Theology and leadership dichotomies

I am always bemused by the artificial dichotomy that many believers seem to have between spirituality and leadership or theology and leadership. It comes up in statements like "You cannot run a church like a business" as if all business principles are exclusive from church management: HR; budgets; plans; accountability; staff reviews; healthy teams; and the like. I want to say "really?" "Have you thought about that?"

Just recently one of those reviewing one of my books on Amazon wrote this: "He gives some good practical guidance but seems to be more from a CEO perspective than a theological one." Now that assumes that the Bible has nothing to say about leadership and teams or that good leadership and healthy teams are just that and have no spiritual significance. Do good leadership and healthy teams not matter in the ministry arena? I suspect many in the ministry arena wished their leaders had just an ounce of CEO perspective in them!

Why do we make such dichotomies? If you have ever served in a ministry capacity you know that leadership principles matter as much there as they do anywhere else. I suppose some need a proof text for everything but that is not what the Bible is for. I suspect the stakes are even higher in the ministry arena on the leadership side as the end results are eternal rather than temporal.

It is said of David that he led them with "skillful hands and integrity of heart." There you have the both and rather than the either or. Skillful hands has to do with good and wise leadership while integrity of heart has to do with the spiritual underpinnings from which that leadership came.

Don't dichotomize what God does not. It is black and white thinking that does not do justice to Scripture or the realities in which we live.

Emotional Intelligence and the Holy Spirit

Daniel Goleman (a great author on this subject) did not invent EQ - God did. Emotional intelligence is all about managing our emotions so that they do not get us into trouble and allow us to keep healthy relationships. 

In that light, the Fruit of the Spirit, for instance takes on new meaning. "Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness and self control." All of these would be considered good EQ! The acts of the lower nature (Galatians 5) would be considered bad EQ: fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy..and the like.

Think of some of the admonitions of Ephesians in this regard:

• Be completely humble and gentle
• be patient, bearing with one another in love
• Make every effort to keep the bond of peace
• put off falsehood and speak truth fully
• Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry
• Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs
• get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander along with every form of malice.
• Be kind and compassionate
• Forgive one another

All of these behaviors are pleasing to God and all are signs of good emotional intelligence as we manage our emotions and reactions in ways that are productive rather than unproductive.

So think about this: Christ followers above all should have some of the best cultivated EQ because for us it is both a matter of obedience to Jesus and we have the Holy Spirit to help us make it a reality in our everyday experience. 

Good EQ is not a secular concept but a deeply biblical one. Growing our EQ is part of growing into who God designed us to be through His Holy Spirit. As a student of EQ in the secular literature and the Scriptures I am constantly reminded that EQ is a deeply biblical principle. 

Avoiding emotional triangles

One of the signs of healthy emotional intelligence is the ability to be "self defining" - having one's own view and opinion of situations and people without being "drawn into" the opinions or issues of others. Both emotional triangles and enmeshment are signs of poor EQ, whether by the one who does the triangulation or the one who is drawn into the triangulation.

For instance, it is not unusual for someone who has an "issue" with another individual to seek to draw other people into their "issue" by speaking ill of them (often subtly to first see if there is resonance) and looking for others to join them in their opinion. This makes the one with the "issue" feel better (they have others who now share their opinion) and it allies others with them against the one with whom they have an issue. It can be very subtle but the results are not!

This often happens in families, in workplaces, in ministries and in congregations. It divides people, hurts relationships and can cause relational chaos on a team or within a group. And it is a sign of poor emotional intelligence on the part of the perpetrator as well as those who choose to join the perpetrator.

Individuals with healthy emotional intelligence keep their own counsel on people and situations. They do not allow themselves to be drawn into alliances with others against others. They are able to think for themselves and understand that they are responsible for their relationships with both parties and they do not allow others to define those relationships for them.

In addition, they immediately recognize when someone tries to "draw them in" that what they are hearing is probably not reality - that there is a reason that they are being lobbied toward a certain view or attitude. In fact, rather than being drawn in, emotionally healthy individuals immediately recognize that they are dealing with someone with poor EQ and they are wary of the information they are receiving.

How can one deal with situations where one is being subtly lobbied to agree with one party against another (triangulation)?

First, understand that your responsibility is for your relationships and that you need to be "self defined" and come to your own conclusions about people and situations. Healthy self defined people do not allow others to define reality for them.

Second, realize that anyone who triangulates is not operating out of healthy emotional intelligence and rather than solve the issue they have with others they instead seek to ally others with them against those with whom they have issues. Think about the difference between those two approaches! Which would be the biblical approach?

Third, do not give sympathy to the one seeking to triangulate which only feeds their unhealthy practice. Instead, ask clarifying questions that might help them understand that their perspective may not be the only way to look at the individual they are unhappy with and encourage them to deal with the relational disconnect rather than to draw others into their issue. When we give sympathy in the absence of personal information we become complicit in the problem.

Fourth, ask who could meet with the one with the offense and the one who is being marginalized by the one with the offense to bring understanding and reconciliation. Their willingness to deal with their issue when called on it will tell you a lot about their real motives.

Don't get caught in the deadly web of triangulation. It is unhealthy, it destroys relationships and it hurts ministry. Furthermore it is a sign of poor emotional intelligence and the inability to be self defining.

What would happen in our churches if.....

What would happen if...

We challenged all of our college age kids to take one year to do some kind of holistic ministry either nationally or internationally?

We offered every high schooler an adult mentor who would meet with them, pray for them and encourage them?

We offered every newly married couple an older married mentor couple?

We told people that generosity with God was a joyful way to live?

We helped all of our people use their gifts in meaningful ministry rather than simply filling ministry slots we have created?

We encouraged ten percent of our congregation to give two weeks to ministry either locally, domestically or internationally every year?

We valued our seniors as much as we did our young folks?

We showed everyone how they could form their own prayer team to pray for them regularly and for them to be transparent with?

We encouraged every family to develop a relationship with a family from another racial group?

We asked every small group to do four compassion projects locally each year?

We focused on life transformation more than programming?

We did less programming so people could develop relationships with each other and unbelievers?

We read through the Bible as a congregation every other year - the whole thing?

We challenged people to see people as God sees them and love them as He loves them - starting with one another?

We became known for the church that loves people and helps them in practical ways?

What would you add?

Simple concepts - Powerful outcomes

Don't be stupid when hiring

When we are looking for staff we often do so with rose colored glasses. After all, we have a position and we find out that there is someone who fits "exactly" what we are looking for!

A word to the wise: Candidates never looked so good as when they are looking for a job and organizations never looked so good as when they are looking for staff! Which is a recipe for not doing due diligence and making stupid mistakes. Even many of the best have paid dumb tax on this one.

On occasion, when hires have gone really wrong I have asked those who did the hiring if they had actually talked to the former employers and inevitably the answer is no. Why? well the staff member did not list them as references or they were told not to talk to them. After all, whatever happened there was not relevant to the job they were being hired for. It is exceedingly nuts not to speak to former employers even if one chooses to hire in the face of a bad reference from them. Not to do so is to run a great risk of trouble that could be avoided if one had done so. 

Everyone has those who will be advocates for them. I am glad for that. But when hiring you want to know the unvarnished truth because you are going to get the unvarnished individual once you hire them for a job. Remember no one is as good looking as when they are looking for a job. So find out what you are getting after you offer them a job. And never neglect to talk to those they have worked for previously regardless of whether the candidate wants you too or not. While some may not give you much information the more guarded their response the more concerned one ought to be.

Also, never overlook character issues in the face of brilliance in some area. No matter how brilliant someone is (or appears to be), if there is a character flaw it will get them into trouble and therefore you as well. Once they work for you, whatever flaw that is will become a liability to you!

The more impressive someone looks the more diligence one needs to do to find out whether what you are seeing is healthy or not. Many of the most narcissistic leaders are the most impressive in presenting themselves. In fact, they are so blind to their own issues and so skilled at presenting themselves that those they are selling themselves to have no clue as to the dysfunction that is behind the mask. Make sure that what you see is what you are actually getting.

My own experience is that those we get into trouble with the most are those who present themselves the best. Real people are real when they present themselves. Those who sell themselves make me deeply cautious and the more I am sold the more skeptical I am. And the more exploring I do.

I would ask a candidate one other question: Is there anyone from your previous job that you need to resolve issues with - especially in ministry settings? If the answer is yes, it may be a clue that all is not well. I might even ask if I could talk to the individual for a reference to see what I hear. Until they are hired, you are in the drivers seat when it comes to references.

We like to think the best, especially when we need someone's skills. To put it bluntly: Don't be stupid when hiring. 

When ministries die

Nothing lasts forever and every organization has a life cycle that if not reinvigorated regularly ends at some time in it demise. This is particularly true of local churches that go into serious decline. But also for other ministries. It is not a bad thing and actually can be a good thing.

As Henry Cloud eloquently puts it in his book Necessary Endings, something must end for something else to begin. We face those necessary endings in our own lives and it is always the genesis of something new. 

I once did a church consultation with a congregation of about 30 existing in a 2 million dollar facility. While they were nice people there was no way that they were going to revitalize the ministry. I suggested that they close down and do a restart with a new group in a new location. Even though they had once been a congregation of 500 they wanted to know what evidence I had that they were not healthy.

When it is time to close down, celebrate what God did through the ministry over the years. While the ministry may not be vital now it probably was at one time and it leaves a legacy of changed lives and even though gone its ripples will continue in the people it impacted and those they in turn impact.

And if you can, gift what is left over to another ministry that is starting and you will see your legacy continue.

It is OK and often necessary to let a ministry die. From the ashes comes new life, new paradigms and new opportunities.

How do you know your vision is meaningful? Five questions

I am always intrigued by vision discussions. When I ask the question of a group of leaders regarding their vision I often get embarrassed smiles: either they don't have one or cannot remember it and must dig up some document that explains it. In one case recently I was given one that was two long paragraphs and therefore meaningless as no one could remember what was in it.

So how do you know when your vision is meaningful? 

First, is it directly connected with your mission and what you actually do? If vision and mission or vision and work are not connected it is not meaningful.

Second, is it short enough that everyone can remember it? If it cannot be put on the back of a tee shirt it is too long.

Third, does it actually excite people and inspire them to some meaningful action? 

Fourth, is it bigger than you? Vision that is easy to pull off is not vision. Vision is something that you must stretch for, and in ministry trust God for. 

Fifth, is it easy to communicate and do others get it easily and quickly? 

In ReachGlobal we are asking God for one million disciplemakers impacting 100 million people with the Gospel and 100 Acts 19 locations where the Gospel penetrates an entire city or region, not just a neighborhood. 

What is your vision?