Great article on the costs of constant ministry innovation

There are leaders who love to innovate and do it all the time. Often they are simply imitating others. This is a great article on the subject. If you are addicted to innovation it will give you pause.

Link: 3 Costs to constant ministry innovation

Thanks to the Vision Room for the article

Who is best qualified to be an elder or church leader?

I am in a friendly dialogue with a large church regarding the qualifications of those who would serve on the elder board (the leadership board) of the church.

They have traditionally taken the posture that anyone who meets the Biblical qualifications of an elder is eligible to serve on the leadership board. These are the character qualifications spelled out in the New Testament. When I suggested that there are some other issues that need to be considered, the suggestion was made that these are "extra biblical" qualifications. I do not agree with that assessment.

While the Scriptures are clear on the character and spiritual qualifications of church leaders there are in fact other implicit or explicit issues that are laid out in the New Testament. For instance there are six responsibilities that leaders are given in the Scriptures. They are to keep the spiritual temperature of the congregation high, ensure that the congregation is taught well, that they are cared for, protected from the wolves of division, heresy and serious ongoing sin, that people are released into meaningful ministry and led well.

There are many Godly people who by character and spiritual health are qualified to serve as elders but who are not necessarily be qualified to carry out these responsibilities. For instance, there are many conflict avoidant individuals who do not like to confront problematic behaviors. There are people who do not have a leadership bone in their body but simply love others. There are many who cannot think systems which is how you carry out some of these responsibilities in a larger church. There are others who can only drill down to tactics but who cannot think big picture.

My point is that character and spiritual qualifications are fundamental but that there are other characteristics of good leaders that must be taken into account. The very reason that the vast majority of churches in the United States are plateaued or in decline goes to the heart of this issue of leadership. Leadership requires a skill set and not all Godly individuals have the skill set.

If the above are the six key responsibilities of church leaders, what is the personal profile of a good church leader? If we look at the New Testament for its explicit and implicit statements on the matter we see 13 non-negotiable characteristics of an effective church leader.

1. They exhibit a Godly character and lifestyle
2. They have a deep passion for Jesus
3. They exhibit personal humility
4. They love people
5. They are life long learners
6. They agree with God's leadership assignment for church leaders
7. They are able and willing to grapple with the future
8. They are team focused
9. They are a willing leader
10. They have a positive influence on others
11. They are purveyors of hope
12. They have an action bias
13. They have good emotional intelligence

We are frankly naive to believe that just because someone is Godly means they can lead well. It simply is not true. I encounter many church leaders who are Godly but who cannot lead effectively and it hurts the church. Just look at the state of many churches today and you realize that unless you guard the gate of church leadership you pay a high price! The larger the church the more complex leadership becomes and the more expertise that is required to lead well.

The most powerful group in any church are those who choose who will be in leadership because the quality, skill, wisdom and discernment of leaders will either contribute to church health or to dysfunctional and unhealthy ministry. As one who consults with many churches I see the latter all to often and the former all to seldom. Be smart in leadership selection! You get what you choose. 

The following blog links may also to helpful to you:

Eight kinds of people who should not serve on a church board

Choosing the right leaders in your church: You get what you choose

Rethinking leadership selection for the church

Choosing and preparing new board members

Toxic team and board members

Did you train the individual you put into a supervisory role?

One of the most common errors in staffing is to put someone into a supervisory role without training them what it means to supervise. Yet it happens all the time in both the ministry and the for profit world. Consider the skills necessary to lead a team:

• Ability to run a productive meeting
• The skill to empower staff and hold them accountable
• The ability to not micromanage
• Understanding how to position people for their greatest effectiveness
• Moving from an independent producer to leading through team
• Providing clarity to the team as to what they are about and how to get there
• Good emotional intelligence that allows for robust dialogue and the clash of ideas
• The ability to resolve conflict
• Understanding how to develop people

I could go on. What should be obvious is that we should never assume that an individual who has not supervised before knows the necessary skills. Even bright people need training in order to supervise well. Just because someone has been successful in their position does not mean they will supervise others well without some intensive and intentional training.

And if we don't provide that training? You doom those being supervised to frustration! You disempower a whole team when you do not provide them with good leadership.

Ten things every church board should pay attention to for the congregation they lead

1. That Jesus is the center of all that we do
2. That we live in spiritual and relational health
3. That we are seeing life change on a regular basis
4. That people are coming to Jesus regularly
5. That leaders are leading intentionally
6. That members of the congregation are being developed and released into ministry in line with their wiring and gifting
7. That we have a balance of ministries focused on the body and ministries focused outside our church body
8. That we are clear on who we are and where we are going
9. That our church "culture" is supportive of our church "mission"
10. That we evaluate the above nine regularly

Pastors who see leadership as an anti value

From time to time I come across senior pastors who either don't like to lead and so they choose not to or, who believe that leadership apart from preaching is not necessary and largely ignore it. In either case, this is a problematic posture and one that hurts the church.

For context, the issue of leadership in the church has not always even been a value in the seminary context. A whole generation of pastors was taught that all you really needed to do was to preach the word and everything else would take care of itself. My own father pretty much believed this and I remember our conversations on the necessity of a pastor leading in his church of 1,000 plus. I have watched over the years as some good preachers built significantly sized churches due to their preaching and then lost those churches when they did not provide the requisite leadership.

The larger the church the more important the quality of its leadership because large congregations need missional glue - a common and relevant ministry direction - to remain healthy. When that is absent, the church loses its way, staff wonder what they are to do and people become restless.

The metaphore of a shepherd for a pastor is instructive. Shepherds feed their flock, protect their flock, care for their flock and lead their flock. If a shepherd is not leading his/her flock to the next place of healthy grazing the flock dies. Shepherds are in fact leaders of their sheep. The sheep don't simply wander around themselves to find good grass and left to their own devises they often get lost.

I understand pastors who are not wired naturally to lead. Unfortunately those same pastors often don't want anyone else to lead for them. If one is not going to lead, then someone must be empowered to lead for them. It is not an option to say, "I don't like to lead." Left without leadership long enough, the congregation will flounder and prescient individuals will find another church because they understand the necessity of missional leadership and direction and are unwilling to settle for less.

A more difficult situation arises when a pastor has an anti leadership bias: They don't think leadership is that important, do not do it themselves and resist giving away any authority to someone who could. This leaves the congregation in a bind. Not only will their leader not lead but resists allowing someone else to lead. Their pastor simply wants to preach the text assuming that this is all that matters. Well and good for them but not for others!

When this occurs the first place that dysfunction shows up is usually in the staff who need a leader in order to function as a healthy team. Eventually staff become frustrated: some leave, some try to fill in the leadership void and all live in ministry silos because there is not a leader to integrate a common philosophy, direction or ensure cooperation. It is a no win situation for staff.

Eventually the issue will get to the  board level and the board must figure out how to deal with the lack of leadership. It is now their leadership wisdom that is necessary to find a solution that does not hurt the church but rather strengthens it. When boards are not able or willing to deal with the leadership dysfunction the issues eventually spill over into the congregation and become more serious to the church. 

If a pastor has an anti leadership value, boards must initiate a conversation to find a way for the church to be led by someone. If the senior leader is unwilling to provide that leadership in a satisfactory way, they must be willing to allow another the authority and empowerment to lead and themselves stay out of the way. No organization will remain healthy in the absence of leadership. 

(Posted from Oakdale, MN)

Antiquated church governance systems that hurt the mission of the church

A fundamental concept for any governance system (how you do leadership) is that the system should serve the mission. Unfortunately, there are still many churches that are living with antiquated and ineffective governance systems that actually hurt the congregation's ability to do what Jesus called them to do. In these cases, the mission ends up serving the governance system - the opposite of what ought to be the case.

Poor governance systems tend to be "permission withholding" structures rather than "permission granting" structures. 

In permission withholding structures:

• Decisions must be made more than once
• Permission and agreement must be negotiated with multiple groups
• Timely decisions are tough
• There is confusion of authority and responsibility
• Church bylaws are confusing and bureaucratic
• It is hard to make decisions and implement them
• The mission of the church is compromised

In permission granting structures:

• Decisions are made once
• There is no need to negotiate permission with multiple groups
• There are clear lines of authority and responsibility
• Church bylaws are brief and allow for flexibility
• It is easy to make decisions and implement them
• Timely decisions are easy
• The mission of the church is easier to implement because the systems support the ability of leaders to lead.

Jesus designed the church to be the most effective, flexible, and missional organization on the face of the earth. Permission-withholding structures (most antiquated church governance systems) make the church inflexible, relatively ineffective and certainly compromise its mission. If your governance systems are antiquated and no longer help fulfill your mission, be courageous enough to change them. The third section of "High Impact Church Boards" provides a roadmap for changing your governance systems.

Continuing the conversation on whether staff should serve on the elder board

Recently I reposted a blog on whether staff should serve on the elder board of a church. You can see that blog here. My answer was that as a practice it is a bad idea apart from the senior pastor and in a large church the regular attendance (but not a voting member) of the executive pastor. 

This generated some comment from those who believe that all pastors are "elders" and therefor should be on the board. I will not repeat what I said in the earlier blog but would like to point out some fallacies of trying to "prove" everything we do in church governance from Scripture.

First, Scripture gives some overall guidance on what leadership in the church should look like but it does not give specific guidance on this. What we do know is that there were overseers or elders and deacons and deaconess. And their qualifications are spelled out in the text. We also know that the church was flexible and responded to the needs it had as in the book of Acts when the Apostles appointed a team to look after the widows.

Because Scripture is not overly specific on these issues is why you can "prove" various ecclesiastical models from the same text! 

Second, God designed the church to be the most flexible, missional and effective organism on the face of the earth so that it can flourish in any political, economic or social system. That very flexibility will demand different models for how we do church governance. A house church in rural China is very different from the typical church in the United States. Context and size make a difference in how one can govern and lead well. You do not lead a church of 100 like you do a church of 1,000 or more. For that matter, the early church was more likely to be a house church than what has become the norm in the west. 

Third, God tells us to use wisdom in all that we do. In other words, while Scripture gives us very broad principles in the area of church leadership and expects us to use wisdom in how we apply them to our situation. What is clear is that leaders are responsible for the spiritual climate of the church, that the congregation is taught, protected, cared for, released into ministry and led well. How that happens is not spelled out and of course will depend on the size and context of the church. We must figure out how to accomplish these Biblical mandates in our own situation.

This leads to the final thought. Governance and management of the day to day activities of ministry are not the same thing. We know that the early church made a distinction between teaching elders and non-teaching elders so why would we not make distinctions as well. Taken to the extreme, a large church with 30 pastors could have 30 pastors on the board as they are qualified as "elders." We all know that you cannot lead a large church with a huge group. Just because one is qualified to be an elder does not mean that they serve on the governance or leadership board of a church. For that matter there are many people in a larger congregation who are Biblically qualified as elders who do not serve in that role.

My point is that you cannot "proof text" the details of good church leadership but need to use wisdom and best practices to accomplish it. Be smart in how you lead not because the church is a "business" but because God designed it to be missional, effective and flexible and we must figure out how to do that in our context.

(Posted from Oakdale, MN)