Independent contractors and organizational members

There are two kinds of potential employees and you probably have both in your organization if you are of any size: those who think of themselves as independent contractors and those who choose to be organizational members. The first group is problematic while the second group is healthier.

Independent contractors are those who are part of your ministry but who are far more committed to what they want to do than to contribute to the overall success of the organization. For an independent contractor, your ministry, be it a mission, a church or other ministry is simply a platform for them to do their thing in their way and in light of their priorities. So while they may be employees or staff and receive their paycheck from your organization their loyalty is not to the organization and its mission but to their thing and their mission. They actually hurt your organization rather than help it.

What this means is that they have no desire or intention to align themselves with the organization itself but use the organization for their purposes. It brings with it significant lack of alignment, an independent spirit that does not play well on a team, continual push back when asked to abide by organizational values and commitments and often a passive aggressive attitude that pays lip service to the organization but in reality plays to their own priorities.

Contrast this with staff who understand that they are part of an organization and want to contribute to the mission and ethos of the organization. They play well together, abide by organizational commitments, understand that they are not solo players and deeply desire to contribute to the whole. Thus they play well on the team and exhibit a humble spirit of service and contribution to the whole.

In my experience, independent contractors do not belong in a healthy organization because they will not contribute to the whole. Those who understand that they are part of the whole and want to contribute to the whole are highly valued by an organization. If you are struggling with a staff member who does not seem to be aligned ask yourself if you are dealing with an independent contractor rather than an organizational member. That distinction is often the source of frustration that you are feeling.

One caveat. You cannot ask staff to be part of an organization when there is not clarity as to what the organization is about. Where there is a lack of organizational clarity you will have independent contractors because they have to make up their own clarity. When the organization has clarity, you can build a unified, aligned team of organizational members.

church boards and failure of courage

Church boards are notorious for an inability to make key decisions when they need to and then to stick to their decision when a few loud voices are raised.

The inability of boards to make timely decisions is endemic. Issues are hashed over numerous times, re sawing the sawdust because boards find it hard to make decisions and act. Not only is this a great waste of leadership time, it is in the end a failure of courage - to lead.

Take a staff issue, for instance, where there is a known problem that has lasted for years. The senior pastor knows there is a problem and the board knows there is a problem - but nothing happens.

The board spends endless hours talking, revisiting the issue meeting after meeting but there isn't the courage to make a decision because several board members are afraid of the fallout. The longer they debate, the more damage the staff member does. Finally under pressure, the board acts. But, soon they feel under pressure from a few in the congregation who don't understand or agree with their decision and they start to cave.

If one is going to serve on a church board it is necessary to have the ability to make decisions that will further the mission of the church and fulfill the call of God on the congregation. News-flash: not everyone in the congregation will be happy with that. Comfort, status quo and resistance to change are higher values for some than fulfilling Christ's mission for the church.

Sensitivity and process are important in the execution of key decisions. But he responsibility of leaders is to take the congregation in directions that God would be pleased with and that means making directional decisions that some will not eagerly sign on for.

A lack of courage to make timely decisions and to stick to those decisions in the face of criticism - which will come, sentences the church to mediocrity. If you serve on a church board, don't get caught with a failure of courage. Make timely decisions that are best for the ministry, expect that not everyone will be pleased, and don't cave. Board members who cannot do that need to move over and allow someone who is willing to lead - to lead.

Never waste a crisis

I don't know who said it but I agree with the statement. Crises in organizations, even though not desired can almost always be used in  powerful, positive ways. Think about this:

A crisis can be an opportunity to clarify. Take major conflict in an organization that creates crisis. What has been brought to the surface are underlying issues that not only exist already but which are hurting the organization as well. When they blow up, hard as it is, it forces one to clarify and chart a single course. Will there be fallout? Probably. Will the resulting group have greater unity? Probably.

A crisis can be an opportunity to focus. Take a financial crisis. Usually these are critical times to decide what is mission critical and to jettison what is not. We see financial issues as bad but they can be a great help in clarifying what is important and refocusing on that which is mission critical rather than ancillary.

A crisis can be an opportunity for reconciliation when relational issues are the cause of the conflagration. God is honored when His people cease hostilities and make whatever accommodation they can to get along, forgive or bless one another. 

A crisis can be an opportunity to clarify values and non-negotiables. This is especially true where a fundamental value has been violated. While never wanted, there are no more powerful times to reinforce what is truly non-negotiable than when a key value is violated.

A crisis can be an opportunity to model truth. Too often leaders, Christian or not, spin issues to try to look better which only creates cynicism among staff. After all, if leaders are not truthful, why should they be - and they know. Truth, no matter how painful always wins over spin.

A crisis can be an opportunity to recommit ourselves to dependence on God rather than ourselves. Humble dependence and an acknowledgement of our need is in short supply today but is highly regarded by our Father. Every crisis is a reminder of our need for Him, His wisdom and His help.

When crises come as inevitably they will every good leader knows two things. One: the crisis must be handled. Two: the crisis creates an opportunity. We always know the first truth. Often we miss the second opportunity.

Why should anyone follow you?

That is a fascinating question if you are a leader. Do you deserve to lead others? Are you functioning as a healthy, effective leader whose priority is the team you lead or are you really more interested in your things and priorities? The truth is that there are many leaders who frankly don't deserve to lead others and don't have the best interests of others at heart.

What are the characteristics of leaders who deserve to lead? First, they are committed to leading through their team. It is not about them but about what they and the team can accomplish together. Their team is not an afterthought or distraction but a major commitment and priority. They have made the transition from being an individual producer to leading through team.

Second, they have clarified the boundaries for the team: They are crystal clear on the mission they are are committed to, the guiding principles by which they work, their central ministry focus - the thing they need to do all the time and the desired outcomes of their work. Without definition in those four areas, we do not deserve to lead because those who work for us deserve to know the boundaries.

Third, they are leaders who empower rather than control others. Controlling leaders are selfish leaders and insecure leaders. Their lack of confidence keeps them from allowing good people to figure out how to accomplish their work in line with the clarity defined above. Neither Jesus nor Paul were selfish or controlling leaders - they defined the boundaries and empowered.

Fourth, they are leaders who mentor and coach their reports, helping them become all that they can be. This is not a monthly quick check in but it is an attitude and practice of understanding the wiring and strengths of their reports and helping them become all that God made them to be. That takes time. It is an unselfish use of our time and energy. Supervisors who will not mentor and coach in ministry do not deserve to lead others.

Fifth, they model what they teach and require of others. They are people of integrity, accountability, focus on results and keep their commitments. Leaders who do not model those four characteristics do not deserve to lead others.

It is an interesting question that each of us who leads ought to ask. Why should anyone be led by us? Don't take the question for granted. If you do you should not be leading. And trust me, our team members have an opinion on it.

Living in Grace

Real transformation does not allow for compartmentalization of our lives where we choose whether or not we will allow God to infuse that compartment or keep it for ourselves. Studies that show that the lifestyle and priorities of those who label themselves as evangelicals are almost no different than those who don’t claim to be Christ followers would indicate that there is a great deal of compartmentalization taking place.

This is a pseudo transformation where Justification (my sins have been forgiven) has not been followed by serious sanctification (my life has been and is being changed). While salvation may well have occurred, the process of my becoming all that God created me to be is circumvented when we compartmentalize those areas where we allow God access to our lives.

Real transformation starts with our hearts. This may seem obvious since it is clear that giving our heart to Christ is the key to an eternal relationship with Him. As Jesus Himself put it, “For 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. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only son” (John 3:16-18).

This new life in Christ comes to us not because of something we have done but on the basis of God’s grace, freely extended to us. “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith – and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God – not by works, so that no one can boast” (Ephesians 2:8-9).

It is God who transforms our heart in response to our faith. It is all about His grace in our lives. Not only do we enter His kingdom by grace but we live out our daily lives in His grace and it is the living in grace that is perhaps our most difficult challenge.

Grace is unmerited favor. None of us merit the favor of God “but God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8). When we were still in rebellion He moved toward us, became one of us in the incarnation and died for our sin!

So if God has transformed our hearts through His grace, bringing us into His family, forgiving our sin, giving us an eternal destiny, why do we speak further of the need for transformation of our hearts? I believe the challenge is not in accepting that His grace has forgiven our sin and reconciled us to Him. The challenge is in understanding how His grace impacts my daily life with Him.

Many of us struggle with a deep feeling of unworthiness in our relationship with God and frankly many of us spend our lives trying to make ourselves worthy to Him even after we have accepted His gift of salvation. In our struggle with sin we find ourselves doubting our worthiness. That often leads us to work harder to please Him, thinking that the more we do for Him the more we are worthy of Him.

But here is the catch: There is nothing we can do to cause God to love us more and there is nothing we can do to cause God to love us less. We live and exist in His pure, unrelenting, and infinite grace. That means we can relax in our relationship with Him. We are worthy of Him because He has made us worthy. We are called his friends and his brothers because He has made us family. When we come to understand His grace we can stop striving for His love and acceptance because through His grace we live in his love and acceptance all the time.

The Christian world is full of Christ followers who are still trying to earn God’s love instead of simply living in His wonderful grace. If we know that we don’t need to earn His love (it is not possible), we are then able to serve Him with grateful, thankful, hearts, without fear, knowing that we exist in His grace every moment and that our failures are all covered by that grace. The more we understand grace, the more we relax in our relationship with Jesus and the more confidence we have in our personal walk with Him.

Transformation of the heart is therefore crucial. First for salvation and entrance into His family and second, for living every day with confidence, not in ourselves, but in His limitless grace that encompasses all that we are. We will never be the us He created us to be until we understand what it means to live daily in His grace. Transformation starts in our hearts and continues in our hearts as we seek to understand the full implications of the grace we have entered into.

Discerning the voice behind the voices

Consider a common scenario. You are a ministry leader and you are receiving significant push back from one or more individuals either personally or you are hearing common themes being discussed with others which find their way back to you secondhand (the passive aggressive way to deal with conflict).

As a rule there are two things I want to know. First, who is pushing back and second, who is the voice behind the voices when there are common themes being raised.

When there are rumblings in your ministry and people tell you that there are discontented folks the first question is "who are they?" In fact, I will generally not have a conversation with people who tell me there is discontent in the ranks unless they will tell me who is involved. 

Why? Because there are people who I know that are continually discontented with where we are going, who have attitudes that are critical and cynical and who I know are not really on the team. The fact that they are sources of discontent neither surprises me nor am I going to spend time and energy trying to change their attitudes. On the other hand if the source of discontent is a healthy staff member I am going to press into that to see what can be done to resolve the issue.

There is another scenario that is all too common: you start to hear common themes in a common language which tells one that there is a voice behind the voices who is spreading discontent. The best passive aggressive people are smart. They will not tell you upfront what their issues are but they will tell others who are prone to becoming enmeshed with them emotionally and who will take on their crusade. They are like arsonists who light fires with others behind the scenes but when you show up they are never there to take responsibility. Rather, they use others to carry their water while they remain hidden in the shadows.

Here is what you want to understand in this situation. Those who are loud voices may not be the ones who are instigating the critical spirits. Common language, common complaints, and common attitudes usually indicate that there is a common source. Thus to deal with the situation you must find the common source. 

Here is where Christians are often naive. We believe that God's people will act with integrity when in fact they often don't. Jesus told us to be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. Often when asked by church leaders about scenarios like this I will do some probing and it is not difficult to figure out who the common source is. Once that is determined it is possible to develop a strategy to deal with him or her.

Remember: common language, common complaints and common attitudes usually indicate that there is a common source. Figure out who the voice is behind the voices and you have a shot at dealing with the snake in the grass.

What I didn't learn in seminary and why it matters

I very much enjoyed seminary. I went to one of the best and soaked up great theology and learned how to properly 'divide the word of God,' all of which I am deeply thankful for. But the transition from seminary to ministry was a rude one. There were some important lessons that were not taught in seminary that were bottom line reality in the 'real world of ministry.' My observation is that seminaries are still not 'getting it' in addressing these issues.


In seminary 80% of my time was spent exegeting Greek, Hebrew and theology. In ministry, 80% of my time was spent in exegeting people and negotiating relationships.

Aside from understanding God's word, the ability to understand, get along with, work with and lead people is the number one skill needed in ministry. Ministry is about people, before it is about the fine nuances of Greek word tense or Hebrew root words (and I love Hebrew). I wish that those who train God's workers would spend more time helping them exegete and understand people.


Seminary did not tell me leadership was important, or place any emphasis on the leadership component of ministry.

As I work with churches, and church leaders, by far the number one challenge they face is that of how to lead boards, staff and congregations as churches grow. Seminaries today are still teaching a classical ministry model that assumes its pastors are serving the small church where leadership 'takes care of itself.' They are not teaching pastors how to develop vision, strategy and work with their leaders to establish a compelling vision for the future.


Seminary did not teach me how to lead a staff.

Instead, the important issue was knowing how to understand theology and preach. I get that. But as churches grow, pastors are increasingly leaders of others, whether of full time staff or volunteers. Because this is not seen as a value in our training, many pastors view the leadership of staff either as a distraction, or they simply lack the necessary skills.


Seminary did not teach me how to work with church leaders.

Too many pastors come out of seminary thinking they are God's gift to the church and they are the 'experts.' There is a rude awakening that they need to work with elected leaders in the church who have their own ideas as to what church is and how it should be run. Successful pastors are able to appreciate shared leadership and work with elected leaders to develop healthy ministry. Because there is so little emphasis on this in their training, it often takes many years for pastors to figure this out.


Seminary did not train me in healthy governance

The local church suffers from five common dysfunctions: bureaucracy, control, mistrust, professional ministry and ambiguity over direction. All of these are leadership and governance issues. They deeply hinder effective ministry. Yet, these are not topics of concern in most seminaries. All the knowledge of theology will not overcome these kinds of challenges in the local church.


Seminary did not teach me how to deal with conflict

And there is plenty of conflict, or potential conflict in the church. The ability to negotiate through that conflict and seek to find win/win solutions is absolutely critical to healthy ministry. Instead, many pastors find themselves 'demonizing' those who disagree with them when some training in conflict resolution would help avoid those bad habits and help foster a healthy environment.


Seminary did not teach me how to develop a team of specialists as the church grows

Seminaries are good at teaching pastors how to be generalists but as churches grow they increasingly need specialists with a leader at the head. This means that those leaders must have the ability to hire specialists, keep them focused and build a healthy team. Generalists work in small churches, specialists are needed as the church grows.


Seminary did not teach me to "develop, empower and release" people into meaningful ministry

Seminary taught me how to do ministry. Yet the function of church leaders is that of 'raising up, equipping and releasing' others into meaningful ministry in accordance with their gifts (Ephesians 4:12).

Thus we perpetuate the notion that the professionals do the real ministry while the 'lay people,' (I really, really dislike that term) do the lesser ministry. Because we do not release the majority of our people into effective ministry, the church has only a fraction of the influence it could have in its community.

Seminary did not model the kind of humble, servant leaders that are needed in the church today

In my experience, there was a great deal of hubris: theological, spiritual and personal among many of my most proficient professors. They vied for position, engaged in power struggles, put down others who didn't fit their paradigms and engaged in politics that would make Washington today look tame. Yet, these were people who were training those who are to lead like Jesus, cooperate on healthy teams, lead from a posture of service and humility. I found there to be a huge disconnect between the posture of some (fortunately not all) of my professors and the content of what they taught.

If typical seminary politics were to be the norm in the church (and it often is) the church is in deep trouble. Poor modeling among those who teach pastors can be held responsible for much dysfunction in church governance, especially among pastors.  They learned from the best in many instances.

Do I have a prescription for what seminary didn't teach me? I have three suggestions. One, that seminaries pay more attention to what ministry looks like in the real world. Two, that we move seminary education out of the cloister of the residential model and through distance or cohort learning provide theological education in the context of full time ministry where theology and real life ministry can intersect throughout the process. Third, that those who teach the next generation of pastors model the humility of Jesus rather than the arrogance of knowledge.

I personally believe that the schools that will survive and thrive in the future are ones that will modify their age old practices to train practitioners who are working and ministering in the real world. The disconnect between what happens in a full time seminary setting and the actual world of ministry is immense and growing. Unless schools are willing to bridge that divide they will increasingly become irrelevant to the local church which can and will and does train many of its own staff today.

What I do know is that the current model will not do the job in today's world.