"You are a bad witness." It is a lie of the Devil.

It is a lie of the evil one that keeps many believers from freely sharing their faith. We believe that we are bad witnesses because  our lives are messy and we have a a history of issues. And, we know the issues we struggle with and are confident that we are not qualified to share our faith with others.

Here is the irony: imperfect people are what we all are and it is because of our struggles, issues, messes, that we can share our faith and be successful in doing so because others can identify with us (we are like them with common struggles), we can identify with them and we can attest to how God meets us in our sin and imperfection with His grace and love - no matter what! That, is the heart of our Good News. 

Every struggle we have had, every issue we struggle with, helps us identify with others. Every time God forgives, gives us hope and redeems our lives for His purposes, we have stories to share that others can identify with. Satan would have us believe that our issues disqualify us from sharing our faith. Jesus would tell us that His grace in the midst of our struggles is precisely what gives us credibility to share our faith.

What the world does not understand are people who pretend to have it all together. They cannot relate to that. Further, it is not true. We are all broken, deeply flawed human beings with common struggles and issues. Broken pots that God has redeemed and is in the process of reimaging. The very things that we think disqualify us from sharing our faith are the things that give us credibility in sharing our faith.

Rethinking the meaning of congregationalism

Many reading this blog are part of churches that are congregational. The essence of congregationalism is this: All members of the church are filled with the Holy Spirit and all make up the body of Christ, so within the local fellowship, the congregation is the final authority under Christ. This means that no ecclesiastical hierarchy can tell the church what it must do, and that a congregation has the ability, if necessary, to override decisions of its leaders. It is rooted in a theological understand of the independence of the local church and the priesthood of all believers.

It is important to understand what congregationalism does not mean, because this biblical concept can morph into some unbiblical forms.

First, congregationalism does not mean that all members of the congregation have an equal voice in all decisions.

If this were true, the job of leaders would simply be to poll a congregation on any issue and take the church in that direction. The New Testament, however, places a high premium on strong leadership from spiritually motivated individuals who are vested with responsibility and authority. In fact, the New Testament has a higher view of leadership than many congregations, which ought to give us pause.

The New Testament model is that we are to choose godly leaders who have the gifts, skills and character to lead the church on behalf of Jesus in directions that are consistent with God's mission for the church. While the congregation has a role in choosing or affirming those leaders, they are chosen to lead, trusted to lead and given the authority to lead. Those who insist that all members of a congregation have an equal voice may be reflecting a popular belief as to how government should run on the national or local level, but they are not reflecting the biblical model for local church government.

Second, congregationalism does not mean that all members have a voice in all matters that leaders must decide.

Those who have the hardest time with this concept are those who remember when the church was a family (under 150 people), when most decisions were naturally made by some kind of consensus. In smaller congregations, naturally, more issues are discussed by the congregation because the church is a family system no matter what its polity. As a church grows, it changes, and the larger the church, the fewer issues actually come to the congregation.

As a church grows and leaders take more responsibility for decision-making, you often hear the complaint, "We are not congregational any longer." While we need to understand and be sensitive to the genesis of that comment, it is not necessarily a true statement.

Leaders can bring many or few issues to the congregation for decision-making and still be congregational. Congregationalism looks different in different size churches. Leadership pain comes when churches don't realize this and continue to bring numerous issues to the congregation as it grows, creating the biggest tollbooth of all: the need to have sign-off at congregational meetings for all decisions. It simply no longer works.

Ultimately, if a congregation has a say in the choosing of its leaders, in the calling of the senior pastor, must approve changes to bylaws, approves the annual budget and approves the purchase or sale of property, it is congregational, since it has the ability to override its leaders (if necessary) by changing its leader(s) or withholding permission on budgets.

Our church governance systems do matter!

My experience in working with churches is that the vast majority of our governance models are controlling rather than empowering, permission-withholding rather than permission granting and deeply frustrating to leaders. As such, they prevent the church from being nearly as effective as it could and should be. In other words, our structure often compromises our missional effectiveness.

Structures do matter, because they either serve our mission or hinder our mission.

In a recent consultation, an executive pastor of a church of 500 told me a funny story. He needed to deal with some changes to a nursery ministry. When he asked around to find out who the nursery folks were accountable to, nobody really knew. He went to the elders (directional leadership) to explain the changes that he wanted to make, and then to the finance committee for funding, and finally to the 'general board' to explain again before he could accomplish the relatively minor changes he set out to accomplish.

Now if we really believe that the mission of the church is more important than the structure of the church, and that structures ought to serve mission, these kinds of tollbooths would be unacceptable. In such cases, the mission of the church has become subservient to the structure.

For some inexplicable reason (to me), church bylaws (and therefore our governance system) are often considered more sacred than Scripture! If you doubt that, think of some of the objections you face when you try to change them. Yet, many people do not realize that church governance is often driven by a combination of theological and sociological forces.

Consider the New Testament, for instance. Little is said about church leadership structures in the New Testament, apart from clear instructions for the senior leaders of a congregation called overseers or elders. While their responsibilities are clear, the structure of how they do governance is not.

In fact, the story of the early church is clearly a story of flexibility of structure as the needs of the church changed. Deacons, for instance, were added early on to deal with issues that the elders no longer had time to handle. As the church grew, senior leaders started to delegate major ministry issues to others. Today, many congregations have multiple committees or boards that are never mentioned in the New Testament.

My point is that there is nothing sacred per se about the structures that most churches have in place for leadership. Governance structures, apart from what is clearly spelled out in the New Testament as prescriptive, are simply tools that should be designed to empower people and facilitate ministry. Unfortunately many of our structures disempower and frustrate ministry.

Conflict: Walk toward the barking dog

Dealing with conflict is not something most of us enjoy. However, it is an inevitable part of leadership. How we manage ourselves and the conflict itself will in large part determine its outcome.

I have a personal saying: 'walk toward the barking dog.' That is, where there is conflict, don’t avoid it or pretend it is not there. Avoidance is not resolution. Rather it often simply prolongs the pain. Walking toward the conflict to acknowledge it, confront it and manage it is a sign of a healthy leader.

Before we talk about managing the conflict, however, we need to think about how we manage ourselves when conflict occurs. The first skill (and it is a skill) is to keep our own anxiety low. Conflict raises the adrenalin level causing us personal anxiety which if not properly managed will keep us from responding in a measured fashion. When I feel the temperature of my own anxiety rising I will literally remind myself, “keep anxiety low.” Letting it rise does not help me in any way and the truth is that I will be much better at confronting the issue if I can keep my personal anxiety level low.

A second self-management tool is that of not questioning the motives of the one who is causing the conflict. People can cause a lot of pain and relational chaos without having poor motives. Motivation goes to the heart and we cannot judge another’s heart. We can however, make judgments about behavior.

If I assume that motivations are evil, it will be very difficult for me to deal with the one causing the conflict in a productive way. I have learned over the years that even those who have caused me the worst pain usually did not have bad motives. Bad behavior yes but bad motives, usually not. Assuming that motives are not evil allows us the freedom to try to get to a mutually workable solution rather than demonizing the person.

I also assume that in most cases, conflict can be resolved in a reasonable manner while knowing that there are times when it cannot be. If we walk into the process assuming that resolution is possible the likely hood of success of greater than if we do not. At the same time, realism tells us that sometimes resolution will not be possible because it takes the goodwill of two parties to bring healthy resolution.

Self management in conflict allows us to better manage the conflict itself. Remember, where there is conflict, someone is usually upset. Our ability to minimize our own anxiety will help to lower the temperature in most cases. The higher the anxiety level on both sides, the more likely the conflict will escalate.

Walking toward the barking dog of conflict starts with acknowledging that the conflict is there. That seems obvious but many people actually try to ignore it and hope it will go away. It won’t. Some people use passive aggressive behavior to undermine others or get their way. Being up front and acknowledging the issue will often surprise people since they are not used to being confronted with behavior or issues in a direct manner.

Having acknowledged that conflict is present we can then seek to clarify what the real issues are. Remember that ‘presenting’ issues in conflict are often not the ‘real issues.’ This is often true in church conflict where ‘presenting issues’ may be philosophy of ministry or strategy but the real issues revolve around power.

Asking clarifying questions in a dialogue fashion will often get to the core issue. That may not solve the problem but at least you have a better idea of what the issue is. When I was elected to my present position of leader of ReachGlobal, there was one particular vocal individual who had numerous issues with my ministry philosophy which he freely shared with others in a not so helpful manner. The core issue was not philosophy; it was that he did not think I was qualified to lead the mission organization. Through dialogue and asking questions and listening the core issue became evident.

Having entered into dialogue it is also key for one to be honest and self-defining about what we believe to be true. People are often not used to honesty in conflict, they are used to a clash of emotions. In the situation above, after dialogue and conversation, I simply asked the question, “Can you continue to serve this organization with a happy heart and clear conscience?” The frank question surprised him and put him on notice that I was not going to ignore the issue.

Because unproductive behavior often accompanies conflict, it is often the case that a leader must point out behavior that is unacceptable even though they have not questioned motives. In the case above, I was OK with a colleague who did not want me as his leader but I was not OK with behavior that was designed to undermine my leadership. Thus I made it clear that certain behaviors were unacceptable in our organization regardless of one’s preferences. Often people who cause conflict do not understand how their behaviors affect other people so honest, frank feedback after good dialogue can be a learning experience for them.

Finally, do not let the issue go until it is resolved. Often times it is critical to agree to how future issues will be resolved so that there can be honest discussion without the unhealthy conflict that has occurred. If there cannot be resolution between parties, (usually there can be) they may be in the wrong organization or on the wrong team. Unresolved conflict just simmers it does not go away. So agree to follow up steps that will help you get to a point of agreement and resolution.

Remember, walk toward the barking dog – don’t run toward it and don’t run away from it but take as measured an approach as you can to resolve the conflict you are a part of or that you need to help resolve.

Nine characteristics of healthy leaders

Healthy leadership is a huge issue for any of us who are part of a staff or team. The reality is that the health of the team largely depends on the health of its leader. Healthy leaders produce healthy teams and unhealthy leaders produce unhealthy teams.

I refuse to work long term for an unhealthy leader because life is too short and because unhealthy leaders do not create healthy work environments or release the potential and creativity of their team members. Unhealthy leaders hurt people and ministry. Healthy leaders release and motivate people in the pursuit of missional effectiveness.

Healthy leaders have certain characteristics that create a healthy team and contribute to missional effectiveness.

Healthy leaders are comfortable with themselves

Healthy leaders have nothing to prove and nothing to lose. They are comfortable with themselves, understand how God made them and therefore are not threatened by others or by opinions or convictions that are different than theirs.

When others engage in robust dialogue they do not become defensive or irritated. In fact, because they are comfortable with who they are, they encourage candid and transparent conversation in order to find the best ways to accomplish the mission.

Healthy leaders do not "own" the ministry they lead

Healthy leaders understand that the ministry they lead is not "theirs." They are stewards who serve the staff and the constituents in pursuit of the mission of the organization.

Because it is not "theirs" and because they are stewards, they are not compelled to "get their way," but to work through a team to accomplish the mission.

Healthy leaders are missional

They are committed to and driven by a clear, compelling and meaningful mission and everything that the staff does is designed to best accomplish the mission. Missional leaders are not driven to look good, climb a ministry ladder, or advance themselves. Rather they are committed to a clear, compelling and meaningful mission. It is about the mission and not about them.

Healthy leaders develop, empower and release others

Because they are stewards and because it is about the mission, healthy leaders find and deploy the best possible staff, clarify the responsibilities of those staff and then empower their staff to get the job done. They do not micromanage or need staff to do what they do as they might do it. They love to bring out the best in others, give them appropriate freedom with accountability and give them the credit for success.

Healthy leaders listen far more than they talk

Healthy leaders ask others their opinion, ask a lot of questions and foster open dialogue to come to common conclusions and strategies that have the buy in of the group. Staff meetings that are about staff listening to a leader rather than the leader engaging and listening to the staff indicate a lack of leadership health.

Healthy leaders mentor and coach their staff

They meet with their staff at least monthly, one on one, and engage staff in their ministry plan, probe areas where they need to remove barriers for staff, listen for areas where staff is facing roadblocks or problems in order to help them overcome them. They do not declare to staff what they should do (if they need to do that they have the wrong staff) but act as a mentor/coach to help them be as effective as possible.

Healthy leaders always thank and encourage their staff

Leaders who do not thank those who they lead are selfish leaders. They are thinking about themselves more than they are thinking about others. Healthy leaders know that it is the staff who carry out the bulk of the ministry and therefore they give the team credit for success and are always thanking and encouraging staff.

Healthy leaders are forthright, candid and transparent

Secrecy breeds mistrust while candidness breeds trust. Staff want and need to know what their leader is thinking, what is coming in the future, and what the board is up to (if there is a board).

Because information is power unhealthy leaders often "guard" their information rather than share what they can freely. The more information staff has the more trust there will be.

Healthy leaders are consistent, fair and keep their promises

Staff respects leaders who can be counted to be consistent, who are fair with all reports and who keep their word.

If you are a leader, think through these characteristics as well as those in the following two blogs. Where are you doing well and where do you need to "up your game." If you are staff, at least you get a picture of the relative health or unhealth of your leader.

All of T.J. Addington's books including his latest, Deep Influence,  are available from the author for the lowest prices and a $2.00 per book discount on orders of ten or more.

Missions and Europe. Should we be sending missionaries to a place that has been evangelized in the past

From time to time I am asked why we send missionaries to Europe when it has had a chance to hear the gospel and there are still populations that have not. It is a good question but like so many questions it is not an either/or but a both/and. Let's think through some of the issues involved.

First, in the great commission, Jesus made it clear that we are to go and make disciples of all nations. In Acts 1:8, he said, you will be my disciples in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and to the uttermost parts of the earth. The implication is that we are to go wherever the gospel is scarce. Today, that also includes populations that have had the gospel in the past but do not today.

Second, what does it mean that we should go only where the gospel has never been preached? Some of the earliest places to receive the gospel were North Africa, and Turkey. Does that mean we don't go back today when Christianity is almost non-existent? Today, these would be considered part of the critical 10-40 window. Yet one cannot say they have not had the gospel in the past. Both were leading centers of Christianity in the early church. For that matter, Constantine's whole empire had the gospel at one time. Yet there is a tremendous amount of difficult mission work going on in these places today because today they are unreached populations.

Let's apply that same logic to Europe. We in the west are the recipients of the Reformation in Europe, as are all the nations to whom the west has sent missionaries. But remember that much of Europe was not evangelized by the Reformation for within a hundred or so years of the Reformation, European regions were either almost fully Catholic or fully Protestant. Much of Europe was not a recipient of the Reformation message or if they were, not for long. This was certainly true of places like Poland and Spain (where the current evangelical population is below 1%). The Reformation brought with it a counter Reformation of the Catholic church along with conflict, wars and finally, divisions where only Protestantism or Catholicism became legal.

Of course, even in places where the Reformation did have enormous impact (England, The Low Countries, Scandinavia and Germany) there is very little left of its influence apart from beautiful churches which are mostly empty on Sundays. Just as the Mongol hoards brought Islam to North Africa and Central Asia, so secularism has brought spiritual deadness to much of Europe. Both were equally deadly to the gospel.

Finally, we need to think about how the world has changed and who actually resides in the great cities of Europe. Go to any major city on the Continent and you find people from everywhere in the world - including great numbers of those we would call unreached today from places like Iran, Iraq, North Africa, and nearly every country on the globe. 

If one goes to Germany, for instance, they will find a resurgence of evangelicals among the Iranians there. The point is that if you want to reach unreached people, the cities of Europe are prime opportunities, not only for Europeans but for immigrants who are coming legally or illegally from all over the world. 

One of the significant churches in Stockholm (as secular a city as one will find) is New Life Church where on any given Sunday you will find about 800 Christ followers, half Swedish and half from the rest of the world (services look like the United Nations). They want to plant some 20 similar churches in Stockholm. 

All of the immigrants of Europe have ties back home including family so introducing them to the gospel has a huge ripple impact around the world. By definition, if you want to reach unreached populations, the cities of Europe are central to that mission.

So my answer to the original question is that we must send missionaries wherever the gospel is scarce. That includes those who have never heard, those who heard a long time ago and those countries that heard in the past 500 years but where the gospel message has again become scarce. That, by the way is why we plant churches aggressively in the Untied States as well even though the gospel has been known in this country since the first immigrants from Europe appeared in modern times.

It is not an either/or but a both/and.

A true test of organizational health

Organizations can look great on the outside and be significantly sick on the inside. They, like people can put on a great face to their constituents, be it a local church or other ministry while living with significant dysfunction within.

Here is something to ask yourself. Would I want those who love my ministry to sit on my board or in my staff meetings? Would they like what they see? Would they be impressed with the relationships they observed? Would they be as impressed after a season on the inside as they are now?

The truth is that in many cases, the closer one gets to the heart of a ministry the more disillusioning it becomes. Boards that don't pray, members who bicker, turf that is guarded, lack of transparency, attitudes that are unbecoming, leaders who don't empower, conflict that is unresolved, and I could go on. Yet the true health of a ministry is not how it looks on the outside, and not even if good things are happening because of it but what it looks like on the inside where the unvarnished truth is seen.

If you would not want your best donor to see the real you as an organization you might want to consider what it would take to get to true organizational health. There are no perfect organizations but there are healthy and unhealthy and the closer you get to the leadership core the more real that definition becomes.