For those of us who are committed to being a gospel centered church there are seven markers that we can pay attention too and intentionally encourage. Progress in these seven areas indicate that we are on the right track.
One: Gospel centered churches see regular conversions because they are focused on sharing the Gospel as a lifestyle. They celebrate new life in Christ, and help their congregation understand that sharing their faith is central to who they are and what they do. And, they keep track of their progress in this area.
Two: Gospel centered churches regularly challenge individuals to consider full time Christian service and see people answer that call. They encourage, support and celebrate those who choose to use their gifts in service of the Great Commission.
Three: Gospel centered churches focus more on life change toward the Image of Christ than on the imparting of theological information. They focus on the transformation of hearts, minds, life priorities and relationships and see regular transformation take place.
Four: Gospel centered churches, like Jesus have a high commitment to biblical compassion and loving the marginalized, neglected, hurting, poor and needy. In fact, they go out of their way to show the love of Jesus to those who others neglect and forget. Like, Jesus they have a love for "all people" not just "their people."
Five: Gospel centered churches are characterized by generosity. Their people are generous with one another when there are needs, generous in giving so that the Gospel is advanced and generous with their time and gifts. Their lives could be called "generous," lived for Jesus and others.
Six: Gospel centered churches have people who are "in the game" in terms of using their spiritual gifts and God given wiring to serve the church and be the hands, feet, and voice of Jesus in their circle of influence. They are intentional in making space in their lives for ministry.
Seven: Gospel centered churches replicate themselves by planting other churches, whether off site venues or independent churches. They intentionally "give themselves away" to see the Gospel penetrate new communities and neighborhoods. It is part of their regular strategy.
No individual or church gets this perfectly but progress in these areas should encourage you that you are on the right track. Celebrate and encourage your people in these directions and your spiritual influence as a congregation will increase.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Scalability and growth
A secret of successful ministries is that they understand and build scalable systems that allow for growth rather than non scalable systems that stifle growth.
I remember doing a consultation for a church of 1,000+ and discovered in talking with the elders that they provided all the care for those in the congregation who were hurting. And, they were tired! What they had was a non scalable system for care because nine folks cannot provide care for a growing church. A scalable system of care would be where the care function resides in small groups which are easily reproducible as the church grows.
In youth work, a non scalable system is one where the youth leader personally disciples all the kids. A scalable system is one where the youth leader raises up a team and designs ministry paradigm that allows for any level of growth because it does not all come back to him/her.
A simple test to give you an idea as to whether your paradigms are scalable is this: Ask the question, "If the numbers involved in what we are doing were to double or triple, could our current system accommodate those numbers? If the answer is no you have a non-scalable system. If yes, you likely do.
The reason we should care about this is that non-scalable systems will become a barrier to growth and we might not even know it. The youth worker who tries to personally disciple all his/her kids, may not realize that once their available time is used up as the group grows that growth might just stop as new kids realize that they won't get what they need in that group. Whatever the ministry responsibility we have, if it is not scalable, it will prevent the growth we desire and limit the spiritual influence we have.
As the leader of a missions agency, we constantly have to ask the question of scalability in recruiting, vetting, training, and the many systems within the organization. It is not unusual for us to realize that some system we have is not scalable and needs to be rethought. Everything we and you do in ministry has a system. Some systems are scalable and invite growth. Some are not and stifle growth.
I remember doing a consultation for a church of 1,000+ and discovered in talking with the elders that they provided all the care for those in the congregation who were hurting. And, they were tired! What they had was a non scalable system for care because nine folks cannot provide care for a growing church. A scalable system of care would be where the care function resides in small groups which are easily reproducible as the church grows.
In youth work, a non scalable system is one where the youth leader personally disciples all the kids. A scalable system is one where the youth leader raises up a team and designs ministry paradigm that allows for any level of growth because it does not all come back to him/her.
A simple test to give you an idea as to whether your paradigms are scalable is this: Ask the question, "If the numbers involved in what we are doing were to double or triple, could our current system accommodate those numbers? If the answer is no you have a non-scalable system. If yes, you likely do.
The reason we should care about this is that non-scalable systems will become a barrier to growth and we might not even know it. The youth worker who tries to personally disciple all his/her kids, may not realize that once their available time is used up as the group grows that growth might just stop as new kids realize that they won't get what they need in that group. Whatever the ministry responsibility we have, if it is not scalable, it will prevent the growth we desire and limit the spiritual influence we have.
As the leader of a missions agency, we constantly have to ask the question of scalability in recruiting, vetting, training, and the many systems within the organization. It is not unusual for us to realize that some system we have is not scalable and needs to be rethought. Everything we and you do in ministry has a system. Some systems are scalable and invite growth. Some are not and stifle growth.
The good, bad, and ugly when hiring
A classic mistake made by ministries (and indeed non-ministries) when hiring for key positions is to paint an overly rosy picture of their situation. After all, we are recruiting and we want to make a good impression on our potential hire.
BAD IDEA!
In the first place, none of us like surprises and if our hire finds out that life is not what we painted it there is a measure of trust and confidence that is lost quickly when they see that reality differed from what we told them. This is a simple issue of integrity.
But there is more at stake! Recently I was in a conversation with a ministry leader and a potential senior leader. The ministry is one that has huge potential but there is very significant internal chaos at the moment with a lot of challenges. We laid out the scenario with great candor and I could see the potential leader salivating. His wiring is all about taking something that is broken and fixing it. The chaos was a challenge to him. Where many would see dysfunction (and it is surely there) he saw a job made for him and his skills.
Another potential hire, when told the "good, bad and ugly," wanted to run for the hills and had he been hired, things would have gone from ugly to implosion. His wiring was very different and had he not heard an honest description he would have come, felt betrayed and most likely turned on the leader because his wiring is not to fix but to take something working well and make it a little better.
Whenever we paint a picture that is different from reality we hurt ourselves because the situation we have must match the wiring and gifting of the potential hire for a successful marriage. When we simply tell the truth we not only gain instant credibility but we have a much better chance of matching the situation with the right gifting.
Be candid when hiring.
BAD IDEA!
In the first place, none of us like surprises and if our hire finds out that life is not what we painted it there is a measure of trust and confidence that is lost quickly when they see that reality differed from what we told them. This is a simple issue of integrity.
But there is more at stake! Recently I was in a conversation with a ministry leader and a potential senior leader. The ministry is one that has huge potential but there is very significant internal chaos at the moment with a lot of challenges. We laid out the scenario with great candor and I could see the potential leader salivating. His wiring is all about taking something that is broken and fixing it. The chaos was a challenge to him. Where many would see dysfunction (and it is surely there) he saw a job made for him and his skills.
Another potential hire, when told the "good, bad and ugly," wanted to run for the hills and had he been hired, things would have gone from ugly to implosion. His wiring was very different and had he not heard an honest description he would have come, felt betrayed and most likely turned on the leader because his wiring is not to fix but to take something working well and make it a little better.
Whenever we paint a picture that is different from reality we hurt ourselves because the situation we have must match the wiring and gifting of the potential hire for a successful marriage. When we simply tell the truth we not only gain instant credibility but we have a much better chance of matching the situation with the right gifting.
Be candid when hiring.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
When should a church change their governance system?
Tomorrow afternoon I do another consult with a church leadership team on significantly modifying their governance system. I have at least one conversation with church leaders every week over the frustration governance systems that are out of sync with the current size and needs of the church. So what are the classic signs that it is time to look at how you do governance?
1. There is frustration by staff on how long it takes to make ministry decisions or changes. Here is the funny thing. Many board members do not realize how frustrated their staff are on the decision making process. After all, they check in for a board meeting once or twice a week while staff are chomping at the bit to move things forward. Several weeks ago in a dialogue with a board one of the board members gave me the classic line, "Our system works great." I looked over at the senior pastor and asked, "Do you see it that way?" He shook his head NO!
When decisions cannot be made in a timely fashion by the right people it is time to rethink your leadership/governance system.
2. There is confusion about who is responsible for what. This is a common problem as churches grow. Is this a staff responsibility or board responsibility? Where there is confusion there is also room for conflict and misunderstandings. How often do staff make decisions only to be second guessed by a board member who was not in on the decision? That means that the decision has to be rehashed after the fact because there was not clarity up front on who had the authority to make it.
Confusion over who is responsible for what creates conflict and misunderstanding and it is a sign you need to rethink your governance.
3. You have long interminable board meetings. One board I spoke with recently, told me that they had two board meetings a month that went from seven PM to midnight or after. I would have been stunned except it is all too common. No church board should have to meet for more than two hours twice a month on a regular basis!
Long board meetings are a sure sign of a broken decision making system.
4. Permission must be obtained from multiple groups before a decision can be made. Any time a leadership board has to get permission, funding or assent from another committee or board in the church, you are operating on a redundant system that has toll booths built into the decision making process. It is a waste of time, talent and energy.
Toll booths rather than easy pass is a sign you need to revisit your governance.
5. The board has a hard time making decisions. How many boards revisit the same issues over and over again either because they didn't make a clear decision or because they didn't make any decision. It is no wonder that good leaders often decline to serve on the board.
Revisiting previously made decisions over and over is a sign of a broken governance system.
6. The board does management rather than providing leadership. How many times do we need to say that staff manage the ministry while boards set the overall parameters of the ministry. Yet most boards spend most of their time dealing with management minutia that someone else could be doing. In doing so, they have abdicated their more important leadership role of ensuring that the church is maximizing its ministry impact.
Management by committee (board) is a sure sign of a dysfunctional governance system.
If any of these six markers characterize your board, pay attention and consider re evaluating your governance and leadership systems.
1. There is frustration by staff on how long it takes to make ministry decisions or changes. Here is the funny thing. Many board members do not realize how frustrated their staff are on the decision making process. After all, they check in for a board meeting once or twice a week while staff are chomping at the bit to move things forward. Several weeks ago in a dialogue with a board one of the board members gave me the classic line, "Our system works great." I looked over at the senior pastor and asked, "Do you see it that way?" He shook his head NO!
When decisions cannot be made in a timely fashion by the right people it is time to rethink your leadership/governance system.
2. There is confusion about who is responsible for what. This is a common problem as churches grow. Is this a staff responsibility or board responsibility? Where there is confusion there is also room for conflict and misunderstandings. How often do staff make decisions only to be second guessed by a board member who was not in on the decision? That means that the decision has to be rehashed after the fact because there was not clarity up front on who had the authority to make it.
Confusion over who is responsible for what creates conflict and misunderstanding and it is a sign you need to rethink your governance.
3. You have long interminable board meetings. One board I spoke with recently, told me that they had two board meetings a month that went from seven PM to midnight or after. I would have been stunned except it is all too common. No church board should have to meet for more than two hours twice a month on a regular basis!
Long board meetings are a sure sign of a broken decision making system.
4. Permission must be obtained from multiple groups before a decision can be made. Any time a leadership board has to get permission, funding or assent from another committee or board in the church, you are operating on a redundant system that has toll booths built into the decision making process. It is a waste of time, talent and energy.
Toll booths rather than easy pass is a sign you need to revisit your governance.
5. The board has a hard time making decisions. How many boards revisit the same issues over and over again either because they didn't make a clear decision or because they didn't make any decision. It is no wonder that good leaders often decline to serve on the board.
Revisiting previously made decisions over and over is a sign of a broken governance system.
6. The board does management rather than providing leadership. How many times do we need to say that staff manage the ministry while boards set the overall parameters of the ministry. Yet most boards spend most of their time dealing with management minutia that someone else could be doing. In doing so, they have abdicated their more important leadership role of ensuring that the church is maximizing its ministry impact.
Management by committee (board) is a sure sign of a dysfunctional governance system.
If any of these six markers characterize your board, pay attention and consider re evaluating your governance and leadership systems.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Signs you work in a toxic workplace
Lack of respect from your supervisor or leadership. Respect means that you are valued, that your opinions are taken seriously, that you are not taken for granted and that you are acknowledged for your contribution. Lack of respect eats away at our sense of self-worth and that you are not valued for your work. Lack of respect is often a sign of arrogance or even narcissism in a leader who needs to devalue others in order to add value to themselves.
Abusive behavior. I just spoke to an individual who has been the target of profane laced diatribes by a well known Christian leader whose conversations to those outside his organization are spiritual and uplifting! His words to his own employees are often demeaning, caustic, often angry and certainly don’t fit the definition of uplifting and encouraging. Abusive behavior whether with words or actions create uncertainty, anxiety and loss of respect.
Unpredictability. A hallmark of stable work environments is an element of predictability in leaders. You understand what their values are, what you can expect from them, where the organization is going and what is expected of you. Leaders who are unpredictable and whose behaviors or values or direction is subject to regular change create anxiety in their staff. That unpredictability is not just a “behavior quirk,” but often a symptom of an unhealthy leader. His or her unpredictability creates instability among staff and that instability is destructive to a healthy workplace.
Leading by fiat. This is the leader who rather than building a shared leadership culture and team simply tells people what to do, how to do it and expect others to jump at their command. They don’t respect boundaries, time, and opinions of others and treat employees as their servants. One thing they rarely keep are the best employees who refuse to be treated like chattel and who want a voice in the work they are doing. This environment leads to high turnover as the best choose to leave if indeed they come in the first place.
Cultures of fear. Unhealthy leaders often create a culture of fear where staff feel that they need to walk on eggshells, cannot be honest with their views and live with constant anxiety that they will not live up to their leader’s expectations. Ongoing or regular fear on the part of staff is a sign of a toxic environment which usually goes back to the leader. Another way of saying this is that where there is constant “drama” there is something toxic taking place.
Narcissistic leaders. The theme here is that it is all about the leader. They take the credit when things go well and blame others when things go south. They are always right and as long as you agree with them you are on the inside. Once you choose to disagree you are marginalized, demonized and placed on the outside. With a narcissistic leader you are either good or bad and that is determined by whether you agree with or challenge them. Narcissistic leaders create paranoid workplaces.
Lack of trust. Where there are significant trust issues in an organization, it is usually a symptom of deep leadership issues. Mistrust indicates that there is not a true team, that collaborative leadership is not possible and is usually a symptom of leaders who are unhealthy. Healthy leaders create trusting cultures and model what trust looks like in their relationships, behaviors and conversation. Lack of trust is deeply toxic and has the affect of creating deeper mistrust.
Lack of trust. Where there are significant trust issues in an organization, it is usually a symptom of deep leadership issues. Mistrust indicates that there is not a true team, that collaborative leadership is not possible and is usually a symptom of leaders who are unhealthy. Healthy leaders create trusting cultures and model what trust looks like in their relationships, behaviors and conversation. Lack of trust is deeply toxic and has the affect of creating deeper mistrust.
Bottom line? If you work in a toxic workplace you often don’t even realize how much anxiety you live with or how unhealthy your environment is until you choose to leave and all of a sudden realize that you feel free and are no longer carrying the heavy burdens you have been living with. If your workplace is characterized by any of the seven descriptors listed above, you ought to seriously consider leaving. Life is short and God wants us to use our gifting in positive, meaningful ways that bring joy and satisfaction rather than fear and anxiety. Choose to be courageous and find a healthy workplace.
TJ Addington (Addington Consulting) has a passion to help individuals and organizations maximize their impact and go to the next level of effectiveness. He can be reached at tjaddington@gmail.com.
"Creating cultures of organizational excellence."
De escalating Conflict
Conflicts are easy to get into and harder to get out of. Often they result from a misunderstanding between parties where there is either poor communication or the message is misunderstood. However it happens, when conflict occurs we have three choices: escalate the conflict, allow it to simmer or seek to de escalate.
Usually conflict escalates when we respond out of emotion. All of us have done this. Think about conflict you have had with your spouse and how easy it is to take a shot back when something was said we didn't like and the conflict escalates. Often, it was not even the intention of the other party to create conflict but in our misreading of their intent we responded out of emotion and actually created the conflict. The use of Email has created many misunderstandings because messages are cryptic, dialogue is difficult and one does not hear the tone behind the message.
Here are some ways to de escalate conflict.
First, wait to respond until you have processed your emotion so that you are not responding out of emotion. Remind yourself that what you "heard" may not be what was "intended." If the message from the other came out of their emotion or anxiety, responding with you emotion or anxiety will only escalate the issue. You want your response to be matter of fact, conciliatory and without emotion or anxiety and that often takes some time to process. Until our emotion and anxiety levels are low, our response is likely to escalate rather than de escalate.
Second, rather than assuming the intending message was meant the way it came across, personally (in person, by phone or Internet) clarify the intended message. Questions like, "This is how your message came across to me. Is that what you intended?" can help clarify and will often create the very dialogue needed to come to understanding.
Third, if there is a significant difference in thinking, work to "normalize" the relationship by acknowledging the difference but keeping the door open for dialogue and not allowing the conflict to destroy the relationship. Once relationships go south it is much harder to resolve the conflict because one then has to solve the relational issue before one can tackle the issue that created the conflict. When we can separate the conflict from the relationship there is a much better chance of resolution.
Fourth, don't allow others to hook you into emotional responses. They may remain emotional but you want to remain as calm and collected as possible. When emotions, anger and anxiety drive the process all kinds of collateral damage takes place. Even if you feel the emotion internally, try not to allow it to express itself in your body language or words.
De escalating conflict is an art and those who work at it find that they avoid all kinds of unpleasantness, become peacemakers, broker understanding and create healthy workplaces, homes and relationships.
Usually conflict escalates when we respond out of emotion. All of us have done this. Think about conflict you have had with your spouse and how easy it is to take a shot back when something was said we didn't like and the conflict escalates. Often, it was not even the intention of the other party to create conflict but in our misreading of their intent we responded out of emotion and actually created the conflict. The use of Email has created many misunderstandings because messages are cryptic, dialogue is difficult and one does not hear the tone behind the message.
Here are some ways to de escalate conflict.
First, wait to respond until you have processed your emotion so that you are not responding out of emotion. Remind yourself that what you "heard" may not be what was "intended." If the message from the other came out of their emotion or anxiety, responding with you emotion or anxiety will only escalate the issue. You want your response to be matter of fact, conciliatory and without emotion or anxiety and that often takes some time to process. Until our emotion and anxiety levels are low, our response is likely to escalate rather than de escalate.
Second, rather than assuming the intending message was meant the way it came across, personally (in person, by phone or Internet) clarify the intended message. Questions like, "This is how your message came across to me. Is that what you intended?" can help clarify and will often create the very dialogue needed to come to understanding.
Third, if there is a significant difference in thinking, work to "normalize" the relationship by acknowledging the difference but keeping the door open for dialogue and not allowing the conflict to destroy the relationship. Once relationships go south it is much harder to resolve the conflict because one then has to solve the relational issue before one can tackle the issue that created the conflict. When we can separate the conflict from the relationship there is a much better chance of resolution.
Fourth, don't allow others to hook you into emotional responses. They may remain emotional but you want to remain as calm and collected as possible. When emotions, anger and anxiety drive the process all kinds of collateral damage takes place. Even if you feel the emotion internally, try not to allow it to express itself in your body language or words.
De escalating conflict is an art and those who work at it find that they avoid all kinds of unpleasantness, become peacemakers, broker understanding and create healthy workplaces, homes and relationships.
Monday, May 2, 2011
Uncivil discourse and professional heresy hunters
The level of discourse in the public arena, whether in Washington or Madison or town hall meetings has become distressingly low. Talking heads on television do nothing to raise either good discourse, or civility either.
I expect this in the public arena but am distressed by the same lack of gracious discourse in the Christian arena. Take for instance, the many websites and numerous heresy charges against Rick Warren. It is not infrequent that another long missive appears in my in box with new charges of false teaching or character assassination by proxy since he is friends with people who don't have impeccable theology by the standards of the writer. The level of invective and anger is high while the biblical evidence of the charges is beyond low. These folks specialize in taking quotes out of context and calling foul when a careful reading would indicate that the charge has nothing to do with reality. Even if the charges were true (which I don't for a moment believe) the way the message is delivered is "behavioral heresy" as it does not reflect the gracious attitudes of believers. Jesus was full of grace and truth.
I once was in a meeting where the litmus test was whether I endorsed The Purpose Driven Church (If I did I was in the heretical and suspect camp). I looked at the individual who asked the question and said, "few churches have had the impact that Saddleback has had and the key is that they have a purpose and stick to their purpose. How does your church compare?" That of course was the irony of the question. These are people who like to divide people into groups: those that are right and those that are wrong. They define the rules, see no room for a different way of looking at the issue and are uncivil in their discussions.
Even where robust dialogue must take place (Rob Bell), there is no need to engage in character assassination. It is possible to explore the issues from a biblical perspective while preserving the dignity of the author. I love reading N.T. Wright, for instance and would not agree with all of his conclusions but would never attack his character because I disagree.
It would be sad to get to heaven and realize that we had split theological hairs so closely that we had done harm to God's people and God's kingdom. There are clearly heretical positions and snake salesmen (think late night TV) peddling themselves. But, there are also many professional critics looking for demons behind many good people and ministries. These are the very endless arguments that Paul warns Timothy to avoid in his letters to him.
My radar goes up when I hear from black and white folks for whom there is no theological gray, who are quick to judge others (see my blog on self righteous), who join groups who look for "false teaching" and seem to find it even among mainstream leaders and whose attitudes do not reflect the graciousness of Christ.
If the mark of a believer is love, all of our discourse must be marked by civility and love. And we ought to be very careful before we throw stones at fellow believers or their beliefs. Orthodoxy is a wide tent and much of the stone throwing has nothing to do with orthodoxy but rather with personal preferences or a narrow reading of theology.
I expect this in the public arena but am distressed by the same lack of gracious discourse in the Christian arena. Take for instance, the many websites and numerous heresy charges against Rick Warren. It is not infrequent that another long missive appears in my in box with new charges of false teaching or character assassination by proxy since he is friends with people who don't have impeccable theology by the standards of the writer. The level of invective and anger is high while the biblical evidence of the charges is beyond low. These folks specialize in taking quotes out of context and calling foul when a careful reading would indicate that the charge has nothing to do with reality. Even if the charges were true (which I don't for a moment believe) the way the message is delivered is "behavioral heresy" as it does not reflect the gracious attitudes of believers. Jesus was full of grace and truth.
I once was in a meeting where the litmus test was whether I endorsed The Purpose Driven Church (If I did I was in the heretical and suspect camp). I looked at the individual who asked the question and said, "few churches have had the impact that Saddleback has had and the key is that they have a purpose and stick to their purpose. How does your church compare?" That of course was the irony of the question. These are people who like to divide people into groups: those that are right and those that are wrong. They define the rules, see no room for a different way of looking at the issue and are uncivil in their discussions.
Even where robust dialogue must take place (Rob Bell), there is no need to engage in character assassination. It is possible to explore the issues from a biblical perspective while preserving the dignity of the author. I love reading N.T. Wright, for instance and would not agree with all of his conclusions but would never attack his character because I disagree.
It would be sad to get to heaven and realize that we had split theological hairs so closely that we had done harm to God's people and God's kingdom. There are clearly heretical positions and snake salesmen (think late night TV) peddling themselves. But, there are also many professional critics looking for demons behind many good people and ministries. These are the very endless arguments that Paul warns Timothy to avoid in his letters to him.
My radar goes up when I hear from black and white folks for whom there is no theological gray, who are quick to judge others (see my blog on self righteous), who join groups who look for "false teaching" and seem to find it even among mainstream leaders and whose attitudes do not reflect the graciousness of Christ.
If the mark of a believer is love, all of our discourse must be marked by civility and love. And we ought to be very careful before we throw stones at fellow believers or their beliefs. Orthodoxy is a wide tent and much of the stone throwing has nothing to do with orthodoxy but rather with personal preferences or a narrow reading of theology.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)