The dysfunction of professional ministry

This dysfunction applies particularly to churches and mission organizations. It is the thinking that only those who are formally trained are really able to minister effectively. If you doubt that this is true in your denomination, just ask yourself how many pastors there are who have not gone through formal theological training and whether you can be ordained without it. 

In the local church, this dysfunction shows itself in the areas where lay people are not given significant ministry responsibility and whether or not there is a concerted effort on the part of full-time personnel to develop, empower and release others into ministry. After all, the mandate of church leaders, according to Ephesians 4:12 is to equip, empower and release everyone into active ministry. Yet in many places of the world we have not done this, trusting 'real ministry' only to the hands of those who are formally trained.

We have trained our people to think that way as well. After all we hire professionals to do ministry for us. It leads to a passive laity - at least when it comes to significant ministry responsibility.

Here is something to chew on. There is no intrinsic link between one's level of education and one's ministry effectiveness! Educators may want you to believe there is but there is not. I am amazed at people, for instance, who get a PhD in Organizational Leadership but who cannot lead anything. Training and experience matter but how one gets that training and experience (formal or informal) does not.

I know hundreds of pastors internationally who lead highly effective ministries who have never had formal theological education, and often, heave not even been educated beyond the secondary level (what does matter is that pastors have a level of education consistent with those in their congregation).

It's not that I am anti-education (I hold a Masters Degree in Divinity from a great seminary). What troubles me is the culture we have bred in our ministries that leaves highly qualified people out of the game because they lack a degree. In fact, when churches are looking for staff members today, the first place I suggest they look is inside the congregation for someone who has the appropriate skill set and who is spiritually mature. You know them, they know you and you know whether or not it will be a good match based on long experience - rather than hoping that someone you call from the outside will be a good match.

By the way, for the first two hundred years of the church, most of those who had church leadership responsibility would probably not be ordained in our movements today. Something to chew on. 

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

Effective churches have pastors and boards with a bias toward strategic action

Effective leaders are proactive rather than passive, and leadership is an active rather than passive role. I believe that many church boards need to confront the reality that they have been acting as passive trustees rather than proactive leaders. When this happens, they miss the role they have been called to play and the mission Christ left for the church.

Consider Christ's instructions to His followers: "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always to the very end of the age" (Matthew 28:19,20). The first two words of Christ - therefore go - imply something deeply proactive and leadership-oriented.

There is nothing passive in this mission! We are to aggressively 'take territory for Jesus' in our communities, our nation and our world. This is a picture of Christ-followers on the move, bringing real change to communities, institutions, marketplaces and families.

Many have attended the leadership conferences of successful ministries. One mark of a successful ministry is the presence of leaders with an extraordinary bias toward action. By definition, leaders are people who think action, not status quo, and who are always looking to the future (where do we need to go?) rather than the past (how did we do things then?) or the present (how do we keep the status quo?).

The books of First and Second Timothy intrigue me because they are the counsel to Timothy from a strong, action-biased mentor. It seems that Timothy was a rather shy, conflict-avoiding, reluctant leader. Paul, on the other hand, was a natural born leader. I am intrigued by Paul's advice to Timothy, because most of us don't fit the natural-born leader profile either. Natural-born leaders were born wired for high-energy leadership. Leadership comes to them innately.

What about those of us who are not naturally strong leaders? Can we grow in our leadership? The answer from First and Second Timothy is that we can, if we are willing. As you read the letters from Paul to Timothy, you hear Paul giving instructions on basic leadership principles: resolving conflict, training leaders, teaching boldly, correcting error, leading by example, living authentically, refusing to be intimidated by bullies and any number of practical principles. Because Paul believed that Christ had called Timothy and that he was willing to learn and grow, he encouraged Timothy in his leadership role.

To lead well, those who have been called to pastoral or board roles must by necessity become students of leadership. Let's face it, a passive person is not a leader! If we believe that leadership in the church is a sacred task given to a few by Christ to ensure the health of His people and the expansion of His kingdom, we must be willing to grow in our understanding of what effective leadership looks like and learn to become better leaders.

Effective leadership is all the more critical given the statistics that an overwhelming majority of churches in America are either at a plateau or losing ground. This reality calls into question the ability of many leadership boards and individuals to actively and biblically lead. If we are not moving forward, we are inevitably slipping backward! Church leaders need to be actively leading or willing to learn to lead, or they should step aside and allow someone else to lead.

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

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

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

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

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

Rethinking the meaning of congregationalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our church governance systems do matter!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conflict: Walk toward the barking dog

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nine characteristics of healthy leaders

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

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

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

Healthy leaders are comfortable with themselves

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

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

Healthy leaders do not "own" the ministry they lead

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

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

Healthy leaders are missional

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

Healthy leaders develop, empower and release others

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

Healthy leaders listen far more than they talk

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

Healthy leaders mentor and coach their staff

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

Healthy leaders always thank and encourage their staff

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

Healthy leaders are forthright, candid and transparent

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

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

Healthy leaders are consistent, fair and keep their promises

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A true test of organizational health

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

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

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

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

How leaders can facilitate better meetings

Many good leaders are not great leaders of meetings. Perhaps it is because they are often big picture rather than detail and good meetings require proper planning (detail). They may also be distracted by other issues and find meetings to be a distraction. Here is the good news. Leaders don't need to be great at facilitating meetings but they do need to have someone on their team that is.

Here is a freeing concept. A leader does not need to lead their own meetings. If there is someone on their team who is better than they are in planning and leading meetings, let them do it. This other staff member can consult with the leader to ensure they are both good on the agenda. Furthermore, this allows the leader to participate in the discussion without having to lead the meeting itself.

Second, there should be no meetings without defined outcomes, an agenda that is tight and time frames. Without these, meetings waste up to 50% of their time which is a huge waste of time and energy. 

We use a tool called The Meeting Compass which helps us build the meeting beforehand, keeps a record of the meeting and automatically transfers decisions, parking lot items and action items to an execution journal for accountability and better implementation. It has been so successful that most everyone in our office chooses to use it. No I have no stock in the company!

Third, and this is why the tool above is so helpful. Meetings don't mean much when there is not execution on action items. Getting action items done is the engine toward meaningful progress. But without some kind of accountability it often does not happen - especially in ministry settings. Execution is critical and a tool to help it happen is what people need.

Fourth. Good meetings have ground rules. Want better participation and to end on time? Come up with some meeting behaviors that everyone agrees to: no multi-tasking; cell phones and email off; computer screens down unless needed; we start on time and end on time; we leave the room the way we found it; everyone actively participates; we come prepared and so on. Think about how much time is lost when these kinds of behaviors don't happen.

Don't waste your life in meetings. Make them tight, meaningful, focused with participants engaged and you will get more done. Also check out the meeting compass. It is worth the small investment necessary.

Ten Practices that keep us Grounded

Staying grounded in the midst of life can prevent us from experiencing the negative side affects of stress or success. I intentionally make time for these ten practices which keep me growing and keep me grounded.

People we know

Cultivating a close set of quality friends who will do the journey of life with us, love us and speak truth to us is central to grounding and growth. They are a very high priority for Mary Ann and me because these relationships represent fellow pilgrims who we know well and who know us well and who give us needed life perspective.

Books we read

Time for reading keeps us sharp and thinking outside our own paradigms. I usually am reading five to ten books at any one time so that I can pick and choose depending on my mood or need. I read broadly, theology, history, biography and leadership. If my reading suffers I know that I am running too fast for my own good.

Experiences we choose

Intentionally choosing to participate in experiences that will stretch us keeps us from living only in the comfort zone. Whether it is leading a ministry endeavor that will stretch us, learning something new about ourselves or learning something new, experiences that take us out of our normal zone challenge our thinking and perspectives.

Defining moments we experience

Defining moments are usually experiences we do not look for or necessarily wish for but they come our way nonetheless and force us to either use them for growth or they turn us toward bitterness. Tough experiences are the leading cause for growth in our lives if we will let them. Growth takes place in the red zone, not the comfort zone.

Ministry we undertake

I am not talking about out professional ministry that is a part of our job but personal ministry with others that is not part of our job. Ministry, coming alongside others with hope and help keep us living where God designed us to live. When we are too busy for personal ministry we know we are running to fast.

Risks we take

When we stop taking risks in our life or ministry we generally have slowed our growth curve. We ought to ask ourselves, "what was the last real risk I took?" Risks force us out of our comfort zone and challenge us to something larger than normal - and to rely on God more than normal.

Questions we ask

Never stop asking questions - of everyone we come into contact with. It is amazing how much we can learn if we simply learn the art of asking probing questions. Give me someone who asks a ton of questions and I know that I have someone who wants to keep growing. The inverse is also true.

Obedience we pursue

I am convinced that a measure of our own grounding and growth is the intentional pursuit of following Christ more closely - all the time. That means that we need to make space for God in our lives, often something in short commodity for those in full time ministry. Before we can influence others, God needs to influence us.

Love we give

God's people are givers of love in all sorts of practical ways. That takes a heart that is constantly on the look out for those who need love and the time to give it. One of the marks of grounded believers is that they are experts in giving love and they take the time to do it.

Community we participate in

All of us need community. In community, face to face with others, we are challenged in our own lives and growth. In community we learn to love, forgive, accept, overcome differences and challenge one anther's thinking. When we no longer have time for community we lose a bit of our grounding.

These are the practices that we intentionally put into our schedules. They keep us grounded and growing. The cool thing is that anyone can do them if they will make space for them. When one of them starts to suffer it serves as an early warning system that life is no longer in balance.

Extroverts, Introverts, and Leadership

One might think that most good leaders are extroverts. After all they are up front, in the public eye and in constant communication with someone, whether staff, boards, constituencies or others. My experience, however is that many leaders actually introverts in a job that requires them to be public figures. My observation is that neither side of the continuum makes for a better leader and that whichever side one falls on one needs to make adjustments for ones wiring.

The upside to an extrovert in leadership is that they love to be with people and generally enjoy being in the center of things. Because they become energized by people, they can stay engaged for long periods of time.

There is often a downside, however to an extrovert in leadership. Because extroverts love being with people they often find it difficult to do the hard work of thinking, planning, reflection, those things that are usually done in private. Thus unless an extrovert intentionally modifies their natural bent in order to do the behind the scenes work of leadership they can often lead in a rather scattered fashion - which is a challenge to those they lead.

The upside of an introvert in leadership is that they have no problem taking the private time for thinking, planning and reflection. After all they recharge more in private than in public. 

Their downside, is that unless they compensate for their private nature, they can seem distant, remote and unattached to the very staff they lead. And, they can be read as disinterested in people. Introverts in leadership must therefore carefully compensate for their need to recharge in private while learning to be highly engaged in public. For them, the public role is more of a learned skill while for extroverts, the private role is more of a learned skill.

In one of these better than the other in leadership? I have no reason to believe so. There are upsides and downsides to both and either set of wiring requires the learning of new skills if one is going to be truly successful.

See this interesting article on the subject from the New York Times.

Paying attention to sweet spots

Leaders are exegetes of the people they lead. Too often we simply see people as filling a slot in our organization rather than finding the best people we can and building their job around the gifting and skills that God has given them. When someone is in the right seat and they are in a place where they will be successful because the seat was designed for them, they are in their sweet spot.

In the absence of paying attention to a person's sweet spot and playing to their strengths, people are frustrated and not as productive as if they were positioned for maximum effectiveness (and joy) in their work. As a team leader, one of my core missions is to help position the great people who work on my team in the place where they will be most effective. that means that I must watch them, dialogue with them, be willing to modify their job descriptions and do all that I can to keep them engaged.

How do we determine our own (or others') sweet spots?

Consider asking these questions:
-What things fill my tank and what things deplete me?
-What things do I love to do and which do I put off?
-What am I most effective at and what am I either marginally effective at or really poor at?
-If I could design my perfect job description it would be....
-How do others evaluate my areas of strength and weakness?
-If I could change one thing about my current job that would make my job a lot more fulfilling, what would it be?
-What do others think that I am good at?

For many years, conventional wisdom was that one ought to work on strengthening one's weaknesses. We now know that it is far wiser to focus on our strengths than to try to fix our weaknesses. In fact, people will be the most productive if they can spend no more than 20-40% percent of their time in areas of weakness and 60-80% in areas of strength. We need to help people design their responsibilities in ways that maximize their strengths and find other ways to support their weaknesses.

If someone is really in the wrong spot (they are not playing to their strengths) it may be necessary to help them find another seat on the bus or if there is not another seat on your bus, a seat on another bus.

Helping those on your team understand the sweet spot concept will then allow them to apply the same thinking to those whom they lead. People who are in the right seat and playing to their strengths are happy and productive.

A Leadership Scorecard

Take a moment and give yourself a grade (A, B, or C) in the following areas?

Transition from independent producer to leading through team ______

Intentionality in my spiritual life _____

Intentionality in my family life _____

Intentional growth in my professional life ____

Management of my 'dark side' ____

I regularly keep the mission in front of my team ____

I constantly clarify with the team what we are about_____

I constantly ask questions _____

I regularly take time to think ____

My team members are in the right seat ____

I provide maximum missional clarity to the team _____

I empower staff rather than control or micromanage ____

I intentionally mentor/coach my team members at least monthly _____

I have an intentional plan to develop new leaders ____

Mobilization of resources is high on my list ____

My schedule is designed to allow me to lead with excellence _____

Ten ways our personal walk and theology profoundly impact our leadership

Jesus was clear that what is in our hearts spills out to our actions and therefore impacts others. There are profound ways that our personal walk with God and our theology impacts our leadership. Think about these issues:

If I do not understand grace and personally live in God's grace I will not likely give it to others. Many driven leaders are trying to prove something to God and their drivenness spills over to their staff. 

If I do not believe that God truly forgives me and if I don't therefore forgive myself for my failures I will likely not be a forgiving leader. Leaders who hold grudges and don't forgive create an unhealthy ethos on their team and destroy relationships.

If I do not understand that in God's Kingdom, leaders serve others rather than are served by others I will lead selfishly rather than selflessly. My leadership will be about what I can gain personally rather than what I can give personally to help others be successful.

If I do not live with the humility of Jesus I will start to believe that my success is about me rather than about what a team has accomplished with God's help. Prideful leaders are selfish leaders.

If I do not believe in the theology of spiritual gifts and that God has uniquely wired people with specific strengths (Ephesians 2:10) I will not build teams around gifting and wiring or release people into their giftedness. 

If I do not understand that Jesus and Paul (and others) released rather than controlled people I will likely seek to control and micromanage rather than equip and release. Our need to control others is often a sign of our lower nature.

If my pride causes me to need to be right all the time I will not admit failure, live with transparency or listen well to others. Personal defensiveness kills good leadership and team and comes from a poor understanding of gifting and wiring and living in God's grace.

If I don't get that people are made in God's Image I will likely use them rather than serve them, be inclined to marginalize some and see tasks as more important than people. If I see all people as made in His image I will want the best for them in all circumstances.

If I don't put Godly integrity first in my life I will likely not put it first in my leadership leaving me vulnerable to cutting corners, placing expediency over integrity and 

If I don't live under God's authority I may not desire to live under the authority of others be it my supervisor or my board. Those who cannot live under authority cannot lead with authority.

Our personal walk and theology impact everything we do as leaders. Attention to our own lives is the first step in good leadership.

Why arrogance is so deadly

Few people in Scripture model the sin of arrogance better than King Saul. For most of his reign he did his own thing, followed his own path and actively resisted the counsel of Samuel and God. In fact, one of the core traits of a person of arrogance is that they resist the counsel of others - at least anyone who chooses to disagree with them. 

There is a defining moment in Saul' life in 1 Samuel 15 where he again disobeyed the Lord's commands and when confronted by Samuel, made up well sounding excuses that were transparently false nonetheless. It is here that Samuel uttered the famous words, "Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the voice of the Lord?" This goes to the heart of arrogance, doing our own thing our own way regardless.

But there is another piece to Samuel's words to Saul that is equally telling. He says that arrogance is like the evil of idolatry (1 Samuel 15:23). Idolatry of course is the worship of something other than God.

Arrogance is like the worship of an idol precisely because that idol is self. It is nothing else than self worship, believing that we are autonomous, that we are the final authority, that we are wise and right. This is a deeply dangerous place to be yet Christian leaders are not immune from this disease - and it is a disease. There are other professional critics in the church as well who display that kind of arrogance and cause a great deal of harm to those around them. After all, they are right and everyone else is wrong.

Self worship, arrogance goes to the heart of the sinful nature. Isaiah put it this way. "We all like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way (Isaiah 53:6). Again the autonomous self that sets itself up against God and others. 

Humility is not just a nice thing. It is the antidote to the autonomous self that worships itself. Arrogance is a disease that has no good ending because the more we believe in our own wisdom and actions the more deluded and isolated we become until we are unable to see our own sinfulness and foolishness. I have met some who have crossed that fatal line and cannot see what everyone around them sees. 

The equation between leading and being led: Leadership accountability

All healthy leaders have learned to live under accountability. They are not free agents but individuals who have learned to follow and who welcome the accountability under which they work and lead.

Many would be leaders have not learned to follow and therefore do not deserve to be followed. Whether they are senior pastors who don’t believe they need to listen to their board, staff to their supervisor or missionaries to their team or mission leaders there are too many people who believe they are free agents in the ministry world. For many it would be a shock to actually work in the non-ministry world where standards of accountability are often far higher and where free agency is rarely tolerated.

Who we are willing to be accountable to is an important question but the necessity of accountability is not. If we work under individuals who we are unwilling to be accountable to we need to find someone for whom we can. Living with a lack of accountability is a dangerous place to live – for anyone.

Follower ship is a crucial prelude to leadership and the higher the level of leadership the more accountability there ought to be because the stakes are higher. In our organization, one of the first questions we ask about someone being considered for leadership is “have they followed well?”

The inability to follow well has its roots in a rebellious spirit and usually translates into ones follower ship of God as well as leadership. A rebellious spirit was at the root of King Saul’s character flaw which led God to anoint a new King for Israel, one who had a heart after God’s. At its core a rebellious spirit is about “going our own way” which is the classic definition of sin in Isaiah 53:6.

This is an important concept because our accountability to a board, supervisor, or leader is usually a mirror of our accountability to our heavenly father. Both require the willingness to be accountable and at times to bend our will to the will of those over us.

I have the gift of working for a highly empowering leader who allows me to play to my strengths, who is non controlling and supportive. But, he is so, because he trusts me to be sensitive to his leadership and the direction of the EFCA as a whole, and he knows that after robust dialogue either with him or the EFCA leadership team that I will always play ball – even when I personally would have done it differently. He also knows that I will never undermine him or the senior team that I am on in words, actions or attitudes. The moment I do that, I have lost my moral authority to lead under him.

With that gift, comes a huge responsibility both to my supervisor and to the One I am ultimately accountable to. Responsibility to lead my own life well since who I am spills over to others. Responsibility to bring clarity to the organization I lead since that clarity impacts everyone and everything we do. Responsibility to develop, empower and release individuals for maximum effectiveness. And, responsibility to create an ethos and culture in ReachGlobal that is healthy and productive.

Accountable leaders model a Biblical truth for everyone in the organization: We all live under authority. I choose to live under authority and my response to my earthly authority is an indication of my response to my heavenly authority. In those cases where there is a conflict between the two that is irreconcilable, one needs to find another place to work where they can be accountable with a happy heart and a clear conscience.

Four reasons why so few churches are breakout churches

Take a look at this quick but important read on why so few churches are truly breakout churches that see significant growth. They are simple, biblical issues that too many of us pay too little attention to.

http://thomrainer.com/2013/04/20/four-simple-reasons-most-churches-arent-breakout-churches/

What issues are we blind to today as a Church?

It is hard to believe that just a few decades ago, we were a nation that accepted discrimination as a way of life and embedded in law. It is equally hard in hindsight to believe that the institution of slavery in England and the United States could be justified by Christians and defended with scripture. The lesson is that it is easy to be blind to injustice around us when that injustice is embedded in our culture, thinking and political battles. Even the biblical message of Martin Luther King so lauded today was scorned by so many in his own time.

The question for us today is what are we blind to in our time that a few decades from now others will look back at and wonder how we could have missed it. My guess it will include issues of immigration and our response to it from a Biblical perspective, issues of justice for those who do not have a voice and the massive human trafficking that has more people in slavery today than at the height of the Atlantic slave trade.

In a world that is cruel to the marginalized, where cycles of poverty keep generations in often hopeless circumstances, where basic needs like clean water, sanitation and a meal a day can be only dreamed of and where corrupt governments, officials and institutions deny basic justice we need to be reminded of the heart of God. The prophet Micah said it cogently: “He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God” (Micah 6:8).

On a personal level there are three simple questions: Do I act justly in my interactions with others and in a way that never takes advantage of them? Do I love mercy and display mercy in my actions, help, and attitudes and even apply God’s heart of mercy to my political views? And do I walk humbly, as Jesus did as a servant to others rather than insisting on my rights and in my humility enter into the hurt, need and humanity of others?

Further, what am I doing to respond to the needs of our world with my time, my generous giving and my attention? The Gospel of Christ is a holistic gospel as evidenced by the life of Christ who cared for the circumstances of those around Him and the call of the prophets. Isaiah, like Micah said it eloquently. “Is this not the kind of fasting I have chosen: to loose the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke, to set the oppressed free and break every yoke? Is it not to share you food with the hungry, and to provide the poor wanderer (immigrant?) with shelter – when you see the naked, to clothe him and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?” (Isaiah 58:6-7).

It is to those whose hearts and actions reflect God’s heart that he gives this promise. “Then your light will break forth like the dawn and your healing will quickly appear; then your righteousness will go before you and the glory of the Lord will be your rear guard. Then you will call and the Lord will answer, you will cry for help, and he will say: Here am I” (Isaiah 58:8-9).

Take just a moment and reflect on your response to Micah, Isaiah or the Biblical message of Martin Luther King. Are we reflecting the concerns of God for justice and mercy? Are we doing something tangible to ensure that “His will is done on earth as it is in heaven?” We cannot do everything but we can do something. What are we doing?

Let’s take time to regularly reflect on where we may be blind to issues around us or simply taking the easy way out by ignoring them. It is about having the heart of God which is a heart of mercy, justice, care for the marginalized and impoverished and those who have no voice. It is a divine heart of compassion that desires to bring His will wherever we can to broken people.

Signs of good organizational clarity

How do you know that your organization has significant and healthy clarity? Here are some key markers:

• Everyone in the organization can clearly articulate the mission and vision of the organization.
• There are clear guiding principles (values) that are known by all and clearly lived out.
• Staff members are clear on what decisions they can make and on the non-negotiables that guide their decision making process.
• When you talk to staff you hear a common vocabulary and language about what they do and how they do it.
• In leadership meetings, discussions of strategy or focus always revolve around the purpose of the organization and the non-negotiable principles that guide it.
• All divisions can clearly explain how their efforts support the clear focus of the organization.
• There is clear alignment among leaders and divisions around the organizations focus and its non-negotiables.
• Budgets always reflect the organization's stated focus.
• There is an annual plan that guides the organization and each staff member.
• Senior leadership are always seeking to bring clarity to those they lead through dialogue.
• There is enthusiasm among the team members about where they are headed in their common mission.

As you think of the organization you work for or lead, how are you doing on the clarity front?

Subtle shifts in language can make all the difference in terms of what people hear

One of my pet peeves are preachers who regularly use the pronoun "you" instead of "us." The first feels like I am being preached at and that the issues don't belong to the speaker as well. The second is inclusive - as it should be as speaker and listener are both under the authority of the Word. It is a small but subtle difference that makes a great difference.

Leaders of all sorts regularly share new ideas with those they lead. How they frame those ideas again makes all the difference. I can say "this is it!" or I can ask "Is this it?" One pronounces the end result, the other invites feedback, dialogue and discussion and clearly says, "your feedback and participation is important. It is the difference between a pronouncement and a question.

How often in marriage conversations when we are irritated say "You always...." which is almost always an exaggeration. Far fairer to say, "you know sometimes you....and I am sure I sometimes do it too" which is far softer and fairer. 

For those of us who communicate regularly it is helpful to invite a few trusted folks to give us feedback on subtle but important ways that our communication style is problematic or could be improved. Usually we are not even aware of ways in which we disempower others in our communication. I am always grateful for those who play that role in my own life.

Suffering, pain and God's sovereignty

I am convinced that nothing tests our theology of God's sovereignty than when life blows up in our faces and we are left with the pain of the results. I have had my share so can speak from some experience:  dreams shattered in I my pastoral experience; being turned down for the job I presently hold, two life threatening illnesses and more. Each time I had to grapple with the questions: Is God good, is He truly sovereign? Can I trust Him with my future? and can He redeem the pain, suffering and situation that is beyond my control and use them for His purposes.

Let's face it. It is easy to talk about His sovereignty and goodness in the good times. It is far more difficult to do it in the hard times! Those of us who preach and lead and teach often have fine tuned theology for others but it is when life comes undone that we grapple with it ourselves.

Etched in my memory is January 4, 2009 when I was pulled off an aircraft in Thailand, sent to the hospital and found myself on a ventilator that evening with massive pneumonia, Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome, and septic shock - for the second time in two years. Awake that night on a ventilator with all the pain it engendered, a bad prognosis, my wife on the other side of the planet and my 21 year old son signing medical consents and knowing the odds I had to grapple with the questions above. 

It called the question: What did I really believe about God's sovereignty and Romans 8? Was God good even if I had not survived? Could I truly trust God's purposes for my life? The truth is I felt not a whit like Isaiah 40:28-31:

Do you not know?
    Have you not heard?
The Lord is the everlasting God,
    the Creator of the ends of the earth.
He will not grow tired or weary,
    and his understanding no one can fathom
²⁹ He gives strength to the weary
    and increases the power of the weak.
³⁰ Even youths grow tired and weary,
    and young men stumble and fall;
³¹ but those who hope in the Lord
    will renew their strength.
They will soar on wings like eagles;
    they will run and not grow weary,
    they will walk and not be faint.

I felt a lot more like David in the Psalms where he despairs of his life and his soul is utterly cast down. And I knew that I had to choose like David did in Psalm 62 to trust God in spite of everything because He is sovereign and good and present and my salvation no matter what my situation. It was a choice I made late in the night as I wrestled with God and chose a path of faith. It was not easy and I had no idea of the outcome - even whether I would survive long enough to see Mary Ann when she arrived.

There are times when life surprises us, disappoints us and frankly betrays us. It is in those times that we make a choice to either believe what we have known to be true or not. Frankly, in retrospect, I am deeply thankful that I was faced with the choice on a number of occasions because it was in the crucible that faith and truth became truly real in my life and heart. It is the testing of our faith that makes it real. Every step of faith is a step toward God and toward His truth, promises, love and faithfulness. There is no other way to truly make it real!

Clarity and why it matters

Clarity is a common topic of this blog because its presence or absence has a major impact on the satisfaction level of staff. I spoke recently with a newer staff member of a ministry organization and I asked him what had surprised him. His answer was the lack of clarity within the organization which has caused him a great deal of frustration in his role. Since there is not adequate clarity and he cannot read the mind of the senior leader he lives in a fairly unempowered culture. He is not alone. 

New staff are often the best barometers of how much clarity an organization has since those of us who have been around awhile know the unwritten and unspoken rules and think there is pretty good clarity. Those coming into the organization, however don't know the unwritten or unspoken paradigms by which the organization operates and it often bites them when they cross an invisible line.

In my book, Leading from the Sandbox I talk about the major pieces of organizational clarity: mission, guiding principles, central ministry focus and culture. However there are other areas of clarity that impact staff in a direct way as well such as the following.

What decisions am I allowed to make without getting permission first? Clarity on this issue is a big deal. Most ministries are permission withholding rather than permission granting within boundaries. If I think I have authority in an area and find out otherwise, it is highly disempowering. This assumes that there is clarity in the large areas (above) and that there is a clear annual plan with objectives that can guide the decision making process. In the absence of this you cannot empower staff.

If I don't have permission to make decisions, what is the process I need to go through? Interestingly, even in many large ministry organizations the answer is that one needs the sign off of the senior leader because they are the arbiter of what can or cannot be done. It is really about their preference rather than about organizational clarity. Or, one must get permission from the Executive Pastor who is the only one who knows what is in the mind of the senior leader. Again, not an empowering ethos.

On what basis do I make decisions in my area of responsibility? If this is not clear there is a serious lack of organizational clarity. The reason that many even qualified leaders in ministry must get permission is that there are no clearly stated guidelines as to how they are to make decisions. Again, it often comes down to the 
preference of the leader which means that one either has to read their mind or ask their permission.

When there is not clarity on these kinds of issues or when the clarity is "ask the senior leader," good staff often choose to leave as they are living in an unempowered work culture. In fact, as I listened to one staff member recently  who described the culture of the organization he worked for I suggested that his time there might be shorter than he planned on because of the gap between his leadership gifts and the relatively unempowered culture he was in. If so it is a loss for the organization he is working for.

Providing maximum clarity is job one for a leaders. When it does not happen they have disempowered their whole staff.

Organizational cultures that support the mission

We often just don't think about it. Every organization has a stated mission or purpose but many do not have an internal organizational culture that is designed to support that mission. It is, perhaps, why we don't deliver on our purpose as well as we could be.

For instance, the mission statement of ReachGlobal - the mission I give leadership to - is to glorify God by multiplying healthy churches among all people. The key words there are multiplication and health. Both of those commitments require an internal culture of multiplication as well as a culture of health. It is not possible to see healthy churches multiplied without healthy personnel and it is not possible to actually multiply unless it is an intentional part of the culture since addition rather than multiplication is the default setting of most people.

Church leaders talk a lot about unity and love but if those kinds of values are not lived out by boards and staff it will likely not be lived out in the congregation either. Not only that but when the internal culture of an organization does not match its stated purposes it creates legitimate questions in the minds of many as to whether its leadership is truly serious about their stated purposes. 

I often speak with organizational staff about the lack of empowerment in their ministry. The senior leader talks the empowerment talk but the organizational culture does not empower - usually because the senior leader does not. It is an obvious case of cultures that don't match commitments and it is deeply frustrating to those affected.

Organizational culture matters a great deal. Often our cultures are accidental cultures as there has not been intentionality in their creation. The best cultures are clearly articulated, highly intentional and seriously lived out by leadership and staff.

Something to remember is that both  insiders and outsiders can read the culture of your organization. They can tell if it is intentional or accidental. They can also read whether it healthy or unhealthy and finally whether it supports your stated purposes. Often their commitment to the organization is directly influenced by what they  observe.