Actually the term "passive leadership" is an oxymoron since it is not leadership at all. It is someone who is in a leadership position but who does not lead his/her staff. It is deeply disempowering to staff for a number of reasons.
First, non-leadership leaves staff in a quandary. They often lead a team and a ministry. How do they contribute to the whole when there is not overall missional direction? They are forced by virtue of the passive leader to determine what that direction should be and you end up with multiple directions as different staff members fill the void of leadership in their own way.
Second, none of us want to waste our lives. Good staff see the potential around them and deeply desire to make a difference. The opportunity they see and the lack of missional direction create great frustration over opportunity wasted. The end result is cynicism toward the non leading leader and often the loss of good staff who are looking for meaningful direction.
Third, just because a leader is passive does not mean that they don't have opinions and this is one of the most frustrating aspects of passive leadership. Because passive leaders don't set the directional agenda their staff end up doing so. But, passive leaders often don't like what they see so they step in and either change or challenge the hard work that has been done. Thus staff are in a double bind. They are not given the information up front as to the direction and they face the prospect of being disempowered on the back end after they have done their work. It is truly a no win proposition.
Fourth, passive leaders are often threatened by those who step in to fill the void and good staff will try to do just that as organizations need and want directional focus. This creates tension between the passive leader and his/her staff and it is not the staff's doing but the natural result of a passive leader who is not leading. The passive leader wants to be in charge even though they don't know how to steer a healthy team in a healthy direction. Thus they live with an inner conflict that spills over into the team in unhealthy ways.
The bottom line is that no matter how good someone is in some area of work, if they cannot lead they should never be put in a leadership role. Passive leadership is not only bad leadership but it is deeply disempowering to everyone around the passive leader.
(Posted from Oakdale, MN)
Monday, April 28, 2014
Sunday, April 27, 2014
Spiritual discernment in ministry leadership
Individuals who have the gift of spiritual discernment are needed components in any ministry leadership team or board. Spiritual discernment is the ability to identify aberrations in theology or character issues in those who propagate those aberrations, who use theology for their own agendas or who are engaged in church power plays.
In First and Second Timothy, Paul tells Timothy to stay away from individuals who promote theological controversies. In 2 Corinthians (10-11) he takes the congregation to task for following so called super apostles who were using position and theology to rally people to their followership. Wherever there are people there will be those who use leadership or theology for their own agendas and it takes people of discernment to call it for what it is.
Paul called it for what it was: "For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an agent of light. Is it not surprising, then if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve (2 Corinthians 11:13-15)."
What is interesting is that there were many in the church in Corinth who did not discern the issues Paul is talking about. Obviously the spiritual cloak these individuals wrapped themselves in was effective in hiding their true motives.
The reason discernment is so critical is that when one is using Scriptures to make their case, there is enough truth that it takes discernment to identify its misuse. For instance, when a leader is always talking about money and the need for the congregation to give more and is using Scripture to try to force or manipulate individuals to give, you have moved from inviting people to be generous to "spiritual coercion." While it sounds Scriptural its application has become more about manipulation than the Holy Spirit's leading.
As one who works with troubled churches what often fascinates me is that members of the congregation are often more discerning than the leadership of the church. When Scripture is being misused for the personal agenda of the pastor for instance, prescient individuals often quietly leave while elected leaders remain unaware of the issues. And it is not necessarily pastors but others, especially who have the ability to teach and who have theological agendas who can promote controversies in the congregation that if discerned early can be dealt with.
Spiritual discernment also comes into play when there are people with power agendas in the congregation. We are often naive in the name of grace to name power games for what they are. As a congregational consultant they seem blatant to me but leaders have been reluctant to entertain the notion that a nice guy (or gal) might have poor motives and personal agendas for the church. Those with spiritual discernment usually read those situations for what they are. The fact the boards are often clueless tells me that we have too few with this ability in church leadership.
The early warning system of any church should be found in its leadership rather than the congregation at large. But that presupposes that there are individuals in leadership who are deeply spiritually discerning. And listened to! Can you point individuals in leadership of your church who have the gift of spiritual discernment?
(Posted from Oakdale, MN)
In First and Second Timothy, Paul tells Timothy to stay away from individuals who promote theological controversies. In 2 Corinthians (10-11) he takes the congregation to task for following so called super apostles who were using position and theology to rally people to their followership. Wherever there are people there will be those who use leadership or theology for their own agendas and it takes people of discernment to call it for what it is.
Paul called it for what it was: "For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an agent of light. Is it not surprising, then if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve (2 Corinthians 11:13-15)."
What is interesting is that there were many in the church in Corinth who did not discern the issues Paul is talking about. Obviously the spiritual cloak these individuals wrapped themselves in was effective in hiding their true motives.
The reason discernment is so critical is that when one is using Scriptures to make their case, there is enough truth that it takes discernment to identify its misuse. For instance, when a leader is always talking about money and the need for the congregation to give more and is using Scripture to try to force or manipulate individuals to give, you have moved from inviting people to be generous to "spiritual coercion." While it sounds Scriptural its application has become more about manipulation than the Holy Spirit's leading.
As one who works with troubled churches what often fascinates me is that members of the congregation are often more discerning than the leadership of the church. When Scripture is being misused for the personal agenda of the pastor for instance, prescient individuals often quietly leave while elected leaders remain unaware of the issues. And it is not necessarily pastors but others, especially who have the ability to teach and who have theological agendas who can promote controversies in the congregation that if discerned early can be dealt with.
Spiritual discernment also comes into play when there are people with power agendas in the congregation. We are often naive in the name of grace to name power games for what they are. As a congregational consultant they seem blatant to me but leaders have been reluctant to entertain the notion that a nice guy (or gal) might have poor motives and personal agendas for the church. Those with spiritual discernment usually read those situations for what they are. The fact the boards are often clueless tells me that we have too few with this ability in church leadership.
The early warning system of any church should be found in its leadership rather than the congregation at large. But that presupposes that there are individuals in leadership who are deeply spiritually discerning. And listened to! Can you point individuals in leadership of your church who have the gift of spiritual discernment?
(Posted from Oakdale, MN)
Saturday, April 26, 2014
We play our role and then yield the stage
At 58 I am acutely aware that there is a finish line to my professional life lurking in the next decade or so. Not my influence as that can continue long after my final paycheck but our jobs don't last forever. We play our role and then yield the stage.
At least that is the way it should be. My predecessor yielded the stage to me with grace. Not only did he not meddle with me but he chose to support me even as I made significant changes to the organization. I had so much trust in his character that I invited him to a new part time role that allowed him to do what he loved to do.
Yielding the stage is a hard thing to do. Our ego is often wrapped up in our work. We have put strategies and philosophies in place that we believe in and don't want others to mess with them. We hired staff who we will be leaving behind and who will be giving allegiance to a new leader. And, it is hard to reconcile that our time is now over at least in the official sense. If one has had a job they loved and seen some success I doubt this is ever easy.
While not easy it is a test of our maturity and character. Maturity to understand that there are seasons and they come to a close so that new seasons can begin. Character to leave in a way that blesses the ministry rather than hurting it in any way. How many pastors, for instance, hang on long after they should and elders must literally pry their fingers from the ministry so that they can move on. Or board members whose time has come. And ministry founders who need to allow the ministry to go to a new level that they cannot lead but cannot yield their control.
Humble leaders understand the concept of seasons and that it is not about them but about the mission of the organization. The moment I lose my passion for the job I have is the moment that I need to hand it over to another even if that comes before the end of my professional career. It is true for all of us.
Think about this issue long before you need to implement its principles. The day comes for all of us to yield the stage, often faster than we expected or wished but come it does. How we handle the end of our careers is just as important as how we stewarded our role along the way.
(Posted from Atlanta)
At least that is the way it should be. My predecessor yielded the stage to me with grace. Not only did he not meddle with me but he chose to support me even as I made significant changes to the organization. I had so much trust in his character that I invited him to a new part time role that allowed him to do what he loved to do.
Yielding the stage is a hard thing to do. Our ego is often wrapped up in our work. We have put strategies and philosophies in place that we believe in and don't want others to mess with them. We hired staff who we will be leaving behind and who will be giving allegiance to a new leader. And, it is hard to reconcile that our time is now over at least in the official sense. If one has had a job they loved and seen some success I doubt this is ever easy.
While not easy it is a test of our maturity and character. Maturity to understand that there are seasons and they come to a close so that new seasons can begin. Character to leave in a way that blesses the ministry rather than hurting it in any way. How many pastors, for instance, hang on long after they should and elders must literally pry their fingers from the ministry so that they can move on. Or board members whose time has come. And ministry founders who need to allow the ministry to go to a new level that they cannot lead but cannot yield their control.
Humble leaders understand the concept of seasons and that it is not about them but about the mission of the organization. The moment I lose my passion for the job I have is the moment that I need to hand it over to another even if that comes before the end of my professional career. It is true for all of us.
Think about this issue long before you need to implement its principles. The day comes for all of us to yield the stage, often faster than we expected or wished but come it does. How we handle the end of our careers is just as important as how we stewarded our role along the way.
(Posted from Atlanta)
Thursday, April 24, 2014
Who is responsible for the well being of the staff of a church?
In most cases, the responsibility for the staff of a church falls ultimately on the senior pastor, whether or not he directly supervises them. But here is an irony. While senior pastors usually want staff reporting up through them (makes sense from an organizational point of view) those same pastors don't always take the time to care for their staff (an abrogation of their responsibility). Some ignore them altogether while others go through the motions of leading and caring in a superficial way. Fortunately some take the responsibility seriously and develop cultures that are life giving.
Here though is an irony. While churches talk about transformational ministry many staff cultures are far from transformational: being instead marginally healthy or even toxic. Often this stems from a senior pastor's focus on the congregation at the expense of his staff. Untransformational staff cultures cannot contribute to a transformed congregation so this is a great disconnect for the ministry.
Where this is the case there are at least four possible explanations in play.
One: The senior leader is so self absorbed that they don't see the necessity of building into their staff who actually make their own success possible. This form of narcissistic behavior is damaging in the long run to the trust and strength of the staff team.
Two: The senior leader is ill equipped to supervise, not having the training to supervise well. In this case, if the leadership of the church cares about staff health (and most do) why not get your senior leader management/supervisory training as they are ultimately responsible for the well being of their staff.
Three: The senior leader has not learned that his greatest leverage point is a strong team that is aligned and focused on the same things. This only happens when the leader has taken the time to make this a reality.
Four: The senior leader just is not interested and therefor thinks they don't need to pay staff much attention. After all they are professionals, let them do what they do and fare for themselves. Caring for your staff, building mutual trust, being on the same page, contributing to their growth and success is not only the job of a leader but a responsibility of a leader. One should not lead if they are not willing to take the time to build and nurture a team.
None of these possible explanations are good excuses for not nurturing, growing and supporting the pastoral and support staff of a church. There are things we do because we like to do them and other things that come with the territory. If we are not going to care for staff then we need to empower someone else to do so but the issue cannot be ignored.
I believe strongly that boards should hold their senior leader directly responsible for the health and happiness of the staff. It is one of the most basic requirements of leadership. How the senior leader chooses to organize for the health of staff is their business. But it is ultimately their responsibility and they should be held accountable for the result.
(Posted from Santiago, Chile)
Here though is an irony. While churches talk about transformational ministry many staff cultures are far from transformational: being instead marginally healthy or even toxic. Often this stems from a senior pastor's focus on the congregation at the expense of his staff. Untransformational staff cultures cannot contribute to a transformed congregation so this is a great disconnect for the ministry.
Where this is the case there are at least four possible explanations in play.
One: The senior leader is so self absorbed that they don't see the necessity of building into their staff who actually make their own success possible. This form of narcissistic behavior is damaging in the long run to the trust and strength of the staff team.
Two: The senior leader is ill equipped to supervise, not having the training to supervise well. In this case, if the leadership of the church cares about staff health (and most do) why not get your senior leader management/supervisory training as they are ultimately responsible for the well being of their staff.
Three: The senior leader has not learned that his greatest leverage point is a strong team that is aligned and focused on the same things. This only happens when the leader has taken the time to make this a reality.
Four: The senior leader just is not interested and therefor thinks they don't need to pay staff much attention. After all they are professionals, let them do what they do and fare for themselves. Caring for your staff, building mutual trust, being on the same page, contributing to their growth and success is not only the job of a leader but a responsibility of a leader. One should not lead if they are not willing to take the time to build and nurture a team.
None of these possible explanations are good excuses for not nurturing, growing and supporting the pastoral and support staff of a church. There are things we do because we like to do them and other things that come with the territory. If we are not going to care for staff then we need to empower someone else to do so but the issue cannot be ignored.
I believe strongly that boards should hold their senior leader directly responsible for the health and happiness of the staff. It is one of the most basic requirements of leadership. How the senior leader chooses to organize for the health of staff is their business. But it is ultimately their responsibility and they should be held accountable for the result.
(Posted from Santiago, Chile)
Wednesday, April 23, 2014
How do we know if we truly empower our staff?
How do we know if we truly empower our staff or simply pay lip service to the concept. None of us as leaders would want to believe that we disempower staff, but it is often exactly what we do. Because leaders are intent on what they are doing they often do not realize that their actions can be disempowering to those around them. If you lead others, think through these behaviors which can disempower and annoy/irritate those who work for us.
We expect our staff to be flexible with us but we are not flexible with them.
We frequently make last minute changes without explanation that have a ripple impact down the line. An example would be pastors who make changes to the service on Friday after everything has been planned and expect that folks will simply comply even though it means a whole team of people must then respond at a most inconvenient time.
We feel free to be harsh or critical because we can with people who cannot push back. Leaders have an unfair advantage in venting on their staff as they do not have the freedom to vent back. Just because we have the positional authority does not mean we can be careless with our words, emotions or attitudes. In fact, it is precisely because we have authority that our standard must be higher.
We delegate responsibility without full authority. This happens when we give someone the responsibility to solve a problem but we still feel free to change the solution at the last minute. If we feel that we have that freedom we should solve the problem ourselves rather than giving someone else responsibility and then ripping the rug from under their feet.
We tell people what to do rather than dialogue and ask for their input. This feels very much like a parent communicating with a child rather than a colleague talking to another colleague. Every time we choose to tell or demand without conversation we lose valuable relational points.
We make assumptions about motives or actions without first ascertaining the facts. Facts matter a lot. If I hear something and say something without first getting the actual facts which includes talking to those involved I will inevitably make unfair statements that hurt. It is careless and hurtful on our part.
We don't prepare for and lead meetings well. When this happens we communicate to staff who must be at the meeting, "you were not important enough to me to prepare for you." Waste your staff's time in meetings and you create cynicism and irritation. Many leaders are guilty of this one.
We don't spend quality time with our staff. If we ignore our staff, do not engage with them beyond a surface level, they pick up on this quickly. They know what it means: "We are not important to you." "You do not value or trust us." It is a dangerous move because when push comes to shove, staff will only go to the wall for leaders with whom they have a healthy relationship.
We shut down discussion on issues we are uncomfortable with. This communicates to staff that they are not free to interact with us except on those issues we are willing to talk about. If this becomes a pattern it effectively keeps staff from telling us what they think, as if that means that all is OK. It is not. Those same staff will talk to one another and to others if they cannot talk to the leader leading to dysfunctional relationships that the leader is responsible for creating.
We are passive leaders. How does a passive leader disempower staff? By not creating a vision, cohesive mission and the missional clarity that is at the core of leading a team. Passive leadership is one of the most disempowering of all leadership actions. Even worse than bad leadership. Why would I want to invest myself in an organization that is going nowhere? Passive leaders squander the gifts of their staff and should not be in leadership.
(Posted from Santiago, Chile)
We expect our staff to be flexible with us but we are not flexible with them.
We frequently make last minute changes without explanation that have a ripple impact down the line. An example would be pastors who make changes to the service on Friday after everything has been planned and expect that folks will simply comply even though it means a whole team of people must then respond at a most inconvenient time.
We feel free to be harsh or critical because we can with people who cannot push back. Leaders have an unfair advantage in venting on their staff as they do not have the freedom to vent back. Just because we have the positional authority does not mean we can be careless with our words, emotions or attitudes. In fact, it is precisely because we have authority that our standard must be higher.
We delegate responsibility without full authority. This happens when we give someone the responsibility to solve a problem but we still feel free to change the solution at the last minute. If we feel that we have that freedom we should solve the problem ourselves rather than giving someone else responsibility and then ripping the rug from under their feet.
We tell people what to do rather than dialogue and ask for their input. This feels very much like a parent communicating with a child rather than a colleague talking to another colleague. Every time we choose to tell or demand without conversation we lose valuable relational points.
We make assumptions about motives or actions without first ascertaining the facts. Facts matter a lot. If I hear something and say something without first getting the actual facts which includes talking to those involved I will inevitably make unfair statements that hurt. It is careless and hurtful on our part.
We don't prepare for and lead meetings well. When this happens we communicate to staff who must be at the meeting, "you were not important enough to me to prepare for you." Waste your staff's time in meetings and you create cynicism and irritation. Many leaders are guilty of this one.
We don't spend quality time with our staff. If we ignore our staff, do not engage with them beyond a surface level, they pick up on this quickly. They know what it means: "We are not important to you." "You do not value or trust us." It is a dangerous move because when push comes to shove, staff will only go to the wall for leaders with whom they have a healthy relationship.
We shut down discussion on issues we are uncomfortable with. This communicates to staff that they are not free to interact with us except on those issues we are willing to talk about. If this becomes a pattern it effectively keeps staff from telling us what they think, as if that means that all is OK. It is not. Those same staff will talk to one another and to others if they cannot talk to the leader leading to dysfunctional relationships that the leader is responsible for creating.
We are passive leaders. How does a passive leader disempower staff? By not creating a vision, cohesive mission and the missional clarity that is at the core of leading a team. Passive leadership is one of the most disempowering of all leadership actions. Even worse than bad leadership. Why would I want to invest myself in an organization that is going nowhere? Passive leaders squander the gifts of their staff and should not be in leadership.
(Posted from Santiago, Chile)
Monday, April 21, 2014
From theological foes to personal friends: An example of civil discourse across a great divide
One of my bedrock convictions is that if people of differing points of view would develop friendships and relationships and seek to understand each other, much of the rancor and uncivil discourse we encounter in the church would fade. This is not about compromising our convictions but it is about relationship, a willingness to talk and a willingness to understand rather then to simply throw stones and vilify.
In my observation, there is a whole cadre of Christians out there whose sole purpose in life is to vilify those who engage in dialogue with the "wrong people." And so the industry on the web to discredit people by their association with other people (Rick Warren's friendships with non-evangelical or Christians display number one). If person A, and evangelical, becomes friends with person B, a "heretic" that must make person A suspect as well. So lets go after person A.
We have lost the ability to have civil discourse among many evangelicals (see my BLOG on this). This is amazing from my point of view when you consider who Jesus hung around with. What do you think He was doing when He ate at the homes of sinners and Pharisees? Was He not developing relationships? Was He not developing the relational equity necessary to have a conversation about matters of the heart or life? I suspect that if the blogosphere had been around in His time, Jesus would have been castigated for all kinds of relationships.
So, with that introduction, let me share a recent article on what I wish was the case more often. "Two Ministers who forge a relationship across a church divide." I applaud these two men, who come from very different theological places, who started to talk, developed a friendship and in the process started to bring healing between two congregations. If peacemaking is part of the character and heart of God, these two are demonstrating God's character, while their critics in the blogosphere are often not.
I wish more of this were happening within the evangelical community and that the professional heretic hunters would be seen for what they are when they demonstrate ungodly attitudes in order to castigate Godly enterprises.
(Posted from Santiago, Chile)
In my observation, there is a whole cadre of Christians out there whose sole purpose in life is to vilify those who engage in dialogue with the "wrong people." And so the industry on the web to discredit people by their association with other people (Rick Warren's friendships with non-evangelical or Christians display number one). If person A, and evangelical, becomes friends with person B, a "heretic" that must make person A suspect as well. So lets go after person A.
We have lost the ability to have civil discourse among many evangelicals (see my BLOG on this). This is amazing from my point of view when you consider who Jesus hung around with. What do you think He was doing when He ate at the homes of sinners and Pharisees? Was He not developing relationships? Was He not developing the relational equity necessary to have a conversation about matters of the heart or life? I suspect that if the blogosphere had been around in His time, Jesus would have been castigated for all kinds of relationships.
So, with that introduction, let me share a recent article on what I wish was the case more often. "Two Ministers who forge a relationship across a church divide." I applaud these two men, who come from very different theological places, who started to talk, developed a friendship and in the process started to bring healing between two congregations. If peacemaking is part of the character and heart of God, these two are demonstrating God's character, while their critics in the blogosphere are often not.
I wish more of this were happening within the evangelical community and that the professional heretic hunters would be seen for what they are when they demonstrate ungodly attitudes in order to castigate Godly enterprises.
(Posted from Santiago, Chile)
Sunday, April 20, 2014
On this day
On this day:
- Satan was defeated
- The Father's face was no longer turned away
- Sadness turned to joy
- People could be reconciled to God
- The Holy Spirit would become available to each of us
- All distinctions between individuals were erased at the cross
- The church was the logical outcome as His bride
- It became possible through the Holy Spirit to walk in the Spirit rather than in the flesh
- Despair turned to amazed hope
- The empty cross became the mark of the church
- Reconciliation between brothers could mirror the reconciliation between God and us
- All sin had been paid for
- Jesus' scars would remain forever in testimony to the cross
- God's D-Day had been won. Now it is just a matter of time before evil is put away for good.
- A thief was already in heaven
- Jesus honored all women by appearing to Mary Magdalene first
- A cosmic spiritual shift took place in creation
- We could now also look forward to resurrection
- Every principality and power was defeated
- Satan realized that his apparent victory was a colossal defeat
- We live with resurrection hope
- The law was eradicated and completed
- The tomb was empty
- Because His tomb was empty, our tomb will one day be empty
- "He is Risen" changes everything!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)