From time to time I come across senior pastors who either don't like to lead and so they choose not to or, who believe that leadership apart from preaching is not necessary and largely ignore it. In either case, this is a problematic posture and one that hurts the church.
For context, the issue of leadership in the church has not always even been a value in the seminary context. A whole generation of pastors was taught that all you really needed to do was to preach the word and everything else would take care of itself. My own father pretty much believed this and I remember our conversations on the necessity of a pastor leading in his church of 1,000 plus. I have watched over the years as some good preachers built significantly sized churches due to their preaching and then lost those churches when they did not provide the requisite leadership.
The larger the church the more important the quality of its leadership because large congregations need missional glue - a common and relevant ministry direction - to remain healthy. When that is absent, the church loses its way, staff wonder what they are to do and people become restless.
The metaphore of a shepherd for a pastor is instructive. Shepherds feed their flock, protect their flock, care for their flock and lead their flock. If a shepherd is not leading his/her flock to the next place of healthy grazing the flock dies. Shepherds are in fact leaders of their sheep. The sheep don't simply wander around themselves to find good grass and left to their own devises they often get lost.
I understand pastors who are not wired naturally to lead. Unfortunately those same pastors often don't want anyone else to lead for them. If one is not going to lead, then someone must be empowered to lead for them. It is not an option to say, "I don't like to lead." Left without leadership long enough, the congregation will flounder and prescient individuals will find another church because they understand the necessity of missional leadership and direction and are unwilling to settle for less.
A more difficult situation arises when a pastor has an anti leadership bias: They don't think leadership is that important, do not do it themselves and resist giving away any authority to someone who could. This leaves the congregation in a bind. Not only will their leader not lead but resists allowing someone else to lead. Their pastor simply wants to preach the text assuming that this is all that matters. Well and good for them but not for others!
When this occurs the first place that dysfunction shows up is usually in the staff who need a leader in order to function as a healthy team. Eventually staff become frustrated: some leave, some try to fill in the leadership void and all live in ministry silos because there is not a leader to integrate a common philosophy, direction or ensure cooperation. It is a no win situation for staff.
Eventually the issue will get to the board level and the board must figure out how to deal with the lack of leadership. It is now their leadership wisdom that is necessary to find a solution that does not hurt the church but rather strengthens it. When boards are not able or willing to deal with the leadership dysfunction the issues eventually spill over into the congregation and become more serious to the church.
If a pastor has an anti leadership value, boards must initiate a conversation to find a way for the church to be led by someone. If the senior leader is unwilling to provide that leadership in a satisfactory way, they must be willing to allow another the authority and empowerment to lead and themselves stay out of the way. No organization will remain healthy in the absence of leadership.
(Posted from Oakdale, MN)
Friday, May 9, 2014
Thursday, May 8, 2014
Antiquated church governance systems that hurt the mission of the church
Poor governance systems tend to be "permission withholding" structures rather than "permission granting" structures.
In permission withholding structures:
- Decisions must be made more than once
- Permission and agreement must be negotiated with multiple groups
- Timely decisions are tough
- There is confusion of authority and responsibility
- Church bylaws are confusing and bureaucratic
- It is hard to make decisions and implement them
- The mission of the church is compromised
In permission granting structures:
- Decisions are made once
- There is no need to negotiate permission with multiple groups
- There are clear lines of authority and responsibility
- Church bylaws are brief and allow for flexibility
- It is easy to make decisions and implement them
- Timely decisions are easy
- The mission of the church is easier to implement because the systems support the ability of leaders to lead.
Jesus designed the church to be the most effective, flexible, and missional organization on the face of the earth. Permission-withholding structures (most antiquated church governance systems) make the church inflexible, relatively ineffective and certainly compromise its mission. If your governance systems are antiquated and no longer help fulfill your mission, be courageous enough to change them. The third section of "High Impact Church Boards" provides a roadmap for changing your governance systems.
Wednesday, May 7, 2014
Continuing the conversation on whether staff should serve on the elder board
Recently I reposted a blog on whether staff should serve on the elder board of a church. You can see that blog here. My answer was that as a practice it is a bad idea apart from the senior pastor and in a large church the regular attendance (but not a voting member) of the executive pastor.
This generated some comment from those who believe that all pastors are "elders" and therefor should be on the board. I will not repeat what I said in the earlier blog but would like to point out some fallacies of trying to "prove" everything we do in church governance from Scripture.
First, Scripture gives some overall guidance on what leadership in the church should look like but it does not give specific guidance on this. What we do know is that there were overseers or elders and deacons and deaconess. And their qualifications are spelled out in the text. We also know that the church was flexible and responded to the needs it had as in the book of Acts when the Apostles appointed a team to look after the widows.
Because Scripture is not overly specific on these issues is why you can "prove" various ecclesiastical models from the same text!
Second, God designed the church to be the most flexible, missional and effective organism on the face of the earth so that it can flourish in any political, economic or social system. That very flexibility will demand different models for how we do church governance. A house church in rural China is very different from the typical church in the United States. Context and size make a difference in how one can govern and lead well. You do not lead a church of 100 like you do a church of 1,000 or more. For that matter, the early church was more likely to be a house church than what has become the norm in the west.
Third, God tells us to use wisdom in all that we do. In other words, while Scripture gives us very broad principles in the area of church leadership and expects us to use wisdom in how we apply them to our situation. What is clear is that leaders are responsible for the spiritual climate of the church, that the congregation is taught, protected, cared for, released into ministry and led well. How that happens is not spelled out and of course will depend on the size and context of the church. We must figure out how to accomplish these Biblical mandates in our own situation.
This leads to the final thought. Governance and management of the day to day activities of ministry are not the same thing. We know that the early church made a distinction between teaching elders and non-teaching elders so why would we not make distinctions as well. Taken to the extreme, a large church with 30 pastors could have 30 pastors on the board as they are qualified as "elders." We all know that you cannot lead a large church with a huge group. Just because one is qualified to be an elder does not mean that they serve on the governance or leadership board of a church. For that matter there are many people in a larger congregation who are Biblically qualified as elders who do not serve in that role.
My point is that you cannot "proof text" the details of good church leadership but need to use wisdom and best practices to accomplish it. Be smart in how you lead not because the church is a "business" but because God designed it to be missional, effective and flexible and we must figure out how to do that in our context.
(Posted from Oakdale, MN)
This generated some comment from those who believe that all pastors are "elders" and therefor should be on the board. I will not repeat what I said in the earlier blog but would like to point out some fallacies of trying to "prove" everything we do in church governance from Scripture.
First, Scripture gives some overall guidance on what leadership in the church should look like but it does not give specific guidance on this. What we do know is that there were overseers or elders and deacons and deaconess. And their qualifications are spelled out in the text. We also know that the church was flexible and responded to the needs it had as in the book of Acts when the Apostles appointed a team to look after the widows.
Because Scripture is not overly specific on these issues is why you can "prove" various ecclesiastical models from the same text!
Second, God designed the church to be the most flexible, missional and effective organism on the face of the earth so that it can flourish in any political, economic or social system. That very flexibility will demand different models for how we do church governance. A house church in rural China is very different from the typical church in the United States. Context and size make a difference in how one can govern and lead well. You do not lead a church of 100 like you do a church of 1,000 or more. For that matter, the early church was more likely to be a house church than what has become the norm in the west.
Third, God tells us to use wisdom in all that we do. In other words, while Scripture gives us very broad principles in the area of church leadership and expects us to use wisdom in how we apply them to our situation. What is clear is that leaders are responsible for the spiritual climate of the church, that the congregation is taught, protected, cared for, released into ministry and led well. How that happens is not spelled out and of course will depend on the size and context of the church. We must figure out how to accomplish these Biblical mandates in our own situation.
This leads to the final thought. Governance and management of the day to day activities of ministry are not the same thing. We know that the early church made a distinction between teaching elders and non-teaching elders so why would we not make distinctions as well. Taken to the extreme, a large church with 30 pastors could have 30 pastors on the board as they are qualified as "elders." We all know that you cannot lead a large church with a huge group. Just because one is qualified to be an elder does not mean that they serve on the governance or leadership board of a church. For that matter there are many people in a larger congregation who are Biblically qualified as elders who do not serve in that role.
My point is that you cannot "proof text" the details of good church leadership but need to use wisdom and best practices to accomplish it. Be smart in how you lead not because the church is a "business" but because God designed it to be missional, effective and flexible and we must figure out how to do that in our context.
(Posted from Oakdale, MN)
Monday, May 5, 2014
Five things congregations need to know about crisis management in the church
Church leaders are periodically called to the unenviable position of needing to deal with crisis situations in their church. I say unenviable because crisis management is not an easy task and every member of the congregation has an opinion as to what should be said and done making it very difficult for leaders to negotiate the multiple opinions people have.
Having served in this role as a church leader and consulting with churches walking through crisis situations, here are a number of things congregations need to know before they become critical of their leaders.
One. While I am always in favor of being more candid than less the truth is that leaders often cannot divulge everything they may know. There are people involved, legalities involved and "telling everything" is often not possible or helpful. Just because I am a member of a congregation does not mean that I have the right to know everything, especially in messy situations. Further, be wary of criticizing when you don't have all the facts.
Two. Remember that we choose leaders to lead on our behalf and we have a choice to either trust them or not. Too often, when leaders don't do what we want them to do (and we don't have all the information) we choose to mistrust their actions. That is deeply unfortunate as they are often deep in the muck solving issues on our behalf.
Three. The more significant the crisis, the greater the chances that leaders will make some missteps along the way. This is not because they are unwise leaders but because it is the nature of crisis management. Before we criticize their actions, give them time to deal with the multitude of issues they are juggling. If we were in their shoes we would not get it all correct either.
Four. Unless the leaders themselves caused the crisis they are managing (usually this is not the case) remember that they are in the unenviable position of cleaning up a mess someone else created. What they need is our support and encouragement, not our criticism and our mistrust. It is easy to criticize. It is a lot harder to actually clean up or deal with a crisis situation.
Five. Often the crisis that leaders are dealing with have to do with sinful actions on the part of someone. Often, the most vocal critics of leaders as they handle the situation are doing so with sinful attitudes, words and actions. Don't compound the issues with responses that are un-Christlike. All that does is compound the issues.
What is the appropriate response of a congregation in a crisis situation? Pray for your leaders. Avoid gossip. Seek the unity of the church. Encourage those who are cleaning up on our behalf. Be patient. Do not judge motives of leaders. Be part of the solution, rather than adding to the problem.
(Posted from Charlotte NC)
Having served in this role as a church leader and consulting with churches walking through crisis situations, here are a number of things congregations need to know before they become critical of their leaders.
One. While I am always in favor of being more candid than less the truth is that leaders often cannot divulge everything they may know. There are people involved, legalities involved and "telling everything" is often not possible or helpful. Just because I am a member of a congregation does not mean that I have the right to know everything, especially in messy situations. Further, be wary of criticizing when you don't have all the facts.
Two. Remember that we choose leaders to lead on our behalf and we have a choice to either trust them or not. Too often, when leaders don't do what we want them to do (and we don't have all the information) we choose to mistrust their actions. That is deeply unfortunate as they are often deep in the muck solving issues on our behalf.
Three. The more significant the crisis, the greater the chances that leaders will make some missteps along the way. This is not because they are unwise leaders but because it is the nature of crisis management. Before we criticize their actions, give them time to deal with the multitude of issues they are juggling. If we were in their shoes we would not get it all correct either.
Four. Unless the leaders themselves caused the crisis they are managing (usually this is not the case) remember that they are in the unenviable position of cleaning up a mess someone else created. What they need is our support and encouragement, not our criticism and our mistrust. It is easy to criticize. It is a lot harder to actually clean up or deal with a crisis situation.
Five. Often the crisis that leaders are dealing with have to do with sinful actions on the part of someone. Often, the most vocal critics of leaders as they handle the situation are doing so with sinful attitudes, words and actions. Don't compound the issues with responses that are un-Christlike. All that does is compound the issues.
What is the appropriate response of a congregation in a crisis situation? Pray for your leaders. Avoid gossip. Seek the unity of the church. Encourage those who are cleaning up on our behalf. Be patient. Do not judge motives of leaders. Be part of the solution, rather than adding to the problem.
(Posted from Charlotte NC)
Sunday, May 4, 2014
Ministry whiteouts
Those who have ever experienced them know that whiteout conditions are dangerous. And they can hit suddenly leaving one with a sense of sudden fear and wondering where the road is - or isn't.
This is not unlike crisis we face in our ministry lives. A pastor returns from a conference and finds that the staff have essentially staged a coup! A moral failure of a leader or staff member turns everything upside down! A budget shortfall creates a crisis! Someone you had relied on and trusted turns on you and uses what they know about you to hurt you!
A whiteout is when life comes undone and it can come undone in many different ways. The result, however, is uncertainty as to where the road is and how to maneuver so that one does not end up in the ditch or tangled with another car.
The thing about whiteouts is that there is a period of time when you really can't do much except to pull over the wait till the blowing snow conditions let up. You cannot deal with what you cannot see and there is often a period of time when things are not clear: they are ugly but not clear!
Because things are not clear this is a dangerous time. If we act we may act badly or unwisely. This is a time not to act but to let stuff clear enough that we can see some of the road ahead. It is time to "Be still and know that I am God," and trust Him in spite of the anxiety we feel. Just as it is dangerous to keep driving in a whiteout, it is equally dangerous to act in a crisis before one has a handle on what all is happening.
Once the whiteout conditions start to let up, proceed with caution. Our anxiety pushes us to make hasty decisions which may or may not be in our best interests. This is a time to think, talk to key advisers and keep your options close to your chest as a leader but not to act precipitously.
When Nehemiah was threatened by Sanballat and Tobia when rebuilding the wall, he prayed, rallied his people and answered these guys without fear. He read through their motives and plans because he did not panic and responded appropriately. He also knew that only God could protect his reputation so he continued to do what God had called him to do and left his reputation to God.
Whiteouts require all the wisdom one has. Part of wisdom is to trust God, not to panic or act out of anxiety, to seek the wisdom of others and to do what God has called us to do. It may not end up the way we wanted it to but we will have handled ourselves with honor, integrity and faith. And in the end, that is what matters.
(Posted from High Point, NC)
(Posted from High Point, NC)
Saturday, May 3, 2014
The ultimate betrayal
The ultimate betrayal for any staff or congregation (in the case of a church) is to discover that their leader has lived a double life and that he has been teaching truth while living a lie. It is a dissonance that does not compute, often negates in the minds of those betrayed the truth that has been taught and is almost impossible to reconcile apart from acknowledging the fallenness of man.
Truth and lies cannot co-exist forever. And when it becomes known it is as if a fraud has been perpetuated on the organization, especially when it has a long history. It begs the question, "Is everything I have known about this individual a fraud?" "Is it all a lie?" The answer is probably not but the question lingers in the mind and one is never sure.
One cannot underestimate the pain caused by a double life. In the aftermath it leaves confusion, anger, cynicism, a sense of betrayal, chaos and unanswered questions. It can split churches, hurt organizations and wound staff and constituents. The wound takes years to heal.
The personal life of a leader is not an optional concern for those who lead. In taking up the leadership mantel they take up the responsibility to live the life they espouse: Not perfectly but with disciplined attention. If one is not willing to live the life of a leader they should not lead. There is a higher standard because there must be integrity in both the words and the example of those out front. The compromise of either or both leads to betrayal. It is why Paul told Timothy to watch both his life and doctrine closely.
Anyone who has lived through the revelation of such a betrayal knows the wake of pain left behind. Others must come in and clean up the mess, bring healing to wounded hearts and there is anger that sometimes never dissipates as people carry their animosity toward the one responsible.
Can God bring restoration to the one who betrayed and healing to those betrayed? Yes! Only He can take any sin and use it for His purposes. Only He can redeem and forgive and give us the ability to forgive. But the road back for all is hard. Memories may fade but they don't go away. Forgiveness must be given time and time again. It is a road no one wants to walk.
The slippery slope for leaders is that they see success, begin to believe their own press, marginalize those who don't agree with them, become isolated and isolation breeds the arrogance that the rules don't apply to them. They do!
(Posted from High Point, NC)
Truth and lies cannot co-exist forever. And when it becomes known it is as if a fraud has been perpetuated on the organization, especially when it has a long history. It begs the question, "Is everything I have known about this individual a fraud?" "Is it all a lie?" The answer is probably not but the question lingers in the mind and one is never sure.
One cannot underestimate the pain caused by a double life. In the aftermath it leaves confusion, anger, cynicism, a sense of betrayal, chaos and unanswered questions. It can split churches, hurt organizations and wound staff and constituents. The wound takes years to heal.
The personal life of a leader is not an optional concern for those who lead. In taking up the leadership mantel they take up the responsibility to live the life they espouse: Not perfectly but with disciplined attention. If one is not willing to live the life of a leader they should not lead. There is a higher standard because there must be integrity in both the words and the example of those out front. The compromise of either or both leads to betrayal. It is why Paul told Timothy to watch both his life and doctrine closely.
Anyone who has lived through the revelation of such a betrayal knows the wake of pain left behind. Others must come in and clean up the mess, bring healing to wounded hearts and there is anger that sometimes never dissipates as people carry their animosity toward the one responsible.
Can God bring restoration to the one who betrayed and healing to those betrayed? Yes! Only He can take any sin and use it for His purposes. Only He can redeem and forgive and give us the ability to forgive. But the road back for all is hard. Memories may fade but they don't go away. Forgiveness must be given time and time again. It is a road no one wants to walk.
The slippery slope for leaders is that they see success, begin to believe their own press, marginalize those who don't agree with them, become isolated and isolation breeds the arrogance that the rules don't apply to them. They do!
(Posted from High Point, NC)
Friday, May 2, 2014
Short term gains at the expense of long term wins
Too often in ministry we look for the short term gains rather than charting a course for long term success. The problem with this is that it often results in regular shifts in emphasis which confuses our constituency and keeps us from moving in a single, clear, healthy direction over the long term. Staff often see it as the flavor of the month approach - which it is - and become cynical at worst and nonchalant to the latest thing at best.
Healthy leaders are not enamored by the short term but want to chart a course for long term stability, health and ministry impact. This is a harder leadership for it requires deeper thinking and long term focus. It requires a picture of the future that is clear, an understandable path to get there and the resolve to stay the direction for long term gain.
This may well mean that ministry results in terms of numbers are not fast. But fast results are often shallow results and can disappear as fast as they appeared. Flash attracts but when it is gone, so are the people. Long term discipleship, relationships and clarity grow slower but last a great deal longer with deeper impact.
I am far less interested in where a ministry wants to be in one year than I am in ten years and if they cannot answer the latter I know they are banking on short term gains at the expense of long term wins. Which are you focused on?
(Posted from High Point, NC)
Healthy leaders are not enamored by the short term but want to chart a course for long term stability, health and ministry impact. This is a harder leadership for it requires deeper thinking and long term focus. It requires a picture of the future that is clear, an understandable path to get there and the resolve to stay the direction for long term gain.
This may well mean that ministry results in terms of numbers are not fast. But fast results are often shallow results and can disappear as fast as they appeared. Flash attracts but when it is gone, so are the people. Long term discipleship, relationships and clarity grow slower but last a great deal longer with deeper impact.
I am far less interested in where a ministry wants to be in one year than I am in ten years and if they cannot answer the latter I know they are banking on short term gains at the expense of long term wins. Which are you focused on?
(Posted from High Point, NC)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)