Envisioning the future while not disempowering the past

Every new senior leader faces the twin challenge of moving the organization they lead forward and at the same time doing so in a way that does not detract from what leaders have done in the past. All too often we envision the future but do so by directly or indirectly dissing the past. It is not necessary nor is it helpful.

Take a new pastor coming into a church that needs renovation. Because they are new their focus is on the future and they have no ownership of the past. What we often forget, however, is that our constituency is often far more focused on what was and what is than on what will be. I know of pastors who have publicly criticized the past practices of the church they take, the state of the campus facilities, the architecture and other things that in their eyes were broken.

They may be right in their analysis but they do not help move the congregation forward by marginalizing the past or those who made the church what it is today, imperfect as it may be. Remember that if change is needed it will take these very people to go with you. Thus I would offer several suggestions for envisioning the future while not disempowering the past.

First, honor the past: It got you to where you are. Find the positive things to honor and do it publicly.

Second, honor the faithful folks who are responsible for where the ministry is today. They may or may not represent the future but they have been faithful.

Third, position change not as a criticism of the past but as a necessary step to stay engaged with a changing world. Rather than positioning the past as "bad" position the future as "different" as we respond to a changing world environment.

Fourth, always be gracious. We would desire the next leader to be gracious with us after we leave. We need to set the stage by being gracious to those who have led in the past. There is rarely an excuse for a lack of graciousness.

Fifth, be very careful in how you communicate a need to change. Think about how your constituency will interpret your words from their point of view and experience. When in doubt, find a colleague who can give you feedback. How we message is as important as the message itself.

Sixth, don't move faster than your constituency can follow. Moving too fast sends a message that we do not value the past. Words are not the only things that matter. Our actions and attitudes send messages as well.

People who choose to leave their ministry by taking shots on the way out

So let me just say: It is not cool to take public shots at the organization we have been serving on the way out whether it is justified in our minds or not. It does not serve Jesus, it is not necessary and in the end it reveals more about our character than it does about the faults of the organization we are leaving.

When we choose to leave a ministry for whatever reason, we always have a choice as to how we leave. We can preserve unity, good will and relationship or we can destroy all three. Usually when we choose to take public shots it is more about our lack of EQ and character than it is about the shortcomings of the ministry. 

It is one thing to privately share our observations and concerns with those who can do something about them and it is another to go public with those who cannot and may not even know there are issues. I have watched pastors split churches and staff seek to hurt other ministries they have been a part of on leaving.

Ironically, any ministry that a disgruntled staff member goes to after they have publicly castigated their prior ministry is foolish to receive them. Why would they think that the individual will be any more gracious to them than to their prior ministry? They may feel good at the moment that the individual wants to work for them (and look how much better we are than that other group) but those who speak ill of their prior group may well do the same to the new group.

There are no perfect organizations, or leaders. But what would motivate one to seek to hurt or cast aspersions on either as they leave? The motivation certainly cannot be the betterment of the group they are leaving as they are no longer in a position to contribute. Those doing it certainly know it will not help their prior ministry. Usually the motive is personal and the behavior passive aggressive. It certainly does not fit the criteria given by Paul that what we say ought to build others up. In the end it is simply sad!

As one who has consulted with many churches and organizations I understand dysfunctions. But when I hear public criticism of a ministry as a staff member leaves it usually tells me a lot more about them than it does the organization they are leaving.

A very tough decision: When it is time to leave!

All of us face this decision from time to time in our lives. Henry Cloud calls them necessary endings. It is making the decision that it is time to leave a job - whether for another - or even not yet knowing what is next.

A good friend of mine just announced his resignation from a ministry. I asked him what he was planning to do and he simply said, "I am concentrating on finishing well and the rest will sort itself out." His internal compass convinced himself that after a ten year run it was time to move on. Even though he does not know what is next.

There are times when we know that our time is finished but we cannot pull the trigger to resign a familiar position. We are afraid for the future. Yet the coinage we trade in is that of faith and these are times that require great faith. Even when we leave for another position there is uncertainty and the requisite fears about leaving the familiar for the unknown.

In his book Necessary Endings, Henry Cloud rightly makes the point that in order for something new to start, something old must die. It is the nature of life. That is why there are endings that are necessary. The courageous heed the inner signs that it is time. Often we know in our heart of hearts that it is but resist out of fear. When we resist we miss out on that "new thing" that God wants to do in our lives. 

A tough decision but often the most important decision. Knowing when it is time.

If I truly understand that all people are made in God's Image...

The theology of creation and God's amazing decision to make us in His Image has implications for all relationships and interactions. The more we understand what it means that all are made in His Image, the more we will live out the following commitments. We will:

• Treat people with dignity and respect - all of them
• Not marginalize any person
• Exhibit the fruit of the Spirit in our interactions with others
• Want the best for other individuals
• Not slander others
• Treat all with fairness
• Desire that all come to know the One who created them
• Want all to fulfill their God given potential
• Reject all attitudes and actions that diminish life
• Never use people or our selfish purposes

Everyone you meet today is an Image bearer of God, tarnished as that image may be. Think of how Jesus treated all those around Him. As the creator He understood the implications of the Image He planted in every human being.

Theo geeks in the church

There is a place for slicing and dicing of fine theological points but it is rarely in the church. Certainly all Christ followers should be able to articulate the major doctrines of evangelical theology - and there is way too much Biblical illiteracy in the church today. However, just as Biblical illiteracy is a problem, those who are "Theo geeks" (I believe Paul Tripp used this term) can also be a problem, when they want to debate all theological points with very little tolerance for those who don't hold to their particular point of view. On a church board, they can tie up time and energy with their fine tuning of doctrine - by their interpretation.

There is nothing wrong with desiring to understand the nuances of theology. It is when we start to confuse the pillars of the faith that define orthodoxy with non-essential doctrines which have been debated for centuries that we get ourselves into trouble. My own denomination has a wonderful saying for this: "In essentials unity, in non-essentials charity." The essentials are spelled out in our statement of faith. On the non-essentials there is considerable latitude and points of view. 

Theo geeks are often not satisfied with latitude on non-essentials. They can be very black and white thinkers for whom latitude is not part of their vocabulary. The problem is threefold. First, in not making a distinction between essential and non-essential doctrines they elevate all doctrine to the same level which the church has never embraced. The various well know creeds of the church are all about the essential doctrinal issues that do in fact matter. 

Second, in doing this they often create conflict over issues that were never meant to divide people or the church. When non-essential doctrine becomes a cause of disunity there is usually an underlying issue of black and white, inflexible individuals who are majoring on the wrong things and need to have their views accepted. 

Third, narrow theological thinking (we all need to agree on all points of theology) often leads to a theological pride. The focus on getting every jot and tittle correct marginalizes those whose tittle might end up elsewhere and the focus on fine points of theology takes our focus off of the grace of Jesus, the transformation He wants to bring to our lives and the practical application of the Scriptures to our every day lives. When intellectual pursuits and knowledge become more important than grace and transformation the end result is pride and arrogance.

The study of theology ought to engender humility not pride. The longer I am immersed in the Scriptures the more clear I am on the essentials of the faith and the more humble I am about how much we do not understand of the fullness of God. In all eternity we will still not plumb the depths of His greatness and the breadth of His person. 

The problem with small untruths

It is easy to justify a small untruth. It is small and insignificant and has little impact one way or another. Except: With that small lie, I have moved the boundary of my moral compass ever so slightly, but it has moved which makes it easier next time to move it just so much more until the boundary become malleable and subject only to what I can justify. 

This last statement is very important because most of us will not tell an untruth that we cannot justify. That is why lies start small. It is something that is not too hard to justify and if the boundary of truth moves ever so slowly we can keep up with it. And the thing about self justification is that because a lie creates dissonance between our belief system and our actions it becomes necessary for us to justify the action and pretty soon we actually believe our own justification, skewed as it is.

I have met very bright, sometimes brilliant Christian leaders who have caused immeasurable hurt to others through promises not kept, untruths, financial mismanagement, unjust firings and the like. And they have a justification for all of it. Nothing is their fault, they don't take any responsibility and their justifications while absurd to others make perfect sense to them. They believe their own lies. Why? Over time their moral boundaries moved ever so slightly until they were now a great distance from where they started and the only one who does not see it is the individual himself or herself.

The problem with small untruths is that multiplied over and over they become large untruths. And one day, there is no way to even confront those lies because the justifications are believed by the one who has moved their moral boundaries. And it happens to believers and non-believers alike. Even Christian leaders!

Don't get caught in the trap of those who want endless dialogue as a means of getting their way

There are people who must have their own way and when that is challenged they try to rope others into endless dialogue designed to wear people down until they give in. They use phrases like, "I am not being understood, can we talk?" or "I am confused by your position," and "I must not be making myself clear." If it is a group decision and their position is not being agreed with they may try to triangulate with others on the team to get their way.

Those who rope others into endless dialogue have a strategy. They have learned that they can wear others down by debate and eventually many will simply give in or give up. Often they have strong personalities and the dialogue becomes a method of intimidation until people basically surrender. 

I once observed a dialogue between two senior leaders. One of them was trying to convince the other to make a certain decision that he did not want to make. The aggressor kept coming back with different angles, never acknowledging that the other party kept saying no. It became so problematic that I finally asked them to take a time out so I could suggest to the aggressor that he needed to back off and leave it alone.  He was simply unwilling to take no for an answer and his MO was to keep pushing until someone gave in. This behavior is nothing other than bullying and intimidation under the guise of dialogue.

Healthy people don't keep pushing others when they have clearly indicated their preferences. Humble individuals do not try to force others to agree with their position. Don't allow aggressive and pushy individuals to rope you into endless dialogue. They know exactly what they are doing and it is not about "understanding each other." Rather it is simply about getting their way.