Churches are in transition all over the country. Many churches have their identities tied to their lead pastor. When this happens over many years of successful ministry, then the name of the church and the name of the pastor essentially become the same. It is common to hear someone refer to a church and follow up by saying, "You know, Pastor (fill in the blanks)'s church.
That would be fine if pastors never died, never failed, and never left to take another position. Experience, however, tells us that pastors commonly die, fail, and leave. As a result, local congregations all over the country from every denomination plunge into extended periods of turmoil, loss and despair. We call it by the nicer name "transition".
A shortcoming of the congregational or "sovereign" church model is that there are no resources which automatically come to bear to come alongside the local congregation during this time. The church is counseled to fill the pastor position as quickly as possible. As a result, congregations find a pastor without taking the time to acknowledge the feelings of abandonment, loss, betrayal, anger or sadness which will always be present when someone who is as important as the pastor is leaves their lives suddenly and unexpectedly.
If the pastor is promoted to a more responsible position, the church may be proud that their friend and pastor has been acknowledged as being worthy of promotion, but he will not be the same friend and pastor as he was. They fear that the new pastor won't be as close to them and anything that the new pastor does will be compared to how the previous one did it. The passage of time will erase the memories of the faults of the previous pastor and only the wonderful memories will remain. The new pastor has to live up to an unrealistic reputation.
The situation is a little different when the pastor dies, except the memories will exalt his reputation as a pastor even higher. Nothing helps someone's legacy like dying while he is on top of his game. This presents a special challenge to the incoming pastor. Although everyone acknowledges that the old pastor can't return, the new pastor's hands can be tied by traditions. Anything that he changes will bring the comment that "Pastor ***** started doing that back in 1983 and we always loved doing it that way."
When a pastor fails morally or ethically and is forced to leave, there are a myriad of issues to be dealt with. Those who aren't privy to the details will demand more information. In reality, leadership is probably constrained from giving the whole story. The demand for information, even if satisfied, won't make anyone feel any better, but it will open the floodgates of gossip. It takes extraordinary wisdom to know what information is public and what is private, and many will not agree with where that line is drawn. Some of those closest to the pastor may think he was treated ungraciously, and begin to mistrust the leadership team responsible for the removal. Many will be shocked, because they had no idea of any problem until the announced resignation or removal. They will want to know what happened. Some will know more than others, and the gossip begins. Others will darkly speak of suspicions they had years ago. Everyone will suffer a loss of respect for the office of pastor, because their trust has been broken. The pastor who steps into this situation will face people who will display open distrust of both his word and motive because of their hurt.
This same feeling of betrayal is common in the situation where the pastor leaves to go to another church. The feelings are similar to a spouse who has been left for someone younger, more attractive, richer, etc. They will think back to conversations of recent weeks and realize that the pastor was talking to the other church even while he was talking to them, and they knew nothing about it. Few churches see themselves as "stepping stone" churches, but many pastors do. The church who is left may develop the attitude that "Our people stay, but pastors leave. Pastors should just do what we want done." A pastor stepping into this situation will have difficulty casting vision or implementing progressive changes.
I have been very closely involved in a church transition at my local church, and I know from experience that "hurt people" hurt people. I know that the incoming pastor receives the brunt all of the emotions of hurt, betrayal, loss and mistrust. Many pastors don't survive the transition. When they don't, it is bad for them because if they left a successful pastorate somewhere else because they felt called to the new church, they naturally begin to question many things. Did I hear the call correctly? Did I miss God? These and many other questions flood his mind as he and his family attempt to pick up the pieces of what they felt was a calling and attempt to find a new ministry (and livelihood) somewhere else beyond the reach of this dark spot on his resume.
The church, still reeling from the feelings of loss from the previous pastor now have those feelings solidified in the rapid departure of the new guy. They begin to look to themselves for their answers and many times keep the cycle going through pastor after pastor. Once they have "tasted blood" it becomes easier and easier to get rid of a pastor if they disagree with him. Then they become what districts call problem churches and pastors call pastor killers.
In many cases, if the emotions and attitudes of the congregants had been addressed and given time to come to the surface and be dealt with, the church could be healed and be vibrant once again. The problem is that there are few resources available to churches to identify and validate their emotions. Unless the pastor search team finds resources on their own, they will most naturally just go through the process of finding another pastor without addressing the emotions of the congregation. The new pastor will find these emotions coming at him and they will seem totally out of proportion to the issues that bring them on. The pastor will identify these people as trouble when maybe they are just hurting. Many congregations split or scatter with all of the blame being placed on the new pastor, when the hurts from the previous pastor's departure are the real culprit.
We need people who are gifted in transition to make themselves available to step in for a season to help churches through this time. If churches knew that these resources were available, they could invite these resources for a few weeks to several months to help speak to the issues the congregation is dealing with. They could help the church find out who they think they are, who they think God thinks they are, and ultimately find out who God thinks they are. Once they know who God thinks they are, and where He wants them to go, they can recognize when they find the undershepherd who God has selected to lead them there. When congregations have a clear understanding of God's direction and God's choice, it is easier to rebuild the trust and love in spiritual leadership they once had. Then they can go forward to make disciples of all nations.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
More Budgeting blah, blah, blah
Another wrinkle to the whole budgeting philosophy is the area of designated contributions. It is a fact that in our North American Culture we favor giving to a tangible project rather than to give to an organization. We may give a regular monthly amount to a church or an organization, but we don't give sacrificially to a "general fund". An announcement of an event, project or initiative will cause us to dig deeper and give more to see the goal accomplished. I'm not saying that I think that this is right or wrong; I am only stating observed behavior.
Because of this behavior pattern, churches and non-profits have seen the need to allow designated giving so people can give to a specific project. As with nearly everything, this has its good and bad points.
The good is that the donor can be sure that his gift goes to what it was intended for, and the project goes forward as gifts come in to fund it. The down side comes when an organization becomes so fragmented in its income structure that the accounting and reporting of funds and expenditures becomes very cumbersome and confusing. Also, there are times when a gift for a project go unused for a long time because there are not sufficient designated funds to begin or complete the project.
A couple of years ago I was involved with an organization that received a $50,000 gift designated to build a new facility. It was a generous and substantial gift, but a new facility would cost approximately $500,000 and there were no other contributions for that project. The result was that other projects went begging and money was actually borrowed to meet operational expenses while the $50,000 sat unused and untouchable due to the restrictions of the donor.
I assume that some of the reasons donors like the designated giving approach are that a) we are afraid that "excess" funds will be used or wasted, b)we like to fund things that resonate with us, and c) we like to have some sense of control over our gifts. Many will "reward" a pastor by giving generously or "punish" him by withholding giving when things aren't going well.
If undesignated giving lends itself to abuse by the organizational leaders, designated giving can lend itself to abuse by donors. A number of years ago, we had a man in our church who received quarterly distributions from an investment. He didn't like the fact that the pastor received a percentage of the tithe and offering as part of his compensation package and didn't want the pastor to "get a cut" of his distribution, so he would designate his "tithe" (designated tithes are not tithes at all) to one or several departments in the church. While the departments appreciated the gift, the donor lost out on the blessing of being obedient in giving by giving in such a way that he blocked an outcome that he didn't like.
In my perfect world, people would give as the Lord led them and would just give to the church to be used where needed most. Church leadership would have an understandable and transparent budgeting system with no opportunity for misuse of funds. Departmental fundraisers and special offerings would not be necessary for normal operations. But we obviously don't live in my perfect world, so how to we do the best we can while living where we are?
I'll get there in a future post.
Because of this behavior pattern, churches and non-profits have seen the need to allow designated giving so people can give to a specific project. As with nearly everything, this has its good and bad points.
The good is that the donor can be sure that his gift goes to what it was intended for, and the project goes forward as gifts come in to fund it. The down side comes when an organization becomes so fragmented in its income structure that the accounting and reporting of funds and expenditures becomes very cumbersome and confusing. Also, there are times when a gift for a project go unused for a long time because there are not sufficient designated funds to begin or complete the project.
A couple of years ago I was involved with an organization that received a $50,000 gift designated to build a new facility. It was a generous and substantial gift, but a new facility would cost approximately $500,000 and there were no other contributions for that project. The result was that other projects went begging and money was actually borrowed to meet operational expenses while the $50,000 sat unused and untouchable due to the restrictions of the donor.
I assume that some of the reasons donors like the designated giving approach are that a) we are afraid that "excess" funds will be used or wasted, b)we like to fund things that resonate with us, and c) we like to have some sense of control over our gifts. Many will "reward" a pastor by giving generously or "punish" him by withholding giving when things aren't going well.
If undesignated giving lends itself to abuse by the organizational leaders, designated giving can lend itself to abuse by donors. A number of years ago, we had a man in our church who received quarterly distributions from an investment. He didn't like the fact that the pastor received a percentage of the tithe and offering as part of his compensation package and didn't want the pastor to "get a cut" of his distribution, so he would designate his "tithe" (designated tithes are not tithes at all) to one or several departments in the church. While the departments appreciated the gift, the donor lost out on the blessing of being obedient in giving by giving in such a way that he blocked an outcome that he didn't like.
In my perfect world, people would give as the Lord led them and would just give to the church to be used where needed most. Church leadership would have an understandable and transparent budgeting system with no opportunity for misuse of funds. Departmental fundraisers and special offerings would not be necessary for normal operations. But we obviously don't live in my perfect world, so how to we do the best we can while living where we are?
I'll get there in a future post.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Give Me Ideas
I've got something rattling around in my head and I need some help to flesh it out. This post will be mostly stream of consciousness and will not draw a conclusion or give a "charge to change".
For a couple of years now I have had an idea of offering chaplaincy services to businesses as an outreach in conjunction with our Project Square Mile. I recognized that many who work in the businesses around here have no church home but still have needs. My thought was to offer hospital visits, prayer, wedding and funeral services, etc. and to offer them at no cost. My dream was that by being a friend to the employee, we would become a friend to the business owner.
I made my first tangible step this morning by offering my services as a chaplain to one of the businesses nearby. The reception was much as I expected. It was polite. I don't know if I will ever hear back. I don't know what my next step should be. I don't know what happens if someone calls when I am gone.
I want to hear what you think. Random ideas, insights, warnings, whatever. I just see an opportunity to be Christ to people who don't know him, don't like him, or who think that He doesn't like them. I'm not trying to recruit new members for my local church.
Talk to me.
For a couple of years now I have had an idea of offering chaplaincy services to businesses as an outreach in conjunction with our Project Square Mile. I recognized that many who work in the businesses around here have no church home but still have needs. My thought was to offer hospital visits, prayer, wedding and funeral services, etc. and to offer them at no cost. My dream was that by being a friend to the employee, we would become a friend to the business owner.
I made my first tangible step this morning by offering my services as a chaplain to one of the businesses nearby. The reception was much as I expected. It was polite. I don't know if I will ever hear back. I don't know what my next step should be. I don't know what happens if someone calls when I am gone.
I want to hear what you think. Random ideas, insights, warnings, whatever. I just see an opportunity to be Christ to people who don't know him, don't like him, or who think that He doesn't like them. I'm not trying to recruit new members for my local church.
Talk to me.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
When is a person saved?
When does a person get saved? Is there an exact second of conversion?
At a wedding, the official pronouncement comes when the minister says, “I now pronounce you husband and wife.” But that event cannot occur without a courtship, a decision to get married, application for a marriage license, arranging for a time and place to get married, and arranging for someone who is recognized by the state as qualified to perform weddings. All of these must occur prior to the pronouncement of husband and wife. But even then, it is not all that easy. The marriage may meet basic legal requirements, but there are some who would argue that the marriage is not really complete until it has been consummated physically. In fact, if it can be proven that a marriage has not been physically consummated, it is fairly easy to have a marriage annulled, or treated as if it had never happened. So, if it is that difficult to determine the exact moment of marriage, which happens in public between two people, how can we determine when a person is saved? Salvation happens internally between one person and an invisible God.
Does someone get saved by raising a hand during an altar call? Over the years I have seen many hands raised by people I never saw again. Maybe the person feels the tug of conviction and realizes that something needs to change. Maybe they purpose in their heart to make things right. But does there need to be something else after that decision?
Does someone convert by repeating a sinner’s prayer? There is no doubt that someone who is unchurched has no clue how to talk to an invisible God who he has never met or had interest in before, so it is probably helpful to give them a template for prayer. But if the words are someone else’s words, can they really come from the heart? Can a life be transformed by saying a few phrases a few words at a time, led by someone else? I have heard people say that the important thing is saying the words, but that sounds like magic to me. If there is no internal transformation, the words don’t matter.
So, can we accurately identify an exact moment of eternal change when sins are forgiven and we become a new creation, with old things passing away and all things becoming new? I would say “yes”, but that salvation is a beginning point; not a destination. We have a direct example of the instantaneous nature of salvation in the story of the thief who was crucified with Jesus. He said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” And as a result of that brief prayer, Jesus promised him that later that day he would be in paradise with Christ. There was a short journey of discovery for the thief as he realized the sinlessness of Jesus’ life and realized that Jesus had authority to forgive sins. He realized the hopelessness of his own situation and that it was a situation of his own making and took his one chance to reach out for the salvation that was available to him. So, I would say that salvation occurs in an instant.
But even in that instant, there were a lot of things happening prior to salvation. Someone brought the good news; maybe many people brought it many times over many years. The Holy Spirit softened the heart and made the person realize his need of a saviour. The opportunity was given. So even that instant took some time.
Having said that, however, I would say that if the thief had lived beyond the cross, he would have needed to go beyond that simple declaration of faith and begin to live a transformed life. His life would need to begin to show evidence of significant change. I’m not saying that just after his salvation experience he should have been looking, walking and talking like a long-time Christian, but that he should have been growing in relationship with God and displaying a life of increasing relationship.
Here is where I feel that we as the Church of Jesus Christ sometimes fall short. Someone raises their hand for salvation. Maybe we go to them and pray with them. Maybe they cry. Maybe they say they feel better. We say, “Praise God!” and tell them to start reading their Bible and start attending a church. Then we move on. Next week we look for new hands to be raised. At the end of the year we count all of those conversions but see that our weekly attendance hasn’t increased.
My point is this: We can’t get focused solely on counting salvations. That is like saying to a new baby, “Okay, you have been successfully born. Try to eat regularly and stay clean.” Just as birth is a beginning event, so is salvation. The newlywed is married, but the marriage builds in strength over time. After time spent in the realities of life, the marriage transforms from a legal transaction to a lifetime covenant. So it is with salvation. It is a first step. It is wrong to leave the new convert to their own devices. They won’t make it. The new convert is just as saved as we are. But it is a fragile relationship at first. He will make messes and mistakes. We must be there to help clean up and to reassure that their relationship with God is still intact even when they make mistakes. We need to instruct them in sound doctrine and move them toward baptism. We need to show them how to grow in Christ so their lives will not always be dependent on the counsel of others, but that the goal is that they become disciplers of others. Their lives will bear fruit when we nurture their tender new roots until they mature.
Yes, salvation happens in an instant, but conversion happens over a lifetime.
At a wedding, the official pronouncement comes when the minister says, “I now pronounce you husband and wife.” But that event cannot occur without a courtship, a decision to get married, application for a marriage license, arranging for a time and place to get married, and arranging for someone who is recognized by the state as qualified to perform weddings. All of these must occur prior to the pronouncement of husband and wife. But even then, it is not all that easy. The marriage may meet basic legal requirements, but there are some who would argue that the marriage is not really complete until it has been consummated physically. In fact, if it can be proven that a marriage has not been physically consummated, it is fairly easy to have a marriage annulled, or treated as if it had never happened. So, if it is that difficult to determine the exact moment of marriage, which happens in public between two people, how can we determine when a person is saved? Salvation happens internally between one person and an invisible God.
Does someone get saved by raising a hand during an altar call? Over the years I have seen many hands raised by people I never saw again. Maybe the person feels the tug of conviction and realizes that something needs to change. Maybe they purpose in their heart to make things right. But does there need to be something else after that decision?
Does someone convert by repeating a sinner’s prayer? There is no doubt that someone who is unchurched has no clue how to talk to an invisible God who he has never met or had interest in before, so it is probably helpful to give them a template for prayer. But if the words are someone else’s words, can they really come from the heart? Can a life be transformed by saying a few phrases a few words at a time, led by someone else? I have heard people say that the important thing is saying the words, but that sounds like magic to me. If there is no internal transformation, the words don’t matter.
So, can we accurately identify an exact moment of eternal change when sins are forgiven and we become a new creation, with old things passing away and all things becoming new? I would say “yes”, but that salvation is a beginning point; not a destination. We have a direct example of the instantaneous nature of salvation in the story of the thief who was crucified with Jesus. He said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” And as a result of that brief prayer, Jesus promised him that later that day he would be in paradise with Christ. There was a short journey of discovery for the thief as he realized the sinlessness of Jesus’ life and realized that Jesus had authority to forgive sins. He realized the hopelessness of his own situation and that it was a situation of his own making and took his one chance to reach out for the salvation that was available to him. So, I would say that salvation occurs in an instant.
But even in that instant, there were a lot of things happening prior to salvation. Someone brought the good news; maybe many people brought it many times over many years. The Holy Spirit softened the heart and made the person realize his need of a saviour. The opportunity was given. So even that instant took some time.
Having said that, however, I would say that if the thief had lived beyond the cross, he would have needed to go beyond that simple declaration of faith and begin to live a transformed life. His life would need to begin to show evidence of significant change. I’m not saying that just after his salvation experience he should have been looking, walking and talking like a long-time Christian, but that he should have been growing in relationship with God and displaying a life of increasing relationship.
Here is where I feel that we as the Church of Jesus Christ sometimes fall short. Someone raises their hand for salvation. Maybe we go to them and pray with them. Maybe they cry. Maybe they say they feel better. We say, “Praise God!” and tell them to start reading their Bible and start attending a church. Then we move on. Next week we look for new hands to be raised. At the end of the year we count all of those conversions but see that our weekly attendance hasn’t increased.
My point is this: We can’t get focused solely on counting salvations. That is like saying to a new baby, “Okay, you have been successfully born. Try to eat regularly and stay clean.” Just as birth is a beginning event, so is salvation. The newlywed is married, but the marriage builds in strength over time. After time spent in the realities of life, the marriage transforms from a legal transaction to a lifetime covenant. So it is with salvation. It is a first step. It is wrong to leave the new convert to their own devices. They won’t make it. The new convert is just as saved as we are. But it is a fragile relationship at first. He will make messes and mistakes. We must be there to help clean up and to reassure that their relationship with God is still intact even when they make mistakes. We need to instruct them in sound doctrine and move them toward baptism. We need to show them how to grow in Christ so their lives will not always be dependent on the counsel of others, but that the goal is that they become disciplers of others. Their lives will bear fruit when we nurture their tender new roots until they mature.
Yes, salvation happens in an instant, but conversion happens over a lifetime.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Deacons and Trustees
First let me issue a disclaimer. Although I am on the staff of Lakeside, the posts on this blog are my own thoughts and opinions and they are not necessarily the opinion of the leadership of Lakeside. If there is any controversy arising from anything contained in this blog, it should be directed at me and no one else.
As a companion post to the previous post on church governance, I would like to address the topic of deacons and trustees; their roles and qualifications, and the selection process to bring them into their roles.
There has been a great deal of confusion about what a church board should do or not do. It seems to boil down to how an individual feels about how "the board" has handled an issue close to him or her. In other words, if I don't like something and the board changes it in a way that pleases me, they are functioning correctly. If they don't change it, or if they change something that I like, they are either "the pastor's yes-men", or "out of control".
The biggest source of confusion, in my opinion comes from the use of the word, "board". It conjures up comparisons with corporate boards of directors. In fact, there is a legal qualification for a board of some sort to qualify for tax-exempt status. Banks and lending institutions require board resolutions to extend their services. It is difficult and cumbersome for a non-corporation organization to own real property. So there is a real and compelling need for a board that serves in an official legal capacity, with all of the minute taking and rules of order and such.
What happens, unfortunately, is that it is do easy to drift into the thinking that the board is the official decision making arm of the church and that all policy is dictated or approved by it. Then churches are run like businesses, and we have all of the discussions about "checks and balances" and "balance of power" that completely suck the Holy Spirit out of the decision making process. It becomes a body that is ruled by "the will of the people".
In my mind, using the terms "board" and "deacons" in the same phrase is a contradiction of terms. I am not a Greek scholar by any measure, but the extensive reading I have done has revealed that the root word from which we derive the term "deacon" is best translated as "servant". So we are saying that we have a governing body of servants, which is contradictory. At least we find deacons in the Bible. Not so with trustees. Trustees are a completely recent introduction into church organizations and come completely from the legal sphere. Not necessarily anti-Biblical, but for sure extra-Biblical.
In the formation of our constitution back in 2003, there was a lot of talk that unless we had two boards, a board of deacons and a board of trustees, there would not be any chance that we could ever have integrity in our organization. The argument was that there had to be an equal number of business minded trustees and spiritual minded deacons to offset one another's excesses and shortcomings. Both were to make sure that the pastor didn't go too far out of whack. The trustees were to be custodians of the assets and approve the finances. The deacons were to oversee the membership rolls and the ministries of the church. The pastor was to preach and do hospital calls.
What has happened since the adoption of this plan? Those who pushed for the two boards got mad at the way the two boards were implemented. All of the vocal proponents have since left the church. Pastor Darren meets with both boards separately, as mandated, and both are unsatisfied. The deacons are frustrated when ministries are discussed without financials, and the trustees are frustrated when financials are discussed without information about ministries. If pastor discusses both, he is having the same meeting with two different groups. When they have met together, there is confusion when it comes time to accept a motion. Who is entitled to speak to a topic and who is entitled to move or second and vote? It is very cumbersome.
I would like to see a call for a new constitution that fulfills the legal requirements of a charitable organization, but recognizes spiritual authority and exhibits true servant leadership. I would like to see one church council which works in cooperation with the pastor to see God's Kingdom built. Within the church council there could be different offices. Two trustees, the church treasurer and the church secretary could fulfill the legal role of church officers along with the lead pastor and act as signatories of official documents. They would be chosen because of their experience and giftings in business matters. They would not be decision makers; they would be facilitators. Deacons would be chosen for their reputation of service to the local body of believers, their deep faith in Christ, and their solid reputations in the community. They would serve as spiritual lay leadership and do significant ministry in many of the areas of the church. When vacancies occur, the remaining deacons would take their time to find a replacement who they feel would be an asset to and a complementary member of the team. Each deacon would love and support all of the ministries of the church, not just the one closest to his heart.
The pastor would have one council with whom to share his thoughts and vision. Financial reports, membership issues, spiritual issues within the church and individuals would be addressed, discipline administered, and ministry responsibilities would all be discussed and implemented by this one group.
I know that this sounds like a panacea. I know that it is impossible for it to work as well in reality as it does in concept. As long as we have to rely on people to do the work, we will have difficulties. And, as was discussed in the prior post, there is no governmental structure that is the "right" one. All of these noble concepts break down when we allow our own personal agendas to invade the dialogue. Any structure or church is only as strong as the spiritual commitment of its leadership, so I won't throw a fit to see this reorganization take place. I have had fragments of this conversation with several people and I wanted to put the entire thought into one post. I know that I have not comepleted some thoughts as well as I should, and I have left a lot of room for discussion or even disagreement. But my feeling is that as we discuss the shortcomings we struggle with now, we at least begin to move toward improvement. And as we strive for spiritual solutions over strategic solutions, we make more room for God to do what He would like to do among us.
That's always good.
As a companion post to the previous post on church governance, I would like to address the topic of deacons and trustees; their roles and qualifications, and the selection process to bring them into their roles.
There has been a great deal of confusion about what a church board should do or not do. It seems to boil down to how an individual feels about how "the board" has handled an issue close to him or her. In other words, if I don't like something and the board changes it in a way that pleases me, they are functioning correctly. If they don't change it, or if they change something that I like, they are either "the pastor's yes-men", or "out of control".
The biggest source of confusion, in my opinion comes from the use of the word, "board". It conjures up comparisons with corporate boards of directors. In fact, there is a legal qualification for a board of some sort to qualify for tax-exempt status. Banks and lending institutions require board resolutions to extend their services. It is difficult and cumbersome for a non-corporation organization to own real property. So there is a real and compelling need for a board that serves in an official legal capacity, with all of the minute taking and rules of order and such.
What happens, unfortunately, is that it is do easy to drift into the thinking that the board is the official decision making arm of the church and that all policy is dictated or approved by it. Then churches are run like businesses, and we have all of the discussions about "checks and balances" and "balance of power" that completely suck the Holy Spirit out of the decision making process. It becomes a body that is ruled by "the will of the people".
In my mind, using the terms "board" and "deacons" in the same phrase is a contradiction of terms. I am not a Greek scholar by any measure, but the extensive reading I have done has revealed that the root word from which we derive the term "deacon" is best translated as "servant". So we are saying that we have a governing body of servants, which is contradictory. At least we find deacons in the Bible. Not so with trustees. Trustees are a completely recent introduction into church organizations and come completely from the legal sphere. Not necessarily anti-Biblical, but for sure extra-Biblical.
In the formation of our constitution back in 2003, there was a lot of talk that unless we had two boards, a board of deacons and a board of trustees, there would not be any chance that we could ever have integrity in our organization. The argument was that there had to be an equal number of business minded trustees and spiritual minded deacons to offset one another's excesses and shortcomings. Both were to make sure that the pastor didn't go too far out of whack. The trustees were to be custodians of the assets and approve the finances. The deacons were to oversee the membership rolls and the ministries of the church. The pastor was to preach and do hospital calls.
What has happened since the adoption of this plan? Those who pushed for the two boards got mad at the way the two boards were implemented. All of the vocal proponents have since left the church. Pastor Darren meets with both boards separately, as mandated, and both are unsatisfied. The deacons are frustrated when ministries are discussed without financials, and the trustees are frustrated when financials are discussed without information about ministries. If pastor discusses both, he is having the same meeting with two different groups. When they have met together, there is confusion when it comes time to accept a motion. Who is entitled to speak to a topic and who is entitled to move or second and vote? It is very cumbersome.
I would like to see a call for a new constitution that fulfills the legal requirements of a charitable organization, but recognizes spiritual authority and exhibits true servant leadership. I would like to see one church council which works in cooperation with the pastor to see God's Kingdom built. Within the church council there could be different offices. Two trustees, the church treasurer and the church secretary could fulfill the legal role of church officers along with the lead pastor and act as signatories of official documents. They would be chosen because of their experience and giftings in business matters. They would not be decision makers; they would be facilitators. Deacons would be chosen for their reputation of service to the local body of believers, their deep faith in Christ, and their solid reputations in the community. They would serve as spiritual lay leadership and do significant ministry in many of the areas of the church. When vacancies occur, the remaining deacons would take their time to find a replacement who they feel would be an asset to and a complementary member of the team. Each deacon would love and support all of the ministries of the church, not just the one closest to his heart.
The pastor would have one council with whom to share his thoughts and vision. Financial reports, membership issues, spiritual issues within the church and individuals would be addressed, discipline administered, and ministry responsibilities would all be discussed and implemented by this one group.
I know that this sounds like a panacea. I know that it is impossible for it to work as well in reality as it does in concept. As long as we have to rely on people to do the work, we will have difficulties. And, as was discussed in the prior post, there is no governmental structure that is the "right" one. All of these noble concepts break down when we allow our own personal agendas to invade the dialogue. Any structure or church is only as strong as the spiritual commitment of its leadership, so I won't throw a fit to see this reorganization take place. I have had fragments of this conversation with several people and I wanted to put the entire thought into one post. I know that I have not comepleted some thoughts as well as I should, and I have left a lot of room for discussion or even disagreement. But my feeling is that as we discuss the shortcomings we struggle with now, we at least begin to move toward improvement. And as we strive for spiritual solutions over strategic solutions, we make more room for God to do what He would like to do among us.
That's always good.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Church Governance
Over the past 6 years I have had many occasions to discuss, dispute and formulate church governance policies. After reading quite a number of books, studying what the Bible says, and investigating many other church governance structures, I am ready to make only one conclusion. At this point, my conclusion is that nearly all of the assumptions that I carried into this learning journey were wrong. I will detail them later in this article.
I have studied churches that are so organized and the authority structure is so spread out that there is no sense of a spiritual leading in anything. If it doesn’t make it out of committee, it doesn’t happen. On the other hand, I have observed churches where the lead pastor establishes every policy and dictates every happening. His word is law and anyone who questions him is marked as divisive and un-submissive. Obviously, as with any issue, the true answers do not lie at the extremes.
I learned that there is no established definition of terms. In one church, elder means pastor and in another it means deacon. In one church deacon means servant, and in another, it means director. In some, trustees rule the roost, and in others, trustees oversee only the church property. In each of these structures, from democratic to autocratic, whatever the terminology, there are both successes and failures. I found that whatever structure the church utilized, there were those who were ready to defend their model to the death, if necessary. Each, with the possible exception of the democratic model, is able to defend its structural model with scripture.
So, the issue remains; is there one “correct” model of church governance? Is there one model that the Bible clearly defines as proper? It seems to be one of those things in the Bible which is left intentionally vague. I suppose that is because the Bible is transcendent beyond our current cultural filters. It is a Word that instructs cultures in remote locations and in large metropolitan areas. It speaks equally to simple forms of organization found in rain forest people groups and to the super organized Western world. And, as it is with so many issues in the Bible, it depends mainly on the heart attitudes of those who lead.
Well, here we are five paragraphs into this post and I have not really made any assertions; I have only given my impressions. Where do I stand, and what did I find to be wrong about my assumptions? I’ll begin with a story.
In 2002, our church was in a state of flux. Our pastor of 25 years resigned, and his top associate was elected to replace him. It was not a good time in the life of our church. We were generally cranky, and there was a lot of infighting, much of which I was involved in. At the time of the pastoral election, it was discovered that no one could find a copy of Lakeside’s constitution and bylaws, so it was determined that a new one would be written. What I didn’t understand (or didn’t want to understand) is that a time of transition is the worst possible time to write a governing document. During the 23+ years of growth and prosperity, no one was concerned with the location or contents of the constitution. Generally, people only get worried about governing documents when they are mad about something. Since we were mad as a church, it was wrong to write a constitution, because it would inevitably convey mistrust and a desire to control activities. As a result, after nearly 8 months and several contentious congregational meetings, we approved a constitution that provided for a “balance of power” and put up boundaries for leadership that were designed to keep a pastor “in check”. I was one of the principle authors of this document, and although I have repented of it, it remains the governing document of my church today. As I read it, my heart breaks when I remember conversations that brought about the formulation of many of the contents. I had conversations about things that make me ill, in retrospect. They were unscriptural, unholy, and purely intended to put control of the church in the hands of “the people”. I repent of ever using the term, “balance of power” in relation to spiritual authority. There is no balance. The scale is tipped completely by God. A church which can quote more of its constitution and bylaws than it can of the Bible is a church that is in trouble. We were in trouble.
The pastorate of the man who followed our long-time pastor was doomed from the start. He was a great guy, but he wasn’t the man he replaced. Much of the church expected him to magically become the pastor they wanted him to be, but he could only be the pastor he was. He had supporters, but they were predominately of a younger generation which did not place high priority on business meetings. Those who didn’t support him knew how to pull the strings of power. After a year and a half, he resigned, and we found ourselves looking for a pastor. We were confused, conflicted, and contrary. It took just over a year to find God’s choice. It was during that year that I began to see how wrong my spirit and attitudes were, even while I filled an important leadership role for the church.
Here is the one thing I know. Democracy has no place in the church. We have seen the success of the U.S. form of government and believed that it should be copied in the church. We forget, however, that our form of government is based on arguing, compromise and razor thin majorities. These are elements that we should be vigilant to drive out of the church instead of inviting them in. Every vote produces winners and losers, something else the church does not need. Also, votes can not reveal the will of God unless they are unanimous and every voter has spent the time necessary to seek and determine the will of God. We know that this doesn’t happen. We know that the phone calls and visits concerning an upcoming vote are just to persuade someone based on our own human reasoning, even when we say that we are “just trying to protect the church”. And what is this business of electing a pastor to a term of office? If we have determined that he is God’s choice for our church, why do we need to keep determining it? I have seen that these subsequent elections serve only one purpose, and that is to keep the pastor a little bit off balance and afraid that if he truly does what is on his heart to do, he might find himself out of a job. Also, pastors leave when there are unfilled years on their term. If they feel a call to go somewhere else, they don’t wait until their term is up. If he feels that the church is not behind him and there is no hope of reconciliation, he will leave regardless of his unexpired term.
There is also the issue of the church taking on the personality of the lead pastor and the devastation to the local church that is caused by the departure of a pastor. We are happy to turn over the keys of the church to a new pastor as long as everything is going well. We are happy to let him do all of the ministry, all the teaching, all the vision casting, and anything else that someone who is around the church all day might be able to do. But when that pastor leaves and another one takes over, there are abrupt changes in styles, goals and procedures. People leave the church and the church takes years to recover. It is madness that we continue to stay with this structure year after year in church after church and see the same problems play out time after time.
Election of Deacons or whatever lay based spiritual leadership is called in your church is another issue. I have seen many instances over the years where deacons or trustees were elected to 1) represent our constituency, 2) oppose the pastor on some issue, or 3) honor him for faithful attendance or extraordinary giving. Many times people are nominated by members who do not know something about an issue in the candidate’s life that would preclude him from serving. Then when the nominating members don’t see that person’s name on the ballot they ask questions whose answers may violate confidentialities. I have also seen instances when good men were not retained or elected, and they were hurt because they were told by the ballot that they were not good enough to serve in the position. Once again, we should not be inviting these issues into our churches. As long as we operate under the notion that church boards are elected representatives of the congregation and responsible to speak the “will of the people” to the pastor, we will continue to see powerless churches which are more interested in maintaining the status quo than reaching our lost world. I have to confess that I was once the chief of sinners in this regard.
So, what is my solution? I have spelled out what I have repented of. I have made it clear what I think is wrong. What do I propose? How do we protect against the “bad pastor” without voting to let him know how we feel? How do we get boards that are unified and effective? Well, here we go. Remember, that I am not dogmatic about any of this except the area of spiritual authority, so if you differ with me on terminology or details, we can still be friends. You don’t have to drink my Kool-Aid to be in agreement or fellowship with me. I reserve the right to continue to tweak my conclusions as time goes by.
In my perfect world, a lead pastor would be the spiritual leader of the church. As such, he would be responsible ultimately to God for his actions. The spiritual leader will be judged very harshly by God if he misuses or misrepresents his God-given authority. For a spiritual leader, that should be enough to keep him on the straight and narrow. As it has been said, however, the best of men are men at best, and there should be accountability structures that allow a select group of trusted individuals to ask him hard questions and to probe into areas of weakness without fear of being ostracized. These should be men of the pastor’s choosing, but he should make it known who these men are. It would be better if these men were not members of a board or committee which is charged with his oversight. It could put a board member in a tricky place when the pastor reveals a struggle that could potentially be grounds for discipline or dismissal. This accountability group should be men who are free to discuss and pray with the pastor as he shares the deep struggles he faces. These men may or may not be members of his church, but it is important that select members of the church know who the members of this accountability group are. Pastors are failing and burning out in record numbers. They are held to unrealistic expectations and live in fear of someone knowing that they struggle with the same issues as their church members. Without someone to confide in, those temptations become spectacular failures that damage the reputation of their church and the Church.
Next the lead pastor has his ministry team. Depending on the size of the church, these may be full or part time, paid or unpaid. Regardless, they are the ministry team. They are responsible for the spiritual health of the church. They should not do all of the ministry, but they are ultimately responsible for all of the ministry. They are responsible to insure that the teaching is Biblical and it is with this team that the lead pastor formulates the basics of the vision and direction of the church. It is not enough for the lead pastor to form this vision by himself and then expect his team to carry it out. It is important that the team have an almost equal vote with the lead pastor in this formulation and strategy. If they are not part of the formation of the plan, they will not be able to fully articulate it or make sure that it is carried out properly. The ministry team should spend a lot of time together in prayer and fellowship and should have absolute trust in one another’s heart and motivation.
The area of church governance most misunderstood is the area of boards, or councils. There are many jokes and horror stories about the relationships between pastors and boards. In many churches, the idea is that the pastor may leave, but the board stays. As a result, boards become the rulers of the church. In my perfect world, the board in cooperation with the lead pastor would select board members. In a proper relationship with a board or council, the lead pastor would have a strong personal relationship with each board member. Just as with the ministry team, the pastor and board should be comfortable together in extended seasons of prayer. As members of the congregation, they will hear things that the pastor will not. As the lead pastor shares the vision formulated by the ministry team, he should solicit thoughts from the board. They should be free to share insights and offer suggestions that would facilitate the implementation of the vision. If the lead pastor senses strong opposition to the plan, he would have the ability to delay implementation until the factors causing the opposition could be addressed. This could serve to prevent the right idea from being presented at the wrong time. But if there is trust between the pastor and the board, there is no animosity in this process. The pastor draws on the collected experiences and wisdom of these members. When there is buy-in to the idea by his board, the pastor then can proceed to the congregation with confidence that he will not be undercut by these influential members.
This would be very difficult to attain if the board was elected by the members. They would not have the understanding necessary to know if their nominees were a good fit with the other members of the board. My suggestion is that board appointments are for an indefinite period of time, and as vacancies occur, the board itself along with the lead pastor should nominate a new member. This nomination could be brought before the congregation for ratification, if desired, but this appointment process limits the potential for winners and losers and campaigning for a particular candidate. It comes closer to insuring that there is continuity of heart and true spiritual leadership on the board. And it helps to create an atmosphere of trust and respect between board and pastor. If the pastor leaves, the board would have a good sense of the focus and direction of the church and would be able to continue operating during the search. They would also have a much better sense of God’s leading to a new pastor, when that time came.
The board, or council, whatever it is called, should not be just an approval agency or screening committee. They should be actively involved in ministry, such as hospital calls, visitation, teaching, mentoring, and interfacing with various ministries as spiritual advisors. Remember, the first recorded deacons were selected to take over the feeding ministry of the church from the ministry team. They were not selected to determine the need or effectiveness of the feeding ministry. In this way, by doing the ministry they could do, they released the ministry team to do the things only they could do. This lends great strength to the structure of the church and makes it less likely to topple if there is a failure in the ranks. Willingness to serve humbly would be a primary qualification for a board member.
Next, in my perfect world, pastors, however they are selected, called, invited, or whatever term you want to use, would be called to an indefinite term of office. If the search is conducted by a search team that is really in prayer for God to reveal His choice, then we should not have to revisit the election every four years. If things are successful, it is apparent to everyone. If things do not work out so well, but the search team knows that they heard from God in the selection, they can stick with the pastor until things do work out. And if the pastor fails morally, ethically or legally, the board or council can confront him. But God does not work in percentages. He is either 100% sure this pastor is His choice, or he is 100% sure that this pastor is not His choice. God is never 51% or 76% sure of His will.
Finally, in my perfect world, members would stay at their church through good times and bad. We have developed a consumer mentality in church that tells us that we will continue to attend and give in the offering as long as we like the way things are run. At the first sign of trouble we look for a new place to do our church business. We have no sense of attaching ourselves to our local church family and committing to stick it out in good times and bad, praying all the way.
I know that we are a long way from being a perfect world, and we will never achieve perfection. But we can have a heart that is perfect and upright and we can spend time with God until we know what He is asking us to do. We can commit to adjust our agendas to come into alignment with His, and we can make this church thing a lot simpler and more satisfying than we have made it.
My specific prayer for my church is that we as a church will rise up and throw off the shackles of man made theology, however that may look. I pray that we will embrace spiritual authority and the fellowship of saints deeply rooted in the Bible and our love and trust of one another in our body of believers.
I have studied churches that are so organized and the authority structure is so spread out that there is no sense of a spiritual leading in anything. If it doesn’t make it out of committee, it doesn’t happen. On the other hand, I have observed churches where the lead pastor establishes every policy and dictates every happening. His word is law and anyone who questions him is marked as divisive and un-submissive. Obviously, as with any issue, the true answers do not lie at the extremes.
I learned that there is no established definition of terms. In one church, elder means pastor and in another it means deacon. In one church deacon means servant, and in another, it means director. In some, trustees rule the roost, and in others, trustees oversee only the church property. In each of these structures, from democratic to autocratic, whatever the terminology, there are both successes and failures. I found that whatever structure the church utilized, there were those who were ready to defend their model to the death, if necessary. Each, with the possible exception of the democratic model, is able to defend its structural model with scripture.
So, the issue remains; is there one “correct” model of church governance? Is there one model that the Bible clearly defines as proper? It seems to be one of those things in the Bible which is left intentionally vague. I suppose that is because the Bible is transcendent beyond our current cultural filters. It is a Word that instructs cultures in remote locations and in large metropolitan areas. It speaks equally to simple forms of organization found in rain forest people groups and to the super organized Western world. And, as it is with so many issues in the Bible, it depends mainly on the heart attitudes of those who lead.
Well, here we are five paragraphs into this post and I have not really made any assertions; I have only given my impressions. Where do I stand, and what did I find to be wrong about my assumptions? I’ll begin with a story.
In 2002, our church was in a state of flux. Our pastor of 25 years resigned, and his top associate was elected to replace him. It was not a good time in the life of our church. We were generally cranky, and there was a lot of infighting, much of which I was involved in. At the time of the pastoral election, it was discovered that no one could find a copy of Lakeside’s constitution and bylaws, so it was determined that a new one would be written. What I didn’t understand (or didn’t want to understand) is that a time of transition is the worst possible time to write a governing document. During the 23+ years of growth and prosperity, no one was concerned with the location or contents of the constitution. Generally, people only get worried about governing documents when they are mad about something. Since we were mad as a church, it was wrong to write a constitution, because it would inevitably convey mistrust and a desire to control activities. As a result, after nearly 8 months and several contentious congregational meetings, we approved a constitution that provided for a “balance of power” and put up boundaries for leadership that were designed to keep a pastor “in check”. I was one of the principle authors of this document, and although I have repented of it, it remains the governing document of my church today. As I read it, my heart breaks when I remember conversations that brought about the formulation of many of the contents. I had conversations about things that make me ill, in retrospect. They were unscriptural, unholy, and purely intended to put control of the church in the hands of “the people”. I repent of ever using the term, “balance of power” in relation to spiritual authority. There is no balance. The scale is tipped completely by God. A church which can quote more of its constitution and bylaws than it can of the Bible is a church that is in trouble. We were in trouble.
The pastorate of the man who followed our long-time pastor was doomed from the start. He was a great guy, but he wasn’t the man he replaced. Much of the church expected him to magically become the pastor they wanted him to be, but he could only be the pastor he was. He had supporters, but they were predominately of a younger generation which did not place high priority on business meetings. Those who didn’t support him knew how to pull the strings of power. After a year and a half, he resigned, and we found ourselves looking for a pastor. We were confused, conflicted, and contrary. It took just over a year to find God’s choice. It was during that year that I began to see how wrong my spirit and attitudes were, even while I filled an important leadership role for the church.
Here is the one thing I know. Democracy has no place in the church. We have seen the success of the U.S. form of government and believed that it should be copied in the church. We forget, however, that our form of government is based on arguing, compromise and razor thin majorities. These are elements that we should be vigilant to drive out of the church instead of inviting them in. Every vote produces winners and losers, something else the church does not need. Also, votes can not reveal the will of God unless they are unanimous and every voter has spent the time necessary to seek and determine the will of God. We know that this doesn’t happen. We know that the phone calls and visits concerning an upcoming vote are just to persuade someone based on our own human reasoning, even when we say that we are “just trying to protect the church”. And what is this business of electing a pastor to a term of office? If we have determined that he is God’s choice for our church, why do we need to keep determining it? I have seen that these subsequent elections serve only one purpose, and that is to keep the pastor a little bit off balance and afraid that if he truly does what is on his heart to do, he might find himself out of a job. Also, pastors leave when there are unfilled years on their term. If they feel a call to go somewhere else, they don’t wait until their term is up. If he feels that the church is not behind him and there is no hope of reconciliation, he will leave regardless of his unexpired term.
There is also the issue of the church taking on the personality of the lead pastor and the devastation to the local church that is caused by the departure of a pastor. We are happy to turn over the keys of the church to a new pastor as long as everything is going well. We are happy to let him do all of the ministry, all the teaching, all the vision casting, and anything else that someone who is around the church all day might be able to do. But when that pastor leaves and another one takes over, there are abrupt changes in styles, goals and procedures. People leave the church and the church takes years to recover. It is madness that we continue to stay with this structure year after year in church after church and see the same problems play out time after time.
Election of Deacons or whatever lay based spiritual leadership is called in your church is another issue. I have seen many instances over the years where deacons or trustees were elected to 1) represent our constituency, 2) oppose the pastor on some issue, or 3) honor him for faithful attendance or extraordinary giving. Many times people are nominated by members who do not know something about an issue in the candidate’s life that would preclude him from serving. Then when the nominating members don’t see that person’s name on the ballot they ask questions whose answers may violate confidentialities. I have also seen instances when good men were not retained or elected, and they were hurt because they were told by the ballot that they were not good enough to serve in the position. Once again, we should not be inviting these issues into our churches. As long as we operate under the notion that church boards are elected representatives of the congregation and responsible to speak the “will of the people” to the pastor, we will continue to see powerless churches which are more interested in maintaining the status quo than reaching our lost world. I have to confess that I was once the chief of sinners in this regard.
So, what is my solution? I have spelled out what I have repented of. I have made it clear what I think is wrong. What do I propose? How do we protect against the “bad pastor” without voting to let him know how we feel? How do we get boards that are unified and effective? Well, here we go. Remember, that I am not dogmatic about any of this except the area of spiritual authority, so if you differ with me on terminology or details, we can still be friends. You don’t have to drink my Kool-Aid to be in agreement or fellowship with me. I reserve the right to continue to tweak my conclusions as time goes by.
In my perfect world, a lead pastor would be the spiritual leader of the church. As such, he would be responsible ultimately to God for his actions. The spiritual leader will be judged very harshly by God if he misuses or misrepresents his God-given authority. For a spiritual leader, that should be enough to keep him on the straight and narrow. As it has been said, however, the best of men are men at best, and there should be accountability structures that allow a select group of trusted individuals to ask him hard questions and to probe into areas of weakness without fear of being ostracized. These should be men of the pastor’s choosing, but he should make it known who these men are. It would be better if these men were not members of a board or committee which is charged with his oversight. It could put a board member in a tricky place when the pastor reveals a struggle that could potentially be grounds for discipline or dismissal. This accountability group should be men who are free to discuss and pray with the pastor as he shares the deep struggles he faces. These men may or may not be members of his church, but it is important that select members of the church know who the members of this accountability group are. Pastors are failing and burning out in record numbers. They are held to unrealistic expectations and live in fear of someone knowing that they struggle with the same issues as their church members. Without someone to confide in, those temptations become spectacular failures that damage the reputation of their church and the Church.
Next the lead pastor has his ministry team. Depending on the size of the church, these may be full or part time, paid or unpaid. Regardless, they are the ministry team. They are responsible for the spiritual health of the church. They should not do all of the ministry, but they are ultimately responsible for all of the ministry. They are responsible to insure that the teaching is Biblical and it is with this team that the lead pastor formulates the basics of the vision and direction of the church. It is not enough for the lead pastor to form this vision by himself and then expect his team to carry it out. It is important that the team have an almost equal vote with the lead pastor in this formulation and strategy. If they are not part of the formation of the plan, they will not be able to fully articulate it or make sure that it is carried out properly. The ministry team should spend a lot of time together in prayer and fellowship and should have absolute trust in one another’s heart and motivation.
The area of church governance most misunderstood is the area of boards, or councils. There are many jokes and horror stories about the relationships between pastors and boards. In many churches, the idea is that the pastor may leave, but the board stays. As a result, boards become the rulers of the church. In my perfect world, the board in cooperation with the lead pastor would select board members. In a proper relationship with a board or council, the lead pastor would have a strong personal relationship with each board member. Just as with the ministry team, the pastor and board should be comfortable together in extended seasons of prayer. As members of the congregation, they will hear things that the pastor will not. As the lead pastor shares the vision formulated by the ministry team, he should solicit thoughts from the board. They should be free to share insights and offer suggestions that would facilitate the implementation of the vision. If the lead pastor senses strong opposition to the plan, he would have the ability to delay implementation until the factors causing the opposition could be addressed. This could serve to prevent the right idea from being presented at the wrong time. But if there is trust between the pastor and the board, there is no animosity in this process. The pastor draws on the collected experiences and wisdom of these members. When there is buy-in to the idea by his board, the pastor then can proceed to the congregation with confidence that he will not be undercut by these influential members.
This would be very difficult to attain if the board was elected by the members. They would not have the understanding necessary to know if their nominees were a good fit with the other members of the board. My suggestion is that board appointments are for an indefinite period of time, and as vacancies occur, the board itself along with the lead pastor should nominate a new member. This nomination could be brought before the congregation for ratification, if desired, but this appointment process limits the potential for winners and losers and campaigning for a particular candidate. It comes closer to insuring that there is continuity of heart and true spiritual leadership on the board. And it helps to create an atmosphere of trust and respect between board and pastor. If the pastor leaves, the board would have a good sense of the focus and direction of the church and would be able to continue operating during the search. They would also have a much better sense of God’s leading to a new pastor, when that time came.
The board, or council, whatever it is called, should not be just an approval agency or screening committee. They should be actively involved in ministry, such as hospital calls, visitation, teaching, mentoring, and interfacing with various ministries as spiritual advisors. Remember, the first recorded deacons were selected to take over the feeding ministry of the church from the ministry team. They were not selected to determine the need or effectiveness of the feeding ministry. In this way, by doing the ministry they could do, they released the ministry team to do the things only they could do. This lends great strength to the structure of the church and makes it less likely to topple if there is a failure in the ranks. Willingness to serve humbly would be a primary qualification for a board member.
Next, in my perfect world, pastors, however they are selected, called, invited, or whatever term you want to use, would be called to an indefinite term of office. If the search is conducted by a search team that is really in prayer for God to reveal His choice, then we should not have to revisit the election every four years. If things are successful, it is apparent to everyone. If things do not work out so well, but the search team knows that they heard from God in the selection, they can stick with the pastor until things do work out. And if the pastor fails morally, ethically or legally, the board or council can confront him. But God does not work in percentages. He is either 100% sure this pastor is His choice, or he is 100% sure that this pastor is not His choice. God is never 51% or 76% sure of His will.
Finally, in my perfect world, members would stay at their church through good times and bad. We have developed a consumer mentality in church that tells us that we will continue to attend and give in the offering as long as we like the way things are run. At the first sign of trouble we look for a new place to do our church business. We have no sense of attaching ourselves to our local church family and committing to stick it out in good times and bad, praying all the way.
I know that we are a long way from being a perfect world, and we will never achieve perfection. But we can have a heart that is perfect and upright and we can spend time with God until we know what He is asking us to do. We can commit to adjust our agendas to come into alignment with His, and we can make this church thing a lot simpler and more satisfying than we have made it.
My specific prayer for my church is that we as a church will rise up and throw off the shackles of man made theology, however that may look. I pray that we will embrace spiritual authority and the fellowship of saints deeply rooted in the Bible and our love and trust of one another in our body of believers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
