Hard but healing words

Six of the hardest words to speak are: “I was wrong,” and “I am sorry.” Ironically while they may be some of the hardest words to speak, they are also the very words that have the power to heal relationships like little else. In fact the harder we find it to verbalize these words the more power those words have to heal.

Why so hard to say? Our pride and the pull of our lower nature conspire against us to cling to our own righteousness even when that righteousness is really nothing less than sinfulness and even thought the cost of our “righteous” silence is relational disconnection against those we caused offence. The more we have personally vested in being right, the harder it is to admit wrong which is why those of us in leadership are often the last to admit wrong and apologize.

There is a reason that Scriptures talk so often of humility. At our core, our lower nature craves autonomy and pride. Proverbs says that God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble. Why we ask? Because pride is the primary characteristic of Satan who elevated himself above God, while humility is the defining characteristic of Jesus in the incarnation (Philippians 2).  God cannot honor pride which elevates our interests above His. He will always honor humility because it mirrors His heart and a willing submission to His will.

Thus each time we resist making things right when we have been wrong we reflect our lower nature and the master of pride. Each time we humble ourselves to make things right we reflect the transformed life and the Lord Jesus Christ. That puts a whole different perspective on the struggle to say these words.

Keeping short accounts reflects the heart of Jesus. The humility of admitting wrong and asking forgiveness reflects the character of Jesus. Wanting whole relationships when they have been broken by our sin or error reflects the reconciliation of Jesus.

Thought Leaders

Every organization needs one or more individuals who are thought leaders in the areas which the organization works. Thought leaders are different from other competent leaders on the team in that they are able to see further, think differently and deeper than others. They continually challenge the status quo, are always thinking ministry strategy and architecture and looking for game changers that don’t tweak the present but change the whole nature of the equation.

The Apple Corporation is an example of a business with a significant bench of thought leaders. The result is not simply new technology but different technology that has changed the way we view and use our electronic gadgets. The IPad, for instance will no doubt replace many still bulky and heavy laptops for a wide variety of travelers. Not only is it cool but it changes the equation for many who don’t want to lug their computers around.

Thought leaders have some common characteristics. First they question everything rather than simply accepting the status quo. They see “common wisdom” as common but not necessarily wisdom and are contrarian in their thinking – asking why we do what we do the way we do it and whether there is a different way. Rather than looking to tweak systems they are more likely to look for game changing opportunities where radical shifts bring significant ministry leverage. Video venues, for instance, were used by a handful of ministries who went against conventional wisdom that preaching had to be in person and that innovation has changed the game for numerous ministries who are now reaching far more people and offering more worship venue options.

Thought leaders can be found at many different levels of a ministry and wise leaders are always on the lookout for those whose insight is regularly challenging the status quo. They then find venues for dialogue with these good thinkers in order to maximize the effectiveness of the ministry. One of the mistakes many older leaders make is not to listen to the thought leaders of the young generation among them who may not have the positional status of older leaders but who are on the cutting edge of what needs to happen in the future. In my experience, many of the key thought leaders of today are in their twenties and thirties and are the voices that are going to mold ministry in the next generation. To ignore them is particularly dangerous as thought leaders by definition need ways to exercise their mental creativity and will move out of organizations where that is not valued or possible.

Can you identify the thought leaders in your organization? Do they have venues to speak into your strategy and paradigms? Do you as a leader have ways to interact with them and benefit from their creativity?

How long should I stay?

It grieves me when a healthy pastor is saddled by a board that is weak, ineffective, unsupportive and continually critical. And the sad thing is that it only takes one or two malcontents on a board to infect the atmosphere of the whole board. I know how painful it can be – I have been there and I feel deeply for friends that are in that situation today.

The problem is greater than the discouragement that this brings to the senior leader as disunited boards usually infect the congregation with their lack of unity. So your own senior team of leaders is working against you and the health of the church when they cannot get their act together, act in unity, and support their pastor (I am assuming here a healthy pastor). No matter what a pastor does in a situation like this, he is continually undermined by the dishealth of the board because make no mistake that lack of health does not just stay at the board level.

What advice would I give a pastor who finds himself in this position? First, I would encourage them to be upfront with the board about how the board culture is impacting them and their ability to lead. Second, I would work through a book on healthy boards such as Larry Osborn’s Unity Factor or my High Impact Church Boards. Both books put the critical issues of board health on the table for discussion and give the board permission to police itself.

In particularly onerous situations it is often helpful to bring an outside individual who can help the board think through its culture and behavior and help the board develop a covenant of how they will work together. An outsider can say what others on the board often do not have the platform to articulate.

I would also ask myself the question about whether it is worth my time, energy and emotional health to stay in a situation where I don’t have the support of those from whom I need it the most – the board. I am convinced that churches get what they deserve when it comes to pastors. And it often comes down to the board/pastor relationship. There is a time to try to help the board get to health for the sake of the church and there is a time to conclude that you are not going to be the one who can do that and choose to move to a place where one can use their leadership and ministry gifts with the synergy of supportive leadership rather than the anchor of unsupportive leadership. 

Obviously we need the direction of the Holy Spirit in determining which course of action to take. But, many pastors in unhealthy situations stay too long and in the end are deeply hurt by unhealthy boards. That pain often takes years to heal. There are situations we cannot fix this side of heaven. Others might be able to lead in that situation but if we cannot, it is not worth compromising our family, our emotional health or our ministry opportunity by staying in a situation where we cannot lead from health. Remember only healthy leaders can create a healthy church. Unhealthy, divided, critical and dysfunctional leaders create the same in their church. Unless that is changed, even a healthy pastor cannot lead the church to health.

Having walked this path years ago, I would encourage pastors not to stay too long when their board is not healthy. Those who followed me in my situation faced the same situation I did for many years. That is the reality of church DNA. Unhealthy churches can become healthy but not without healthy leaders. They may choose their path of dysfunction. I want to work in a place where I can maximize my gifting and calling and that only happens if I have the support of leadership.

What kind of churches should we be planting around the world?

Those of us involved in missions as practitioners’ and those who support the global missions endeavor need to think carefully about what kind of churches we are planting. I believe that the target can be defined in five words: healthy, indigenous, self-supporting, interdependent and reproducing. Where the target is reached, the possibility of significant impact in a whole region is often the result. When just one of the targets is missing, the long term impact of our efforts is compromised.

Healthy

Only healthy churches can produce healthy disciples so our focus must always be on ensuring that the churches we plant are healthy. This means that they are gospel centered, missional in reaching out to those around them, have a culture of grace and love and humble leaders who serve rather than dictate. They are churches who reflect the character of the book of Ephesians. Emphasis on numbers in church planting often leads to a lack of emphasis on health. Better to have fewer healthy churches than many unhealthy churches. The key to church health is the training of healthy leaders both pastoral and lay.

Indigenous

Indigenous churches are churches that reflect the culture of the people among whom the church is planted while being thoroughly biblical in their practices.  Too often, missionaries have inadvertently brought both biblical practices and outside culture as they have planted churches rather than bringing the truth of the gospel and allowing that truth to be expressed within the culture of a local population.

Anyone who has participated in worship services in Africa, for instance, understands how culture affects “how people do church.”  The service may last four hours, has African music, lots of dancing and long (even multiple) messages.  Then, there may be a long meal together before people disperse.  It can last much of the day.

The key to planting indigenous churches is simple: missionaries don’t lead the church but from the beginning, train, equip, empower and coach nationals to lead the congregation – either with them or instead of them. Where pioneer work is being done, new believers are disciple and brought into church leadership as quickly as possible. Missionaries from another culture cannot plant a truly indigenous church – only nationals can so partnering with nationals from the outset – or equipping nationals to do the church planting is the key to indigenous churches.  Thus, wherever possible, our task is to develop, empower and release healthy national leaders who can plant healthy churches in their context, their culture but with the same gospel truth.

Self-Supporting

This is perhaps the most difficult concept for those who live in the developed world to understand.  Self-supporting means that the church is not dependent on outside funds in order to exist, nor is its pastor paid from outside the local congregation.  It is also based on the conviction that Christ designed the church to exist in any culture, any socio-economic climate, any political climate and to do so in a way that it can organically reproduce itself regardless of the political, social and economic structures in which it exists.  When we tamper with that Christ designed structure, we inadvertently destroy or impede the organic growth of the church.

A great example of how the church operates organically can be found in China.  When missionaries were forced to leave in 1949 there were approximately one million believers in China and the prediction was that the church would die.  Interestingly, the many missionaries who were active in China had imported western ways of doing church including all the denominational distinctives present in the western church.

Instead of dying, the church flourished and did so organically as Christ designed the church to do in spite of a terrible economy, a government that tried to eradicate it and the absence of trained pastors.  It flourished much like the early church with lay bi-vocational pastors, house churches neither of which were dependent on funding.  China is proof that the church does not need to reflect a western developed model to flourish but that it can flourish organically in any context – if we do not tamper with it.

There are three barriers to church multiplication world wide.  These three barriers are practices of the western church that we often import to the church in the developing world.  They are the concepts that to be a church on needs a full time pastor, a pastor with a formal theological degree and that the church should have a building and real estate.

Why does this thinking hurt multiplication?  Because we live in a poor world.  Consider this.  Fifty four percent of our world lives on less than three dollars US per day and 91% of our world lives on less than $10,000 per year.  What does that say about the ability of most of our world to do church like we do church with full time pastors, degreed pastors and with buildings and real-estate? 

The early church was not hampered by these three constraints.  The very reason that it could organically reproduce itself – like the church in China was that it did not rely on paid pastors, real-estate or degreed pastors.  Where full time pastors developed it did so organically as the church could afford to do so rather than as a paradigm for how to do church.

Because we view church in American terms, we often seek to reproduce our version of church around the world.  One of the easiest ways to do this is to pay pastors in developing contexts.    So we start to pay pastors so that they can work full time with the thinking that it makes perfect sense and will increase their effectiveness.  However, good intentions often have unintended consequences.

Let’s consider some of the unintended consequences of this practice.  First, it is no longer an organically reproducible model.  Once you start paying pastors, new churches are not started until more money is found to pay that pastor.  Second, it is almost impossible to wean these pastors off of that support once they are on it.  Third, congregations do not give because there is little need for them to do so.  Fourth, these pastors and congregations are not indigenous or independent since they are beholden to those who pay them and finally dependency is created.  They church cannot exist without the outside money.  The bottom line is that what was done for good reasons actually hurts the church and stifles the growth of the church as well as tampering with how God designed the church to organically reproduce itself in any world context.

If a church is to be healthy, indigenous, and reproducible it must be self supporting.  When we force another model on the church it has negative unintended consequences.  This is why we must be committed to self-supporting churches.

A word about real-estate and buildings.  Great wisdom is needed in when to help a church in the developing context purchase or build buildings.  Remember the church does not need real-estate to flourish.  When we define church in terms of buildings and real-estate, other churches start to define it that way.  What happens is everyone in that locale starts to believe that to be a church one needs buildings but they cannot afford the buildings.  Thus in order to reproduce themselves they need help from the outside to purchase and build structures.  Again, the organic nature of the church is compromised.

In one city where our organization works, there are five key churches, each of which has been helped with building a building with multiple outside work teams.  Those five churches have been very slow to plant new churches.  They have said, “we need to be strong first,” which has meant they need to complete their structures and then have enough people to pay for the upkeep of those structures.  One must ask the question, did our help in building buildings get in the way of organic multiplication? 

Many missions have learned hard lessons in this regard.  Those lessons can lead us back to a healthier and more biblical model of self-supporting churches that can organically reproduce themselves in any context, any political climate and any economy.  Where it is necessary to help pastors find a way to support themselves, we can help them be self-sufficient through micro-enterprise rather than through ongoing financial support.

Interdependent

Congregations are healthiest when they are in fellowship and are cooperating with other like minded congregations.  Thus one looks for partners who value interdependence rather than independence.  Interdependent churches work together to bring the gospel to those around them, to train workers and to do missions together.

This does not meant that we should be in the business of starting denominations.  In fact, denominational structures often hinder multiplication as leaders focus on their institutional needs rather than the multiplication of the church.  It is better to allow organized structures to develop organically and at the right time for the right reasons rather than missionaries taking the lead in making it happen.

Reproducing

Healthy churches reproduce themselves.  Movements that are not deeply committed to and actually practicing the reproduction of new churches are simply not healthy.  This often happens when denominational structures take greater precedence than multiplication or where the organic nature of the church has been tampered with as I have described above, resulting in multiplication being stifled and hindered.

God designed the church to reproduce itself organically, intentionally and rapidly – once the gospel takes hold.  Healthy churches can do that. Healthy missionaries work in a way that fosters this multiplication of the church wherever possible.

The High Cost of Poor Emotional Intelligence

Consider these common scenarios:

A staff member resigns because of a poor fit with his/her organization or team and then on the way out plays the victim and seeks to damage the reputation of their supervisor or leader. The leader is left spending inordinate amounts of time putting out fires, clarifying “reality” and trying to undo the damage of the renegade staff member.

One of your staff has a tendency to get angry when things don’t go their way and in their anger make accusations, threats and ultimatums requiring you to constantly be in dialogue with them about their attitudes and responses which spill out over others and cause others pain. Everything seems to revolve around them, their issues, their pain, the injustices they feel and it takes a lot of your time cleaning up after them.

A member of your team seems to have a constant “edge” in their attitudes and interactions. You always have the sense that they are not really on your team. They display an arrogance that they could always do things better and while they are usually fairly gracious to you in person, you know that they are not as gracious with others when you are not there. You are left always wondering whether the team member is really on your team and you have a vague but real “gut feeling” that they are not to be trusted. You spend hours in dialogue and discussion when the “edge” becomes inappropriate but your staff member never seems to “get it” or take ownership for their attitudes.

You are a senior leader with a leader under you who “bonds” with his/her team through inappropriate emotional enmeshment. While they demand and receive loyalty from their team through their enmeshment, their loyalty to their team is far higher than their loyalty to your leadership, even though they serve under you. Together they develop an “us against the world” mentality and over time you realize that their team is not on your team. The team has effectively been high jacked by its leader – who should be in alignment with you. Ironically, while they demand that their team follows them, they cannot follow themselves.

What I am describing are high maintenance individuals who take an inordinate amount of time, cause one to be diverted from productive work while cleaning up their messes and negatively impact others in the organization. The bottom line is that they have poor emotional intelligence (EQ) and regardless of how competent they are, their poor EQ hurts the organization and is a drain on those who supervise them.

In my book, Leading From the Sandbox, I write that “Emotional Intelligence, often labeled EQ, is the ability to understand ourselves, know what drives us, accurately see how others perceive us, and understand how we relate to others. EQ also measures whether we have the relational skill to work with others while being “self-defining” and allowing others to speak into our lives. Good EQ includes openness to others’ opinions, lack of defensiveness, sensitivity to others, the ability to release others rather than control them, freedom for constructive and robust dialogue, and the willingness to abide by common decisions.”

“Signs of poor EQ include the inability to listen to others, defensiveness, unawareness of how we come across, lack of sensitivity to others’ feelings, an inability to deal constructively with conflict, a drive to control others, narcissism, and the need to have our own way.”

How do you handle folks who exhibit poor EQ and eat up your time and energy? This is the frustrating part because it is their poor EQ which prevents them from understanding their own issues or understanding your concerns. In fact, it can take some intense discussion around behaviors which are unacceptable and accountability for better behavior. It often means that a supervisor or leader must become more and more defining if behaviors don’t change.

There are people who never “get it” and in those cases one has to recognize that they probably will never “get it” and make a decision as to whether their behavior is acceptable in your organization. If it is not, don’t ignore it because their poor EQ impacts everyone around them, may well undermine you (depending on their behaviors) but certainly hurt the culture of your organization. You may need to “marginalize” them in a role that limits the damage they can make. Or, you may simply need to let them go for the sake of the health of your organization. What one should not do is ignore the issue. The cost of maintaining, dealing with and supervising people with poor EQ is high. I often wonder how much ministry is left on the table because of problematic individuals on our team. Remember that if they are impacting you, they are also impacting others. 

Above all, be aware of the EQ issues when hiring. No matter how competent an individual, if they have poor EQ they will hurt you, your team and your organization. Compromising on this issue is one of the most common mistakes in hiring. Leading From the Sandbox can help you think through these issues if you are dealing with them on your team.

Generous Living, Generous Hearts, Generous God

One of the key indicators of our followership of Christ and spiritual maturity is the generosity of our lives. A desire to generously step into other peoples situations and help them, a joyful heart in sharing with others what God has given us, the love of meeting others needs and generously giving back to God and His work what He has so lavishly given to us.

This way of life and generous heart is at complete odds with our consumer oriented culture which is about meeting my needs, my happiness, and my resources. Ironically, it is in giving away that we fully enjoy what God has given to us. It is also how we join Him in following His example of giving up everything for us (Philippians 2:5-11).  The most joyful and satisfied among us are those who choose the rare path of living generously rather than living selfishly.

I love Paul’s words to Timothy on a life of generosity. “Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share. In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life (1 Timothy 6:17-19).”

This is not simply about money. Rather it is about generous hearts that love to “do good,” that are “rich in good deeds” and that are “generous and willing to share.” Generous hearts love to help others. They make generous time in their lives to be Jesus to those who need an encouraging word, a warm meal, a personal visit or a hand of help. That lifestyle and heart spills over to our possessions and resources – loving to share what we have and being generous in our giving. Not because we have to – we don’t – but because we want to mirror the generous heart of God and in doing so find freedom from selfish living. Generous living brings freedom while selfish living brings all manner of concerns because our focus is on ourselves and our stuff.

Read carefully these word on generosity from Paul to the Corinthians – who did not understand the concept very well. “Now he who supplies seed to the sower and bread for food will also supply and increase your store of seed and will enlarge the harvest of your righteousness. You will be made rich in every way so that you can be generous on every occasion, and through us your generosity will result in thanksgiving to God (2 Corinthians 9:10-11).”

Generosity on our part results a generous response from God which gives us the ability to be even more generous with others – financially and otherwise. “And God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that in all things at all times, having all that you need, you will abound in every good work (2 Corinthians 9:8).”

Many television preachers would want us to give so that we become rich. God invites us to lives of generosity because it reflects His heart.  In fact, if wealth is the goal, one does not understand the gospel which places its confidence in God rather than in stuff. And, which is magnificently generous and trusts God to meet our needs. The result of Christ’s life was not wealth – in fact it was the opposite. It was a life of generosity to those who did not deserve it that transforms our lives until we become like Him with generous hearts and lives.

I want His heart. It will only come with following His example of a generous heart and life.The more generous I live, the more my heart becomes like His. It is a lifelong pursuit of learning to live like Him and overcoming the selfishness with which my lower nature pulls me. But it is a journey toward freedom and His character in me.

Western vs. Indigenous Missionaries

There is a quiet but very important debate taking place regarding the place of western missionaries in today’s expensive world. There are some who argue that the day of long term missionaries from the west is over and that we should simply support indigenous missionaries across the globe at a much lesser cost. The implications of how we answer that question are significant.

Let me say up front that I lead ReachGlobal, an international missions organization of the EFCA. Let me also say that I believe that the vision for reaching the world does not lie with organizations but with the local church. The best missions, in my view, are those who exist to serve the missions vision of the local church and provide structure, long term strategic help and best practices.

Let’s talk about money for a moment. It costs around $100,000 per mission family to be on the field in our and similar organizations. That sounds like a lot – but it is not that much different than the cost of pastoral staff for a local church – if you add in the hidden costs above salary such as health insurance, retirement, staff administrative help and perhaps the most expensive cost of all – the expensive church facilities that staff work in. The difference between missionaries and local church staff is very small when you consider the hidden costs that churches must cover in order to staff their ministry.

It is true that missionaries who are not productive do not belong on the field. It is equally true that this applies to church staff in the United States as well. The fact that some ministries don't deal with unproductive staff in both arenas does not negate the need for staff. It makes the case for the right staff who are engaged in the right work.

The question of value for that money is an important one. If missionaries are simply doing what local believers could do one may have an argument for funding locals rather than western missionaries. However, that misses a massive shift that is taking place within the mission world today where missionaries are increasingly not the hands on doers but the mentors, equippers and releasers of indigenous workers. In fact, in ReachGlobal (RG), the central job of our staff is to develop, empower and release. This is something that local believers are not as capable of doing: they need and ask for help in raising up equipped workers for the harvest and increasingly that is the role of personnel from the west.

In addition, simply sending money rather than personnel raises another very important question: dependencies on western money that fosters dependence rather than independence and control (through our dollars) rather than the development of equal ministry partners. A book every church in the west should read is “When Helping Hurts: Alleviating Poverty Without Hurting the Poor...and Yourself.” Indiscriminate financial help is often a terrible gift with unintended consequences that the west does not understand. One of my colleagues at the Lausanne Conference in South Africa is a leader from Liberia. His observation is that money has done more to ruin ministry in countries like his than almost anything else.

In years past the west often had a paternalistic attitude toward missions. We had the money, we had the education and we were the experts. Too often we carried that attitude with us rather than developing, empowering and releasing indigenous personnel. Now, some would compound that error with an equal error. Western missionaries are not needed so we will just fund local ministries globally. Neither of these answers is Biblical and it is not an either or dichotomy but a both and. The missions mandate Christ left the church will only be met when all believers, those from the majority world and those from the minority world join hands to share the gospel with over five billion people who don’t know Christ.

From the inception of the church, it has been a mission sending church. Paul and Barnabas were simply the first in the hundreds of thousands of missionaries who have gone from one culture to another with the good news of Jesus. My parental family was in that line of faithful missionaries. The day we stop sending people and simply send our dollars is the day that we have abandoned the call of the church to “go and make disciples of all nations” and the inevitable result will be a quick decline even in giving for missions. What we tell our partners internationally applies to us: No church group is mature until they are intentionally reaching across ethnic, economic, political and culture lines to share the gospel.

The question of whether western missionaries are needed is really the wrong question because the New Testament does not give us the option of sending missionaries. The real question is what should long term missionaries in today’s world be doing? One thing we know they should be doing is raising up workers for the harvest in all parts of the world, doing formal and informal theological training, training church planters and pastors and doing everything we can to see multiplication take place where the gospel is not well known. In many places this means the hard work of evangelism and the making of disciples because there are none present. There are still vast tracts of our globe where the church is small, struggling or non-existent.

Ironically, just as some in the west believe that long term workers are no longer needed, believers in other parts of the world are increasingly sending their own missionaries. Missions has become all people reaching all people and many of our own teams are made up of personnel from different parts of the world. The question will be whether the western church loses out on the blessing of being a player in the world wide missions efforts in the years to come.

Missions does not win when missionaries do not partner with indigenous believers. Missions does not win when western missionaries are left on the sidelines. Missions wins when there is a synergistic relationship between missionaries from wherever they come and local believers wherever they are.

Mature Congregations

Local congregations go through predictable stages of development from birth, adolescence, and maturity. In the birth phase they are often doing those things necessary for survival. In adolescence, they are finding their way, dealing with internal issues and clarifying their identity. All of us hope that our congregation will get to the place of maturity but what are the marks that we have reached maturity? I would suggest that there are at least five. As you read these, think about your congregation as it relates to these five areas.

First: We understand that it is not about programs but about life change – true spiritual transformation.  While programs can serve the purposes of spiritual transformation, the emphasis is on what gets us to our goal, rather than running great programming for the kids and family. Mature congregations have thought through the reasons for their programming and evaluate whether that programming is actually contributing to life change and the mission of the church. Where it does not they retool or kill the program.  Mature congregations are after transformation of hearts (where grace is understood and lived out), transformation of our thinking so that it aligns with God’s, our priorities so they reflect a new way of thinking and finally relationships that reflect the grace and truth of Christ.

Second, mature ministries understand that it is not about our brand but about His Brand. They see themselves as part of a larger whole in their community and region – of Christ centered churches that have different names and different denominational affiliations but which are all part of the Bride and they value those relationships, pray for those other ministries, and promote an attitude of togetherness rather than independence. Immature ministries are still focused on themselves while mature ministries are focused on building the Church of Christ in their community and region.

Third, mature ministries are committed to working alongside other believers in the area to reach their area with the gospel. They are willing to set aside their petty differences, theological distinctive that are important to them but not to the gospel itself in order to see transformation come to a whole region. This is what happened in Acts 19 where the Church in Ephesus had such an outward vision that it saw a whole region come to knowledge of the gospel with amazing results in the lives of people who experienced genuine spiritual transformation. This could not have happened without the church in Ephesus both spawning other fellowships of believers but then working with those other fellowships for the proclamation of the Gospel. It was an outward looking church that was committed to His brand rather than its brand.

Here is a visual. When we are concerned only with our own ministries, we are like a dot on a map so in a large metro area with many churches we may be one of 100 dots. When we start to work with other congregations for the cause of the gospel we move from being a dot on the map to a concentric circle that intersects with several other circles. Would you rather have one hundred dots on the map or be one of 100 concentric circles intersecting one another so that there are synergies between churches rather than independent dots sitting in their own neighborhood?

Fourth, mature ministries give themselves away to others. They are involved in community transformation, helping meet needs around them. They are willing to mentor, train and give away ministry expertise to others who are not as far along as they are. They willingly share their facilities with others who can use them. They see beyond helping churches in their denomination and willingly serve those in others. In other words, they are kingdom focused rather than self focused. They are “rich in good deeds” toward their community and other believers and churches. They go out of their way to serve others.

Fifth, mature ministries are generous ministries. They help those in need both within their body and outside. They live out the command of Paul in 1 Timothy 6:17- 19 to be rich in good deeds, to be generous and to be willing to share. This is the inevitable result of living with an outward focus and open hands. Where there is a need they are found there. When they need to get their hands dirty they do. They live out the model of Christ who cared for those in need, even the least of these, and those who don’t fit our natural demographic.

There are many churches who live in adolescence for much of their existence. Has your congregation moved from adolescence to maturity? Actually it is not a matter of time as much as it is a matter of heart and commitment to a vision and lifestyle modeled by Christ himself.

Undiscerning church boards: A case study

I never cease to be amazed at how naive and undiscerning church  boards can be. Here is a case study from several years ago. 

The church has gone through a period of turbulent waters for a number of reasons and the senior pastor resigns. In the interim a staff member who loves nothing else better than to lead steps into the breach, is regular in the pulpit, and leads the staff. In addition, he puts his name in to become the next senior pastor and it is clear he desires the job. It is no secret that he wants the senior position. I will call this individual Bill.


When the search committee makes its decision, Bill is not chosen. Instead, it is Steve from outside. But when Steve comes, Bill is not asked to leave so Steve is working with the individual who wanted his job and believed should have his job on his staff.

Over the next several years, it is quickly apparent that Bill believes he is a better leader than Steve, passively resists his leadership - sometimes actively, is critical of Steve when they meet and tensions are present. Their philosophies of ministry are worlds apart, their style very different and Bill is often critical of how Steve leads. 

Yet the leadership of the church does nothing about it. They like Bill and Bill feels "called to be at the church"  and has a history at the church. Thus the board has set Steve up for an inevitable clash, for leadership pain, inability to build his own staff and a major lack of alignment on the staff. When it comes to how they would do things, Bill and Steve live on different planets.


When I met with Bill and Steve at Bill's request, I asked him who the better leader was and Bill told me in front of Steve that he was by far the better leader. I asked why he stayed at the church when he could not lead from the "first chair" and he said that the church needed his "prophetic voice" and would never leave. In other words, the church would not succeed without him and it was his prophetic voice that the church needed. I strongly suggested as an outside consultant that this arrangement would not work and that it was in fact doomed to fail. Bill came off as overly impressed with his own importance and the need of the church for his presence.


Over a period of months, as Steve pressed into this impossible situation, Bill decided that he should resign - reluctantly. He sent a letter of resignation to the elders and to my astonishment, several of the elders recommended that they should not accept the letter of resignation and that Steve should figure out how to work with Bill.

Never mind the lack of alignment, insubordination and the fact that Bill really wanted Steve's job. For some, Steve himself was the bad guy here who could not humble himself to work with Bill. In the meeting, he took a number of amazing shots for not making it work.


I was frankly stunned, sitting as an outsider listening to this conversation. Here was a group that had chosen Steve as their pastor over Bill and had then allowed Bill to stay so you had two competing leaders! Then when the inevitable tensions arose, Steve was the bad guy and should just "get along." If even Paul and Barnabas could not figure that out, how do we expect others to figure that out? I suggested that if they were that committed to Bill, they should have made him pastor rather than calling Steve, that they had set Steve up for this by keeping Bill on staff and that I had told Steve he should leave if the board did not support him on this.


Then, even more astonishing to me, they made it clear that Bill could stay in the church and some think he should be allowed to lead a ministry there as a lay leader - in spite of the fact that Steve now has a volunteer leader who wanted his job, does not respect him as a leader and who I predict will undermine Steve in subtle or not so subtle ways. In my world, Bill would be thanked for his service and asked to find another church. But, no, preservation of the unity of the body means that he should stay and even be eligible to serve in a lay leadership role.


Jesus told us to be innocent as doves and wise as serpents. Too many church boards lack basic wisdom in the name of "grace," and frankly violate other Scriptures by letting the fox into the hen house in the name of unity and grace. If these leaders are not careful they will lose a staff member but it will not be Bill. It will be Steve who they called but chose not to support and whose decisions in matters like these actually made it difficult for him to lead! And if Steve does eventually leave, they will get what their leadership deserved. They were not wise, did not support their pastor, did not make good decisions early on and did not think through the consequences of their decisions.


Wisdom is lacking in far too many board rooms of churches. In this case the word "foolish" from the book of Proverbs is far more applicable than the word "wisdom." Time will tell whether this board gets its act together. I pray they do.

Intentionality - not resolutions

It is the beginning of the new year and many of us think about the things we ought to do differently this year than we did last year. Get out of debt, lose weight, exercise more, spend more quality time with our spouse. Actually the list can get pretty long pretty fast given the realities of life and they also get left behind pretty quickly. Not because we don't think them important but usually because we have too many and apart from good intentions, do not have a plan.

One of the lessons I have learned in organizational and personal leadership is that less is more. Understanding the most critical issues one should be focused on and then having a plan for how one can address those few and specific issues over the course of a year actually brings greater progress in our personal and professional lives compared to trying to tweak many issues.

As I face this coming year, I actually am focusing on two personal issues and two professional issues. In both cases the issues are game changers that will have significant positive repercussions personally and for the organization I lead. I have also had to clear blocks of time in my calendar to ensure that what I set out to do this year can be accomplished.

My question for you is this: What are the one or two things in your personal life that if you gave attention to would make you a healthier person, closer to God or to others and are there things you need to pay attention too because they are hindering your personal life in some way? Make your list and then choose one or two that you want to tackle this year. 

On the professional side, what are the one or two issues that really need your specific attention and which tackled would be game changers for you or our organization? You cannot tackle a bunch but you can tackle one or two.

Having identified the personal and professional issues, look at your calendar so you can connect the compass (the issues you want to pay attention to) with the clock (your calendar) in order to achieve success in these areas. Remember: less is more; and it always takes a plan. Without a plan you have a resolution but not the intentionality  that can make it happen. Finally take time once a month to review your progress in each of these areas and realign as needed.

Those individuals who are most successful don't try to do everything. Rather they ask God for wisdom on the few things they need to concentrate on and then they go after those game changers with intentionality and discipline.