Archives For church health

trust

The Fallacy of “Earning Trust”

May 13, 2013 — 3 Comments

Some leadership teams believe a new staff hire needs to spend time “earning trust” before they are given significant freedom to lead. I addressed the reasons I believe such is usually (not always) a counterproductive posture to take at the Pepperdine Bible Lectures. When I asked the class how long it took to “earn trust,” the consensus was, five years.

Five years.

Churches are willing to get less out of a minister for five years so they can protect against them doing the church harm either practically or spiritually? Why hire such a person if they deserve such suspicion? Who would jump at the opportunity to serve in such a system? Does this all make sense?

At one level, it makes none at all–given the average pastoral tenure is less than that. In addition, new elder selection processes reset the trust clock with at least some. Furthermore, frustrations relating to freedom to do ministry usually run toward the top of the list. In addition, how is a minister supposed to earn trust based on competency when they aren’t allowed to do what they’re capable of?

Ironically, churches choose people as elders they believe are trustworthy. In most cases, full regard for their input and authority is granted from day one. However, this doesn’t happen at the staff level–which is why both systems–elders and staff–struggle to work together.

I obviously believe absolutely EVERY minister should be trustworthy. However, I also believe the infamous “earning trust” phase is self-defeating–leading to lower productivity and higher turnover than would otherwise.

Why not just hire people you trust?

Don’t spend five years paying someone to be, largely, a professional trust earner. Besides, every elder and church member may have different criteria for what earns their trust. For some, it will be competency. For others, it will be not rocking the boat. Others will have totally different “trust earning” criteria.

This system doesn’t work.

Hire people you trust, and trust them until there is some reason not to–remembering grace if/when they make mistakes. Let’s not choose five years of suspicion and caution instead of five years of ministry together based on trust. The best way to do that is to hire well, with a clear picture of “trustworthy” looks like as you hire.

As New Vintage Church, we look for these four things.* (The first three are from Bill Hybels in Courageous Leadership.)

  1. Character. They pursue a growing relationship with Christ and live a life of integrity.
  2. Competency. They are able to lead their area of ministry with excellence.
  3. Chemistry. They get along well with others in leadership and the congregation as a whole.
  4. Fit. They fit our staff culture–creative, excellence-oriented, flexible, fun-loving, and buy into our ministry philosophy.

If we know (as best we can) they have these four things, it’s not hard to trust such a person.

Question: What does it take for you to grant trust to someone you work with?

In Church Finance, Church Growth, Church Staffing, Church Strategy, Leadership, Productivity, Stewardship , , , , , , , ,
permalink
the-sower-vincent-van-gogh

The Missional Excuse

February 11, 2013 — 6 Comments

I’ve observed an occasional correlation between those trying to be “missional” and those frustrated with the internal turbulence in their congregation or own soul. Of course, not all churches suddenly trying to be missional have gridlocked leaderships or frustrated ministers–but many do. You can’t tell from what they write in books or articles. You can’t always tell from what they say behind a microphone. You have to hear them talk “off the record.” I don’t have anyone in particular in mind as I type, but I can think of a number of examples in which missional becomes a last resort for a leader or leadership that can’t find their way out of gridlock or that theological dark place.

Consider the functioning of a traditional family. If mom and dad can’t get along, they often focus on the kids. This may relieve tension in the mom and dad temporarily. Mom and dad may also think it’s what’s best for the family as a whole. However, it tends to really mess up the kids, as they become those in whom the stress of the marriage surfaces. The same can be said of those in whom the stress between Christians surfaces.

When leadership and congregation, preacher and elders, one-half of the church and the other half–are at odds, it’s easy to feel the need to do something to break the cycle. It’s normal to feel the need to refocus. As long as churches are continuing to work diligently to reconcile with one another and shape a common vision, this can be a way of building common ground, temporarily. However, the lost, the broken, the poor–they cannot be where we work out our congregational stuff. They need not wait for us to get our act together. Yet, if we seek “missionality” to the exclusion of working diligently on our issues, we aren’t being missional. We’re using missionality as an excuse–as an avoidance behavior.

I’m not suggesting any of us do so intentionally. I think it’s subconscious. I think it’s rather natural…but also wrong.

Missional, done right, is incarnational and thus requires a clear picture of Christ, as well as emotional and spiritual maturity. It requires a clear vision of Christ to avoid mutation into moral but secular activism or do-goodism loosely attached to theology. Following Jesus faithfully for the sake of the world requires we pay attention to the work of reconciliation with one another even as try to “be missional.” Perhaps we should look at our unity as a “missional move.”

If we, in our frustration, try to be missional (even if we’ve always thought it was the right way to go), we risk making “identified patients” of those we encounter in all of our efforts to share the common good. Family systems genius Edwin Friedman says, ”the identified patient is not “sick” but simply the one in whom the family’s stress or pathology has surfaced.” It’s why child-centered families tend to produce unhealthy kids…and why the more we focus on culture, the more upset with us they seem to become. These are of course generalizations, but I believe them to be accurate.

Could it be the hostility of culture we feel now has less to do with our doctrines than with the consequences of our inability to deal with our own anxieties? To what extent, I wonder, has culture become the identified patient of the Church’s internal wars? To what extent is their hostility toward the church a result of the anxiety we’ve transferred. Have they become an avoidance behavior for us? I pray not.

This isn’t a knock on the missional movement, which has much to commend it. It’s also not a knock on the frustrated. Ministry frustration is among the most life-sucking, depressing kinds. It’s just a warning to us all not to use “the lost,” “the poor” or the need to be missional as a way to avoid dealing with our own junk. If we want to be missional, let’s be missional. Let’s not make missional an excuse.

Let it begin with me.

In Christianity, conflict, Current Affairs, Family Life, Leadership, Religion, Spiritual Formation, Theology , , , , , ,
permalink
Let it Grow

Let it Grow – Advice on Church Growth

October 8, 2012 — 12 Comments

I’ve become convinced over the years the least considered and most important passages of Scripture when it comes to church growth is the parable of the soils, or sower (Mark 4). You remember the story: a farmer scatters seed. Some falls on rocky soil, some among the thorns, some on fertile soil.

Only one kind grows sustainably.

When it comes to growing churches, far more attention is given to “spreading” the Gospel than preparing the soil. Some are rather prolific seed throwers. They throw massive amounts of money at missions or carry on an exhaustive level of ministries only to find themselves continuing to stagnate or decline. Each church’s journey is different, and it’s hard to get down to the level this can be talked about. However, someone needs to put on the table:

The reason some of us aren’t growing is because our soil is sick.

Continue Reading...
In Christianity, Church Growth, Church Strategy, Leadership, Theology , , , , ,
permalink
Hospital Room

Is Your Church a Bad Hospital?

July 25, 2012 — 12 Comments

I sent out a tweet last week that drew quite a bit of response—and I thought I would elaborate a bit upon it. Here it is:

“The healthy leave unhealthy churches and the unhealthy leave healthy churches. Pay attention to who leaves, not just who arrives.”

There has never been a church no one has left. Every church “loses” people. Nevertheless, a fear of losing people keeps many churches from doing what needs to be done. They don’t correct the out-of-line elder. They don’t transition a chronically lazy or divisive staff member. They don’t correct the person who gossips and slanders. They fail to do what needs to be done for one simple reason–fearoflosingpeoplephobia. In falling prey to this dreaded disease, a church virtually guarantees they will lose people, except they will lose healthy people and keep the unhealthy. That will lead to an unhealthy church culture orienting the church around the unhealth of the dysfunctional, rather than around the health of leadership.

While no church wants to lose people, it’s a reality if you are healthy—not just unhealthy. If you don’t lose certain kinds of people, you will still lose people—just the healthy members of your church. You’ll be left with a bad hospital–lots of patients and no doctors. God will not bless such a hospital, for when the scarcity mindset trumps biblical instruction to correct, rebuke, etc., God’s Word is taking a backseat to feelings and fear.

Caveat: I’m not saying the church should only admit the healthy. I’m saying the church should be healthy and if it is, the sick will get better. The church should always reach out to the emotionally/spiritually sick. After all, we are disciples of Jesus, the Great Physician. However, letting the sick run off the healthy and infect others with their illness isn’t the ministry of healing. The sick not interested in health will leave. That’s OK.

Save “hospital” ministry for those wanting to get better, and pay close attention to comings and goings of doctors. Hospitals with all patients and no doctors become morgues. A true hospital is one in which the sick are brought to health. Health is the aim of any true hospital. Fulfill that role. If someone is sick but dressed like a doctor (a church leader, for example), move them to a hospital bed before they infect the other doctors. Move them toward health, as well.

Churches often take losing people as a bad sign–and it certainly can be. They also typically want to know where new growth comes from. This is also good. However, it’s at least equally important to watch who leaves. Don’t assume they are “just not committed.” Don’t let yourself off the hook right away. Ask yourself if they are healthy or unhealthy–and be fair to them. Look back three to five years at the people who have left. If they were sick, you may actually be a hospital. If they were mostly healthy, then it may be you that is sick. It’s time to change. If you don’t, you’re on your way to operating a leper colony, not a hospital–and certainly not a church.

I know this language is strong–but health is a matter of life and death for churches. It’s about honoring God in leadership by saving the beds for the truly sick, and carrying out a true ministry of healing on behalf of the Great Physician–who once asked, “Do you want to get well?” to a man lame since birth. If He can ask it, we can ask it of the chronically anxious, the liar, the gossip, the slanderer, or the immature.

In fact, we must. Or, we aren’t engaging in a ministry of healing at all. We are contributing to long-term or even terminal spiritual illness.

Thoughts?

In Church Growth, conflict, Leadership, Spiritual Formation, Theology , , , , ,
permalink
stained glass

Do You Like Your Church?

July 18, 2012 — 8 Comments

The minister’s sub-conscious is a powerful thing. Our ministry often reflects, subtly, what we really think of our church.

Churches that thrive have ministers who love and like the church they serve. When talking with church leaders about how to help their church reverse a decline, sharpen focus, or re-vision for greater impact–the first step is often a simple one: God must change their attitude to where they like (not just love) the church.

When you like the church, comparisons stop. When you like the church, power issues in leadership dissipate. Energy is freed up and ministers are more effective. Most importantly, God is pleased with our attitudes.

When you like the church, the church can tell. When you don’t…well, they can tell that, too. Oh…and so can those checking your church out. If you don’t like your church, they won’t either. I can virtually guarantee it.

Think long and hard about this question: Do you love, and like your church?

Question: Do you like your church? Why?

If the honest answer is, “not really,” what can you do to grow your attitude or initiate positive change?

In Christianity, Church Growth, Church Strategy, Leadership, Leadership Vault, Spiritual Formation , , , , , , ,
permalink