of view even if we believe it to be wrong and misguided. The ability to listen, empathize and understand (even if we don't agree) goes a long ways to damper hostilities.
It does not mean that we need to change our minds on an issue if after discussion we remain convinced that we are being true to our beliefs and the facts as we understand them.
It does not mean that we need to be close friends, or even friends. It does mean that we will not be enemies any longer. We can choose to bless one another without trying to be friends or to force relationships that have been broken. Sometimes keeping a distance is smarter than closeness when conflict has been severe and where it is clear that there cannot be a common solution.
It does not mean that we will always be able to sort through the issues. It takes reasonable, humble and teachable people to sort through issues and that is not always possible. Sometimes we must simply choose to put the issue behind us for the higher value of Christian unity. It does mean that if we have sinned in our attitudes during the conflict we ask forgiveness for our part.
It does not mean that we forget the offense. That may or may not be possible. It does mean that we choose to forgive the offense because we are commanded to by Jesus who forgave our offences.
It does not mean that we pretend that the issues did not matter. Often they do and pretending that they did not or that all is now well when this is not true is a disservice to the concept of reconciliation. The hardest kind of reconciliation is when we cannot fix the issue but we choose to live at peace in spite of the issue.
Who do you need to reconcile with?
See these other blogs:
Incarnation and reconciliation
Reconciling irreconcilable differences
Unfinished business
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)