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.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
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)
