Five gifts of failure

Success is a wonderful experience. We all want it but it does not always help us grow and develop. Sometimes success can even get in our way. In success it is easy to believe our own press and to assume we are better than we are. The truth is that we learn far more from failure than we do from success which is why the most successful have often failed more than they have succeeded. Much has been written regarding success but what does failure have to offer us?

First, failure makes us stronger. It is tough to fail, especially the first time. We can feel that life is over and that we are in some way diminished. If we push through the experience we come out the other side stronger and wiser. In fact, rather than diminished we are enriched with information and experiences we did not previously have.

Second, failure makes us more thoughtful and reflective. You can accept success without reflection but few can accept failure without reflection. Its very nature causes us to think, ponder and ask "what if?" 

Third, failure tends to clarify both our strengths and weaknesses far more than success does. In failure we start to differentiate what we are good at and where we need others around us. Success simply makes us think we are good at most things which is far from the truth. We are good at a very few things and poor at most other things. Failure helps clarify.

Fourth, failure builds humility whereas success tends to build pride. I realize in failure the limits of my own capabilities and a need for others. Success on the other hand simply fuels my hubris and wisdom. 

Fifth, failure fuels learning and growth if we have the curiosity to understand why we failed in the past and how we can avoid it in the future. Success can do just the opposite. Why do we need to grow if we are as good as it seems?

Most leaders attribute far more of their learnings to failure than they do to success. So powerful a drug is success that some leaders who fail for the first time in their fifties or sixties are crippled by the experience because they have no context for it. Thank God for your successes as well as for your failures. Allow your failures to help you grow.

See also
The up side of failure
A leadership perspective of growth
When a great idea didn't work: Dealing with failure
The gift of failure and pain

It is not the knowing but the doing that is most difficult

"The most difficult thing is the decision to act, the rest is merely tenacity." -Amelia Earhart
What is it that keeps us from acting on issues that we know we should act on? They may be in our personal or professional lives. It is the gap between what we know we ought to do and the resolve to do it. It is not the knowing but the doing. And then when we finally act, if we do, we wonder why we didn't do it a long time ago. There are three common reasons for avoiding action on things we know we ought to act on. Inertia It is easier to live with the status quo than it is to rock the boat and cause disruption. So, we keep an unproductive staff member, don't deal with conflict between two work teams or ignore the need to clarify what we are all about. Inertia is about living in our comfort zone. Not stirring up things that don't need to be stirred up (but actually do). It is about our not wanting to wade into things that will be hard or inconvenient but that we know in our heart of hearts are important to deal with. Maybe if we wait long enough the problem will resolve itself - usually it gets worse not better. Fear The other side of the inertia coin is fear. Inertia is often a result of fear. What will happen if I take a bold step and deal with this issue? Will I get pushback (probably)? Will someone be upset with me (probably)? Will I have to confront a person or issue (probably)? If our fear is greater than our resolve we ought not be in leadership. All leaders have fear but good leaders learn to not allow fear to keep them from acting on known issues. They do the right thing in spite of their fear and don't allow their fear to drive their inaction. Leaders can use their fear to define how they do something but should never use their fear to keep them from doing what needs to be done. Acknowledge you fear, use your fears to alleviate unintended consequences but take the needed action. Resolve Lack of resolve is the reason that many issues are partially addressed but then left hanging. Why? There was pushback, someone got upset or we had to confront something that was inconvenient. It is worse to address an issue and then drop it than it is to not address it in the first place. "Do not underestimate my resolve" ought to be the mantra of a leader. If I need to deal with something I will deal with it completely rather than partially. My resolve keeps me from backing down simply because there is pushback which there almost always will be given people's preference for inertial over action. Leaders not only must know but they must do. That is leadership.

Smelling Good, Looking Great and Divisive Attitudes

This blog was written by Edmund Chan of Singapore, Leadership Mentor at Covenant EFC and Founder of the Global Alliance of Intentional Disciplemaking Churches

“Oh, for God’s sake, stop it!”

That’s what the Apostle Paul said, with compassionate apostolic authority. And he meant it. Well yes, Paul didn’t put it exactly like that. But I think it captures rather accurately his keen sentiments.
[And by putting it in street vernacular, I don’t mean that Paul was using the Lord’s name in vain! It was quite literally “for God’s sake”, and theirs!]

You see, these were two Christian women. One was named “Smell Good” and the other was named “Look Great”. Both were friends of the Apostle Paul. And both couldn’t get along; such that it was affecting the church. Perhaps you know them by their Greek names: Euodia (“Smell Good”) and Syntyche (“Look Great”)!

With great names like “Smell Good” and “Look Great”, and being persecuted Christians in the first century church (and being friends and co-labourers with Paul), I would be rather surprised if I were told that there was a dark rivalry and relational friction between them.

Fact is, there was!

They couldn’t get along with each other; in spite of the common trials they face and the common faith they share! The Bible is silent on the exact nature of the disagreement. Euodia and Syntyche were probably in some sort of power struggle over an issue that boiled down to influence, or perhaps a preferred comfort zone; simply a personal preference for how something should be done. [Often, big quarrels stem from small things!]

Even though Paul did not treat this matter as he would false doctrine or teaching, neither did the Apostle ignore this fracture within the fellowship. Phil. 4:2-3 “I ENTREAT Euodia and I ENTREAT Syntyche TO AGREE IN THE LORD. 3 Yes, I ask you also, true companion, HELP THESE WOMEN, who have labored side by side with me in the gospel together with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.” (emphasis mine). 

The word “entreat” is “parakaleo” in the Greek (used 109 times in the NT). “Parakaleo” is often used to mean “encourage” or “exhort”. But in this case, the ESV has captured the nuance rightly with “I entreat (beg!) you”. 

The point of this passage is more than just about Paul wanting two women to get along. Rather, it about the Gospel. 

The revelation of the Gospel comes with the GRACE and CALLING of God to live and labour as a redeemed and transformed covenant community. This call is vital and congruent with the responsibility to proclaim this Gospel of LOVE. And just how can they do so when there is bitterness and divisiveness? In Philippians 4, Paul asks these women to ‘be of the same mind IN THE LORD’. 

We might disagree but never disengage. Disagreement happens. It’s not wrong. The diversity of views is healthy; it’s the divisiveness of personalities that is troublesome. Neither be discouraged by the diversity not disrupted by the divisiveness. 

The important thing is to deal compassionately (and humbly!) with the differences and be reconciled “with one mind” over what’s important! Whatever the dispute was, it was not to sidetrack them from the work of the Gospel and the unity of faith in it. No dispute is worth the division. 

Euodia and Syntyche had to learn from their apostolic mentor about getting along. About taking responsibility for their part in their dispute. About laying down their pride, without the self-righteous attitude: ‘well, I hope she’s listening!’ We might ‘look great’ or even ‘smell good’.  But if we do not embrace a MEEKNESS that brings a fragrance and not a fracture to the covenant community, they are but empty accolades. Don’t be divisive.

For God’s sake, stop it!

When crisis envelops a church personal agendas must go!

Like all institutions, churches can have leaders, staff and congregants who harbor personal agendas. Those agendas are often checked when the church is healthy but when crisis hits they can appear from wherever they have been hiding. In crisis, churches need leaders who will ruthlessly set aside their own personal agendas and seek only God's agenda. Those same leaders must insist that others set aside their agendas as well.

Personal agenda's are dangerous in the church for several reasons. First, they are personal rather than corporate. Second, they often have hidden in them some advantage to the one whose agenda it is. Often that is power, position, personal preference or influence all of which benefit an individual over the congregation as a whole. Ironically, the church as the bride of Christ is all about His agenda but such details are often forgotten.

Times of crisis are ripe for agendas to pop up precisely because the crisis often creates a vacuum of leadership combined with a future that is unclear. Personal agenda's flourish in this environment as something and someone will take advantage of the situation. 

I recently encountered a church going through a major crisis and the agendas are numerous. People who want the senior position, those with a theological agenda, those who are willing to marginalize those who built the church for their version of being relevant, those with power who want to stay on and the list goes on. What is needed here is for all these agendas to be put aside and for the leadership to focus on the health of the church.

In times of crisis, ask all parties to put their agendas aside and to focus on God's will for the Church. Focus on health, not agendas. In fact here is a principle: The more agendas there are in a church the unhealthier the church is. 

Sorry about that: My board or boss made me do it! Leadership Default

Leaders can be strange creatures. We want to lead but there are times when we don't want to take responsibility for our leadership decisions which we know will be unpopular. So we look for a foil, someone else to blame for the bad news that is coming. Sometimes it is our board (My board said this is what we have to do). Other times it is our boss (I was told that this is what has to happen). Sometimes it is God (God told me to do this). 

In all three cases you will notice who is not responsible for the decision that has been made: The leader who is making the announcement. In essence the leader is saying "They have said we must do this" creating a deadly division between their staff and whoever he/she is blaming for the decision. Good leaders never blame others in the organization for decisions as it sets up a them/us mentality as if the "they" are not part of "us." 

Why do leaders name others who made a decision? It is simple. First, they want to be popular with their staff so blaming others means they themselves were not responsible. Second, when you blame others, what is staff going to say. If it is the board, they have ultimate authority! If it is my leader's boss, what can you say? If it is God, how do you argue with Him? In other words, the strategy is to blame someone who has more authority and is not in the room so there can be no discussion. Let me be clear. This is terrible leadership.

Think about this. How can the senior leader blame his/her board when they sit on the board? It is not "They have decided," but it is "We have decided" including that leader.

How can you blame your boss when your primary team is the team of your boss, not the team you lead. Blaming God is the ultimate strategy to shut down discussion in a Christian organization. What room is there for discussion when God has spoken?

I label all these behaviors as "Leadership Default." I have not taken personal responsibility for decisions that I have had a part in or that I am committed to supporting in my leadership role. In blaming others I am trying to deflect my involvement, shut down discussion and in doing so I create a them/us dichotomy that divides rather than unites. 

Leadership Default is poor leadership. And, unfair to staff who cannot engage in a discussion regarding the decision. It is unfair also to those we blamed who then look like the bad guys when that is rarely the case.

When senior leaders exert too much pressure on staff

Many senior leaders are highly driven. Maybe most. They tend to see life from 35,000 feet and all the things that need to get done. And, they are often impatient. They want to see results, fix things, explore new opportunities, reinvent old strategies, ensure results, fix disconnects and who knows what else. Are you tired yet? Some years ago my senior team said, "TJ, we are not starting anything new this year!" They had their hands full.

There are predictable results when senior leaders push too hard on too many things. 

Cynicism. Because you cannot do everything at once, leaders who are always pushing for more and for better eventually wear their subordinates out until each new proposal is met with a certain level of skepticism, even cynicism. Better a few important initiatives than many minor ones. More does not equal better. Usually it equals mediocrity. Usually, leaders who push and push also change their minds often leaving staff who have worked on an initiative frustrated when they must change directions mid stream.

Discouragement. There is nothing better than celebrating success. But when many initiatives are on the plate, success is elusive since most will not get accomplished. Or accomplished well. This is discouraging to staff who are working hard to accomplish the mission of the organization. 

Lack of focus. None of us can focus on more than a few important issues at a time. When leaders make unrealistic demands on many fronts, staff don't know where to put their energies and the priority of the senior leader my change quickly. Staff are left to guess as to which initiative is the priority leading to a lack of focus throughout the organization.

Commitments that don't get kept. When pushed hard, many staff will make commitments that they don't want to make and cannot keep. It is the only way to relieve the pressure of the senior leader, however, so they do it. Many of these will not be met because they were unrealistic to start with. This then sets up a cycle of blame for promises not kept which in this case is the fault of the leader rather than the staff member.

If senior leaders will allow their senior team to have a voice in what issues are tackled when there will be a far more realistic view of what can and cannot get done and by when. When leaders exert too much pressure they hurt themselves, the organization and the staff. 

Understanding why people are reluctant to try new ideas

For those who are wired to innovate and bring change the resistance they encounter from others can be frustrating. This is especially true when change is critical to the organization or when doing things differently would save a great deal of time, money and frustration. We ask ourselves in these instances, "Why don't they get it?" It is a good question and it has three good answers. 

First, there is the change scale. When it comes to one's openness to change people fit into one of five categories: Innovators who drive change and are always looking for new and better ways; Early Adaptors who embrace change quickly once it is presented; Middle Adaptors who need to think about the change before adopting it; Late Adaptors who are late to embrace any change and Laggards who resist any change. 

Of these categories which represent how people are naturally wired, only innovators and early adaptors quickly embrace change. the other three categories are essentially change resistant at different levels. Thus any strategy to drive change must speak to middle and late adaptors. One need not worry about innovators and early adaptors. As for laggards, don't bother to try to convince them - they are inconvincible when it comes to change.

Resistance to change has nothing to do with an individuals character or intellect. These categories represent how they are naturally wired. The key to helping middle and late adaptors get to a yes on change is to appeal to a higher value than their resistance to change. If they deeply believe in the mission of the organization, for instance, one can appeal to the ability to better accomplish that mission if we adopt the proposed changes. 

A second reason that people resist change is their own comfort. People simply get comfortable doing things in certain ways and changing those ways can be uncomfortable. It is far easier not to rock the boat and to leave things as they are. After all it has worked in the past so it will work in the future. Except of course, the future is different than the past and those who don't understand this are destined to lose their effectiveness. 

Resisting change for one's own comfort is not a noble cause and those with this tendency should not be in organizational leadership. Leaders realize that their loyalty is to the mission of the organization, not their comfort. 

There is a third reason for resistance to change which change agents need to understand. There are people who resist change because they cannot envision what it looks like. These are people who understand new paradigms when they see it but cannot envision those paradigms without first seeing it. 

In these cases simply be aware of the fact that the change resistance is not a poor attitude but that these individuals need to see the new way in action and are likely to support the change once they understand it.

Part of the job of change agents is to understand how their audience is likely to respond to the change and to tailor their communication in ways that will allow the most people to get to a place of support. They need to be change agents in communicating their proposed changes - and flexible in their approach.

The cost of elephants and the cost of transparency

Elephants are those issues that a team or organization knows is present but no one feels that they can talk about. That fear comes from knowing that the leader is not willing to put those issues on the table and you will be met with resistance, pushback or retribution. The number of elephants in any organization is a direct indicator of its health. The greater the number of elephants, the more unhealthy the organization. A low number of elephants indicates a healthier organization. 

Here is what we forget. There is a high cost to elephants. Elephants represent issues that ought to be addressed because they are negatively impacting the organization or team. Choosing to leave elephants alone means that these issues cannot be solved. And the ironic thing is that everyone is aware that the elephant exists even as they try to pretend that it is not present which of course they know it is. Elephants breed cynicism and mistrust when unaddressed.

There is an alternative to letting the elephants be but it also comes with a cost. The alternative is transparency, what I call in my writings Robust Dialogue. Its definition is that any issue can be put on the table with the exception of a personal attack or hidden agenda. 

The cost? The cost is that Robust Dialogue means that there will be uncomfortable conversations from time to time. Yet without uncomfortable conversations there is no significant progress, there are no paradigm shifts and there are no game changers. Elephants keep progress from occurring while Robust Dialogue forces the conversation and drives change in the process. So the cost of elephants is stagnation while the cost of Robust Dialogue is hard conversations and progress. 

Both elephants and transparency have a cost attached. And a result. The question is which result do we want? If you are a leader at any level, which culture are you creating? If it is a culture of not rocking the boat you will allow elephants to exist and guard the status quo. It is a comfortable place for you to be. If it is a culture of transparency you will drive progress at the cost of hard conversations. It may be uncomfortable but it will be far more successful. 

You may think there are no elephants on your team or in your organization. There is one good way to find out. Ask your staff what elephants exist that need to be named? They will tell you and once an elephant is named it is no longer an elephant but simply an issue to be discussed.

What wise people know about gossip

Gossip is one of the most destructive habits we can engage in. Often it is nothing less than character assassination since our information is often incomplete, second hand and wrong. Wise people know four things about bad news they hear regarding others.

One: There is always more to a story. Usually when we hear bad news about another person it is at best partial news. Take a marriage conflict or a divorce. Hearing from one partner does not give one a complete picture. There is always more to a story. Wise individuals think grey about negative information passed on about others because they know there is always more to a story.

Two: There is always the rest of the story. Even when people do bad things, that need not be the end of the story because with redemption and change the end of the story can be different than the current story. Wise people know that we need to give people the opportunity to change their story rather than assume their current story is the full story.

Three: Good people can do bad things. Do you doubt this? Consider yourself. Each of us do bad things but we don't consider ourselves bad people. God sees us as holy people who still sin. Therefore, don't write others off because of their bad actions. Wise people know that good people can do bad things and don't demonize the person.

Four: People love to believe and share the worst about others rather than the best. It is our lower nature to share the worst about others rather than the best about others. We are really good at it. Perhaps it makes us feel better about ourselves. Wise people know this tendency and keep in mind that there are likely very good things about the character and behavior of those they are hearing negative things about.

These four truths can change our paradigms when it comes to gossip. Wise people always keep these in mind and therefore resist gossip. It also gives them a more compassionate and gracious response to those who have done bad things. It need not be the end of the story and it is unlikely the full story.

When boards don't know the morale of the staff or choose to ignore it

It is not uncommon for me to deal with situations where the board of a church or non-profit (it happens in the for profit world as well) seem to be ignorant of the moral of the staff in the organization. In many cases I have been called in as a consultant because of low staff morale. When I report to the board my findings either the reaction is one of surprise or embarrassment. Surprise when they had no inkling of the issue and embarrassment when they did but chose to ignore it and hope it would go away.

When this happens it is always unfortunate because the common result is that good people leave the organization disillusioned with the leadership and discouraged with the lack of concern for the staff. Usually, by the time the issue is dealt with, some of the best people are gone.

Why does this happen? First, boards rightly assume that staff issues are the purview of the senior leader so they don't get involved. At one level this is correct. Boards should not be giving direction to staff apart from their senior leader. But at another level this is flawed thinking. If the senior leader were taking the organization in directions that were disadvantageous to the organization, the board would step in. Where there are serious morale issues, those issues are a threat to the organization - if the staff involved are good staff that the organization wants to keep. Healthy boards never ignore threats to the organization.

So how does a board keep a pulse on staff in a church or ministry non-profit. Informally, conversations with staff where the board member is not giving direction but simply listening to how the ministry is doing can be helpful. 

More formally, the board can ask for reports on any trends regarding resignations from the organization. Such reports are consistent with policy governance and certainly can give a board a heads up if there seem to be common issues. 

Third, there are software programs that can measure engagement of staff and general satisfaction with their work. Such programs can be a great help to senior leadership and boards have every right to see the monthly results as well.

If board members believe that there is an issue that needs to be addressed with staff morale it ought to be a topic in executive session and then raised with the senior leader. And there needs to be a way to verify what is true and if there is a plan to deal with morale issues, whether it is successful. While boards need to give their senior leader wide latitude in assessing and solving morale problems they are also ultimately responsible for the health of the organization so cannot ignore the issue. 

I am even more concerned when boards seem totally unaware of serious issues within the staff. What this tells me is that the board has inadequate policies or procedures in place to monitor the health of its most important asset: the staff. If it matters to monitor the financial situation of an organization it matters just as much to monitor the satisfaction of the staff. Both are active indicators of the organization's health.

When there is not adequate organizational clarity

If there is one thing that many organizations lack it is crystal clear clarity about who they are, what they want to accomplish and how they are going to get there. This is especially true of non-profits and ministries as the profit motive is not the driving factor. In fact, clarity is the glue that holds the organization together as it grows. In my consulting with numerous non-profits I have observed four related consequences of poor or no organizational clarity.

Conflict
I am speaking here of conflict between leaders and departments. Why? Because a lack of clarity from the top results in leaders one level below creating their own clarity and going in their own direction. When there is a vacuum, someone will fill it. The problem is that we fill it with our version of clarity rather than a shared version of clarity, find ourselves at odds with one another, create silos and find ourselves fighting over direction, finances, resources and strategy.

Relational disconnect
This conflict creates relational disconnect and we often assume that the conflict is a result of people with bad motives or who are not team players. More likely the disconnect is a result of the senior leader not developing a shared clarity about who the organization is and how it will get to where it wants to go. The relational disconnects are a result of poor leadership at the very top of the organization.

Lack of alignment
In this situation, senior leaders and departments are not aligned with one another. Each may be doing good things but often they are working at cross currents with each other. If each were an arrow, the arrows would be pointing in different directions rather than all in the same general direction. This lack of alignment creates conflict and relational disconnect and is deeply frustrating to good leaders who often leave if the situation is not solved. 

Dispersed energy and compromised impact
Because the arrows are not pointed in the same direction and departments and leaders are working at cross purposes with one another the energy and impact of the organization is severely compromised. In fact, leaders are often trying to negotiate issues within the organization rather than focusing on the mission of the organization. There is nothing more distracting and discouraging to people who have bought into a mission than to be fighting intermural wars when they could be delivering on the mission.

Organizational clarity matters...a lot. 

Life interruptions of hard times

One of the inescapable truths about God is that He does not see life from our point of view or what is best for us from our vantage point. Nowhere is this more evident than in our desire for a life of ease and comfort and His not uncommon "interruptions" that bring with them hardship, suffering and challenges that test our coping abilities. We often question His inscrutable ways as we wish our hardships away. Sometimes He seems to hear our prayers and other times the hardships seem to be the new normal and the circumstances of our lives do not change. And it misses a crucial point which CS Lewis in his wise way reminds us. "The great thing, if one can, is to stop regarding all the unpleasant things as interruptions of one's 'own,' or 'real' life. The truth is of course that what one calls the interruptions are precisely one's real life -- the life God is sending one day by day." God is never surprised by our circumstances. Nor does He always see our "negative" circumstances as such. Often He sees them as opportunities for our own growth so that in an inversion of what the world counts as good, He sees the hard as opportunities for our greatest growth and therefore greatest good. Given this, those negative circumstances that we see as life interruptions are often the richest life we will ever live as it drives us closest to God. If we will see it as such and if we will embrace what God has sent and trust Him in its midst.
Consider these words of James regarding such life interruptions: Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance. And let endurance have its perfect result, so that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing (James 1:2-4)."

It is good to pray for resolution of the hard situations we face. It is also good to embrace what God wants to do in our lives through it. And finally it is good to trust Him fully in its midst. This is life lived in followership of Jesus.

Self evaluation and personal growth

In the busyness of life, the hectic schedules we keep, and the many obligations we agree to, one thing often suffers self-evaluation and personal growth. We are too busy to consider and running too fast to be purposeful in our own growth. In this, we pay a personal price.

The price is that we miss out on personal perspective and growth that can give us greater personal health and happiness and can improve our relationships and life impact. How many times do we say to ourselves, "I wish I had known that when I was younger." An investment in our personal growth today can have a significant impact in the years to come. What we don't learn today will cost us in the years to come. It is the law of returns.

Growth always starts with self-evaluation. Taking the time to thoughtfully consider our lives, Emotional Intelligence, where we are going, relationships, work, finances, marriage, and the major building blocks of our lives. And then being brutally honest with ourselves regarding the state of our lives. 

In self-evaluation, journaling is a powerful tool. When we put on paper with our own hands the reality of our lives, good and bad, it is also imprinted in our brains. It clarifies what it is we are considering and demands action - a plan or strategy for growth. To journal, one must set aside time, quiet the mind, and think clearly. The opposite of the cacophony of daily life.

In addition, a periodic review of one's journal reminds us of our past thinking and often of our progress. It is a reminder and an encouragement. 

Intentional reading on subjects that will help us think more deeply, along with conversations with trusted friends, provides us with both insights and a mirror with which to see ourselves. Of course, there is no better mirror than scripture as it places in front of us the character, wisdom, and teaching of God. And, as the book of Hebrews says, it probes deeply into our hearts. For me, the simple act of blogging creates space in my life to think more deeply than I otherwise would.

Evaluation is understanding where we are, whereas growth is doing something about it. Again, I come back to putting thoughts on paper. I cannot reflect in my journal without also thinking through and writing down solutions, modifications, or new commitments. It is a natural part of the writing process. And again, looking back on our journal entries in months to come, we are reminded of our plan and can celebrate whatever growth has occurred. 

This simple blog required me to carve out an hour of my time, but it also caused me to think and put on paper simple thoughts of self-evaluation and personal growth. Without making space for it in my day, there would be no blog. Without making space in our day or week for personal growth, there will be far less growth than there could be. I wish I had known that when I was younger...

The paradox of our perspectives on sin

Here is a paradox: When we consider the sin of others we often see them as bad people who did a bad thing. When we consider our own sin we see a good person who did a bad thing. We tend to assume the worst about others and the best about ourselves. In the first instance our attitudes of condemnation of others can fuel our own self-righteousness because our sin is not as bad as their sin. It is ironic that we can be proud that we are less sinful than others! It is also a false comparison in that all of us are capable of evil. The Apostle Paul called himself the "chief among sinners" and described his own struggles with doing what is right in Romans 7. It is also why he said that we should boast in nothing but the cross as it is through the cross that our sin is forgiven, our hearts cleansed and our lives transformed. We are all sinners saved by grace. That is the great leveler! In the second instance, it is very possible for us to downplay our own proclivities toward evil and assume that we are better than we are. As Winston Churchill said humorously, "We are all worms but I do believe that I am a glow worm." In other words, we are the exceptions to the rule. Actually no one is exempt from evil and all must be aware of its pull. A part of true spiritual formation is understanding that our goodness comes from Christ and that in our fallen nature we are all prone to sinful thoughts and actions. Understanding our own sinful inclinations both helps us guard against them and appreciate the struggles of others. We may struggle differently but all of us struggle with sin. How I see others and their sin has an impact on how I treat them. Usually we treat ourselves far better than we treat others because we can think the worst about them and the best about ourselves. What if we were to treat others the way we treat ourselves and assume that they, like us, desire the best and desire righteousness. We are all broken vessels that only God can fully repair. My fault lines may lie in different places than yours but the places of needed healing and growth exist for us both.

Six board lessons from the recent Willow Creek events

My objective here is not to revisit the specific controversies of Willow Creek but to draw some lessons for those of us who serve on church boards to consider. For my part, I am drawing on decades of working with church boards as well as having served for years on various boards. The recent issues at Willow Creek simply serve to illustrate my observations. I suspect that the good people who serve(d) in leadership at Willow would agree with most of these observations.

One. You can have as sophisticated a board structure as you desire and still get into deep weeds. If you google Willow Creek and church governance you will see all kinds of advice for how churches should structure their governance. They used Policy Governance and wrote about running great meetings. In the end none of that mattered when the board could not hold the senior pastor accountable and failed to guard the health of the church. 

There are governance structures that will make ministry easier and some that will make ministry harder but the structure itself is only as good as the people who are leading. The bottom line is that governance structures while important are not a substitute for wise leaders. Sadly, the very ministry that held up its leadership paradigm as a model (Willow Creek), ended up with its whole leadership team resigning with no credibility left. It is a warning to all boards. 

I am very curious what the dynamics were at Willow that prevented people on the board who asked the right questions from staying in leadership. When discerning people ask discerning questions and they get shut down by the rest of the board it is a sign of a dysfunctional and unhealthy board and organizational culture.

Two: Any structure that prevents board members from asking questions of a senior leader and verifying their answers is flawed. I have encountered situations where in the name of Policy Governance, the board was not allowed to press into staff issues, or even ministry philosophy and they acquiesced to the senior leader's pushback.  Even while the senior leader was mistreating staff, creating a toxic workplace and making ministry decisions that alienated huge portions of the congregation. When it all came apart, the boards no longer had any credibility and had to step down. 

Only after the fact, and after huge damage had been done did these boards realize that they had failed to ask the hard questions, insist on answers and verify those answers. 

Three: Unhealthy pastors can and do use their boards to protect them and to silence discerning members of the congregation who are asking penetrating questions. When you try to silence others you either create a cult like atmosphere and healthy people leave, or there is a blow up when the voices persist (Willow Creek and Mars Hill), and finally leaders must confront it. Certainly not all voices in any organization are created equal but when people of good reputation and discernment speak up as they did at Willow Creek and Mars Hill they are ignored at the board's own peril. As they discovered.

One other observation. Boards cannot be intimidated by their senior pastor. If they are they will not be a healthy independent board. 

Four: Unhealthy governance systems or groups will eventually cause significant issues in the congregation. In the case of Mars Hill, the church ended up disbanding. In the case of Willow Creek, the leadership resigned. Think of the pain felt by the congregation in both cases. When there are unhealthy pastors or boards, that health issues will eventually be felt by the congregation. 

Five: Sometimes a board needs an outside voice(s) in order to help them see beyond their desire to protect the pastors, themselves or the church and to do the right thing. In the middle of a crisis or when people feel under siege, poor decisions are often made. What might have happened at Willow if the board had brought in and listened to a wise outside voice. Someone who has stature in the Evangelical community. This is not a sign of weakness but a sign of maturity. If nothing else an outside voice of reason and wisdom can verify the board's approach - or challenge them. 

Six. A sign of a healthy leader is their willingness to be accountable to a board even if they disagree with some of their decisions. Healthy leaders solicit the opinions of others, listen to their authority, respect it and abide by it even when they may disagree. If a senior pastor will not abide by board decisions or allow the board to make those decisions beware! It means the board has authority in name only and not in reality.


See also Willow Creek and governance. A watershed moment

London Bridge is down: A fascinating article about an end of an era

Given the advanced age of Queen Elizabeth there are numerous contingency plans for her death and funeral. Some of us will grieve personally. In my case, I was her subject from 1960 to 1971 while living in Hong Kong. Each day in school, rather than a Pledge Allegiance we sang God Save the Queen. I have been schooled in the history of he monarchy and the UK and have a very soft spot in my heart for her and what she stands for. Whatever our upbringing, Queen Elizabeth has been an influence in our world for many years. The following article describes what will happen in minute detail upon her death.

London Bridge is Down: The secret plan for the days after the queens death