Feeds:
Posts
Comments

I wanted to walk out of church last Sunday morning.

All because of a song.

During last Sunday’s praise and worship time at the church Kim and I have been attending, I became very uncomfortable because we kept repeating the same phrase while singing a popular worship song called “King of My Heart.”

Two Sundays ago, the worship team led the congregation in singing this song.

And I noticed that one phrase was repeated 22 times:

“You are good, good, oh” … which means we sang the word “good” 44 times.

Then last Sunday, they sang the song once more!  (As the song was starting, I turned to Kim and said, “Oh, no, not again.”)

Just in case singing this phrase over and over was an aberration, I decided to go online and see if I could find a video of a praise and worship band singing the song.

I did.

By my count, they sang the phrase, “You are good, good, oh” 24 times … and the phrase “You’re never gonna let, never gonna let me go” 16 times … in the same song.

You might like this … but it drives me nuts … so much so that I wanted to run out of the service, get in my car, and drive … anywhere.

I remember when praise songs first came from Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa in the mid-1970s.  We’d sing a song twice and some older people would get upset, claiming that singing the song several times consisted of vain repetition.

What would they think now?

In a blog that’s usually devoted to resolving conflict, I may be creating more conflict than I’m helping to resolve … but I feel strongly about this issue even though some might consider me nit-picky, ungodly, or nearly heretical.

Since this isn’t the only song that relies on the repetition of certain phrases, why are Christians writing and singing songs with such repetitive lyrics?

I don’t know … so I’m going to make three guesses:

First, we need to repeat those phrases for God’s benefit.

But God knows He’s good.  He doesn’t need us to remind Him.

Yes, He likes it when we recite His attributes … whether in prayer or in song … but the biblical pattern is to recite many of His attributes at once, not just to focus on one.

For example, in 1 Timothy 1:17, Paul writes, “Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever.  Amen.”

Or in Jude 25, Jesus’ half-brother writes, “… to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord; before all ages, now and forevermore!  Amen.”

But do we have biblical evidence that God doesn’t like His people repeating phrases?

In Matthew 6:7-8, Jesus said:

“And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words.  Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.”

The song “King of My Heart” is certainly written as a prayer because it’s directed to God.   While I don’t think that singing “You are good, good, oh” necessarily rates as babbling, the constant repetition of phrases does seem to fall into the category of “many words.”

In light of Jesus’ instructions, can we at least think twice about singing so many phrases over and over?

We also have nearly zero examples in the Bible of such repetition during worship.  For example, we have 150 psalms, yet there is only one where I can detect a repetitive phrase … in Psalm 136 … where the phrase, “His love endures forever” is found at the end of all 26 verses.

But one example hardly a pattern makes.

I tell my wife that I love her all the time, and when I do, I try and do it with a degree of creativity.  But what would she think if I turned to her and said:

You are good, good, oh

You are good, good, oh

You are good, good, oh

You are good, good, oh

So why do we do that with God?  Could we even be boring Him?

Second, we need to repeat those phrases for our own benefit.

When we’re singing the phrase, “You are good, good, oh” repeatedly, I wonder if we’re doing it for ourselves.

Maybe we don’t really believe God is good, but if we sing it and sing it and sing it and sing it out aloud … and loudly … maybe we’ll start believing it.

But how many times do we need to sing that phrase before we do believe it?  8 times?  12?  16?

24 times?  Really?

I once attended a workshop led by one of America’s best-known worship leaders.  He told us that he would initially select the songs for the following Sunday, then submit them to his pastor, who would either approve his selections or cross out certain songs and replace them with others.

The worship leader told us that the previous Sunday, the pastor had crossed out all of the songs he proposed.

This is one I’d be tempted to cross out myself.

I think the song “King of My Heart” is an okay song (my apologies if it’s one of your favorites) … but if I were pastoring again, and the worship leader proposed that song to me, I’d say, “We’re singing the phrase ‘You are good, good, oh’ a maximum of 8 times, and ‘You’re never gonna let, never gonna let me down’ 4 times, and that’s it.  If you can’t live with that, we’re not going to do it.”

I banned the song “Draw Me Close to You” at my last church because I felt the song didn’t appeal to men … and that leads me to my third guess:

Third, we need to repeat those phrases so we can feel something.

And this is what I think is really going on.

Without actually saying it, I believe that in many churches, the praise and worship time is considered to be the emotional time of the service, while the preaching is viewed as the intellectual part.

So during the emotional part of the service, it’s okay for any technique to be employed just so people feel that elusive “worship high” … an indication they’ve connected with God.

And repeating a phrase is one of those techniques.

On the video I watched online of a church’s worship band playing this song, I noticed that the song started quietly … built up to a place where the singers were nearly shouting, like in a power ballad … and then ended quietly.

Everyone had their eyes closed.  Some of the singers were going through various bodily gyrations with their hands raised.

The purpose of the song didn’t seem to involve reciting truth, but inciting feeling. 

Could we be using phrases like mantras?  Certainly transcendental meditation relies upon the repetition of words and phrases.

In his book Why Men Hate Going to Church, David Murrow contrasts “old worship” (the kind many of us grew up with) with “new worship” (what he calls P&W … praise and worship):

“The old worship was formal, corporate, and emotionless.  The new worship is informal, individualistic, and touchy-feely.  The old worship was about coming together to extol God; the new worship is about coming together to experience God.  The target of worship has fallen half a meter – from the head to the heart.”

Maybe, as Murrow says, I respond negatively to songs like this because I’m a man.  He believes that praise and worship music “has harmed men’s worship more than it has helped.”  Murrow writes:

“Before P&W, Christians sang hymns about God.  But P&W songs are mostly sung to God.  The difference may seem subtle, yet it completely changes how worshipers relate to the Almighty.  P&W introduced a familiarity and intimacy with God that’s absent in many hymns.”  (“In the Garden” being a noted exception.)

Murrow then summarizes his observations:

“With hymns, God is out there.  He’s big.  Powerful.  Dangerous.  He’s a leader.  With P&W, God is at my side.  He’s close.  Intimate.  Safe.  He’s a lover.”

Murrow then puts his finger on how many men feel … including me:

“The great hymns summon men to the battlefield – but many of today’s P&W songs seem to be summoning men to the bedroom.  Some contain man-love imagery that’s plainly uncomfortable for men…. Lovey-dovey praise songs force a man to express his affection to God using words he would never, ever, ever say to another guy.  Even a guy he loves.  Even a guy named Jesus.”

His conclusion:

“The Bible never describes our love for God in such erotic terms.  The men of Scripture loved God, but they were never desperate for him or in love with him.  Men are looking for a male leader – not a male lover.”

My own view of worship is that:

*Every song should start with biblical truth and that our emotions should be a response to that truth.  There should never be a time when we’re simply emotional without engaging our minds.

One passage that can give us guidance is 1 Corinthians 14, where the context is public worship.

Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 14:15, “So what shall I do?  I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my mind.”

He adds in 14:19, “But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue.”

And then he adds in 14:20, “Brothers, stop thinking like children.  In regard to evil be infants, but in your thinking be adults.”

*The preaching time should also be characterized by biblical truth first, emotion second.  As Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones used to say, preaching may be defined as “logic on fire!”

I’ve heard some mindless sermons that simply tried to engage people’s emotions, but also I’ve heard plenty of sermons that espoused truth but lacked any semblance of passion.

We need truth first … followed by emotion … in all of our worship experiences.

I love many … not all … of the old hymns, and I also love many of the newer praise and worship songs … although I have a bias for the songs from the 1990s.

But as I get older, I have to admit, I’m leaning more toward hymns with rich theology … and away from newer songs that are more emotional and repetitive.

_______________

My wife and I recently perused the book Hymns: Inspiring Stories About 600 Hymns and Praise Songs, written by William J. Petersen & Ardythe Petersen.

I’d read aloud the stories behind the writing of some of the songs to my wife, and then without looking at the lyrics, we’d just start singing them … including some I haven’t sung for 50 years.

And we’d cry …. and barely be able to get through some of them.

We know those songs so well because we sang them so many times in the past, even if we haven’t sung them for decades.

But those songs rarely if ever repeated the same phrase over and over again … unless we were singing “Deep and Wide” while using motions.

How about you?  Do you like singing the same phrases over and over?

And if so, how much is too much?

I’m curious.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Something didn’t happen at the last two Sunday services I attended … at two different churches … and it’s been bothering me … a lot.

Neither church made any mention of the flooding caused by Hurricane Harvey in the wider Houston area, even though it’s been the top story in our nation for many days.

The crisis wasn’t mentioned in any prayer … during the announcements … or in either sermon.

And I wondered, “Why not?”

I’ve been noticing a trend in churches that greatly disturbs me … the ability we Christians have to block out what’s going on in the world around us … both during our services and our sermons.

I’m increasingly seeing churches … and pastors … who act like the entire world is encapsulated inside their congregation.

And personally, I think this makes us look foolish.

The trend is for pastors to designate the first half of their services to their worship/music director … who usually insists that the only way to worship God is to have the congregation stand and sing for at least thirty minutes.

Whatever happened to a meaningful public prayer … a heartfelt performance song … or interviews/testimonies involving people from the congregation?

They’ve disappeared … and I wonder why.

In my last two pastorates, I met every Monday night with the teams that planned our Sunday services.  It gave me the opportunity to present where I was going with the following Sunday’s sermon … solicit ideas from others … and make sure the services were characterized by CARE: creativity, authenticity, relevance, and excellence.

But in their place, we now have a half hour of non-creative, often inauthentic, and largely irrelevant songs done in an excellent manner.

I guess if a church is trying to shut out and separate itself from the world … and give people a weekly foretaste of heaven … that’s okay.

But I don’t think most churches that do that are going to reach very many people.

Many years ago, my wife and I were in Edinburgh on a Sunday morning, and we attended a Church of Scotland service.

We met in a darkened room with a minimal amount of light.

We sang psalms without any musical instruments.

The pastor preached on Mark 9:14-32, the story about Jesus casting out a demon from a little boy.  His exposition was top-notch … but he didn’t offer even one story or apply the message to our lives in any way.

Maybe that’s why I counted only 32 people in that service.

But that kind of irrelevance isn’t just found in somebody else’s culture … it’s in ours as well.

Several years ago, I was invited to attend a planning meeting with a pastor and a few of his key leaders.

I made an offhand comment about dealing with the issues of the day from a biblical viewpoint, and received pushback from everyone present, which startled me.

The upshot was, “We don’t talk about cultural issues in this church.  We don’t mention anything that might be controversial.  We leave those issues at home.  We’re only going to talk about our relationship with God and our relationship with each other.”

I countered by saying, “I believe that Jesus is Lord of our entire lives, and that means we need to relate His Lordship to what’s going on around us: in our homes, our neighborhoods, our workplaces, our schools, and our country.”

But my plea fell on deaf ears.

John Stott is the closest we evangelicals have had to a pope over the past fifty years.  In his book on preaching titled Between Two Worlds, Stott recounts a conversation he once had with two university students in Great Britain.  Both students had been raised in a traditional Christian home, but had renounced their parents’ faith and their own upbringing.

One was an atheist, the other a self-proclaimed agnostic.

Stott asked them, “What had happened?  Was it that they no longer believed Christianity to be true?”

They replied, “No, that’s not our problem.  We’re not really interested to know whether Christianity is true…. What we want to know is not whether Christianity is true, but whether it’s relevant.  And frankly, we don’t see how it can be.”

Charles Spurgeon once said: “I know a minister who is great upon the ten toes of the beast, the four faces of the cherubim, the mystical meaning of badgers’ skins, and the typical bearings of the staves of the ark, and the windows of Solomon’s temple: but the sins of business men, the temptations of the times, and the needs of the age, he scarcely ever touches upon.”

In other words, he was totally irrelevant.

One might think that only small churches lack relevance, but that isn’t always the case.

I visited the largest church in my city several times a few years ago.  The pastor was preaching through Ephesians, and when he got to 5:22-33 … Paul’s passage on marriage … the pastor gave a solid exposition but failed to say anything about gay marriage even though it was the hottest topic in the land at the time.

Why couldn’t he at least say, “Moses … Jesus … and Paul all agree that God ordained marriage to be between a man and a woman?”

Instead, why did he punt on that issue?

Some might counter with, “He’s not going to change anyone’s mind on an issue like that.”

But why preach at all then?  Isn’t that what a preacher is supposed to do … change minds and hearts using God’s Word?  How limited do we think the Holy Spirit is?

John Stott … who wrote two entire books devoted to contemporary issues in the 1980s (including gay partnerships) … writes to preachers:

“On the whole, if I may generalize, we do not make sufficient demands on the congregation.  When they come to church, they have heard it all before.  They have known it since they were in junior Sunday School.  It is stale, boring and irrelevant.  It fails to ‘grab’ or excite them.  They can scarcely stifle their yawns.  They come with their problems, and they leave with their problems.  The sermon has not spoken to their need.”

I am not advocating that pastors comment on The Issue of the Week like many liberals do … but I am saying that we need to do a much better job of dealing with the issues that are on our people’s frontal lobes.

Pastor Bill Hybels once said something like this: “What’s on everyone’s minds?  Sex!  But what do we talk about?  Some obscure passage from Isaiah.”

(Which reminds me … over the past few years, as I’ve visited scores of churches, I can hardly remember any sermon that even mentioned sex.)

One of my favorite preachers, Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, wrote that “the business of preaching is to relate the teaching of the Scriptures to what is happening in our own day.”

He was a biblical expositor par excellence … and usually preached to packed congregations.

Listen again to John Stott:

“My plea is that we treat them as real people with real questions; that we grapple in our sermons with real issues; and that we build bridges into the real world in which they live and love, work and play, laugh and weep, struggle and suffer, grow old and die.  We have to provoke them to think about their life in all its moods, to challenge them and to make Jesus Christ the Lord of every area of it, and to demonstrate his contemporary relevance.”

When was the last time your church mentioned issues that people are talking about like North Korea … sexual boundaries … marijuana use … divorce (even among Christians) … or how Christians should respond to our unorthodox president?

Just wondering.

For eighteen months, my wife and I attended a church in Peoria, Arizona called Christ’s Church of the Valley.

Pastor Don Wilson … the church’s founder … told the following story several times in his sermons.

He said that during World War 2, there was a church located next to a railroad track.  Sometimes, a train loaded with Jewish people on their way to a concentration camp went right by the church during Sunday morning worship.

As the train passed by, the cries of those who were incarcerated could be heard by those who attended that church.

Because those cries were so distressing, the congregation came up with a way to ignore them.

They decided to sing louder.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Christian leader Thom Rainer recently wrote a blog post lamenting the “epidemic” of pastoral terminations.  I offered comments about some of his points in my last article:

https://blog.restoringkingdombuilders.org/2017/08/25/thoughts-on-firing-a-pastor/

One church board member wrote the following in the “Comments” section:

“I appreciate this advice.  I have had to be part of a firing and it was not easy.  I wish I had these guidelines then.”

Let me tell you a story as to why church boards need such guidelines desperately.

During my first decade as a pastor, I met another pastor whose church was a half hour away from mine.  Whenever we had pastor’s lunches in our district, we would hang around afterwards and talk.  This pastor – I’ll call him Gene – became my friend.

Several years later, after preaching at his church one Easter, Gene got in his car and began a trip designed to interview prospective staff members the following day … but he never made it.

Instead, on a stretch of highway called “Blood Alley,” Gene’s vehicle was hit head on by a truck.  Gene was helicoptered to the county hospital.  The next day, I went to visit him.

His face was completely bandaged.  He could hardly speak, but at one point, he motioned for me to come closer, and he whispered, “Pray that I will preach again.”

Gene’s recuperation took a long time.  The glass from his windshield had penetrated his skin, and his face had to be surgically rebuilt.

Not long afterwards … and I can’t remember precisely how long … drugs were found inside his daughter’s suitcase at camp.  She vehemently denied that the drugs were hers, and Gene stood with her, but the church board claimed she was guilty, and demanded that she confess her sin publicly.  Gene chose to resign instead.

When I heard that Gene had quit after nine years as pastor, I called him right away.

I asked Gene what kind of severance he received, and he said that he received two weeks pay and a plaque.  After one month, his medical insurance would be canceled.

A short while later, the truth came out: the drugs did not belong to Gene’s daughter.  They belonged to another girl, who was afraid she would be caught with them and sent home … so she hid them in somebody else’s suitcase.

A year later, Gene and I met for lunch.  When I asked him why the board had pushed him out, he still had no idea.  I gave him a new book on pastoral termination, and after reading it, Gene felt he finally understood why he had been removed.

The church called a new pastor … someone I later got to know … and that pastor invited Gene back to the church and arranged for the congregation to apologize to Gene for the way he and his family were treated … a rare occurrence in Christian circles.

The Lord went on to bless Gene abundantly as he did pioneer work in a field not usually associated with Christians.

Let me make five observations about conflict training for boards from this story:

First, every church board needs to operate by a predetermined set of written guidelines before they even discuss their pastor’s future.

But many churches don’t have them.

If you’re a pastor, and your church doesn’t have those guidelines in place, and you’re under attack, it’s like going to court in a third world country.  You know going in you’re not going to be treated fairly.

Such guidelines are best written when people are thinking clearly because when even a few board members … who are supposedly selected for their spiritual lives … become irrational, they can harm their church … and their pastor … for years.

A board can’t create those guidelines when someone starts becoming upset with their pastor.  Their anxiety will cause them to ignore them completely.

Those guidelines should be found in two primary places: church bylaws … which should have a section specifying how to dismiss a pastor … and a special document that might be found in a church/board policy handbook.

However, in the case of Gene’s board, they didn’t have any such guidelines … and the outcome ended tragically.

Second, even when those documents are in place, many boards determine the result they want, and then choose the quickest pathway to achieving it.

Gene told me about a board member I’ll call Don who had undue influence with the board.  Don had money and was a district trustee.  Gene suspected that Don was behind his ouster … and he was probably right.

From what I know, Don used the situation with Gene’s daughter as a pretext to force Gene out.  (But didn’t Don even consider how much harm he would cause Gene’s daughter?)  At the very least, Don had to sign off on removing Gene from office.

And this is why many boards don’t use or want any written guidelines: they have a powerful board member whose influence supersedes any guidelines.

Such a person might ask, “Why use guidelines when you have me?”

In my third pastorate, the elders used to joke that each of them had one vote, but that I as pastor had five votes.

But the Dons who run church boards … even when they’re not the chairman … have ten votes … not because they’ve earned such power, but because the other board members won’t stand up to them.

Christians rightly lament the way that Jesus was mistreated when He stood before the Sanhedrin, Pilate and Herod before He was crucified, and yet He was at least allowed to speak in His own defense.  Many pastors aren’t even accorded that privilege.

Third, the pastor is the only logical person to teach the board how to handle potential conflicts that concern him … but most won’t do it.

The pastor theoretically has more influence over individual board members than anyone else … and yet, when it comes to managing conflict, most pastors choose not to use that influence.

Years ago, when I served on a church staff, a couple of men in the church began to attack my pastor.  I went to a board meeting, told them what was happening, and asked for their help in stopping the verbal attacks.

The board voted 5-2 to do something … but the pastor was one of the “no” votes.  He was afraid that taking on the bullies would make things even worse.

Some pastors might have said, “Men, here’s what Scripture says about how to handle this situation … and here’s what our governing documents say … and I’d like you to read this book and discuss it at our next meeting.  Then we’ll create an action plan and deal with this biblically and courageously.”

But most pastors feel that it’s self-serving to make such suggestions … but I believe they’re wrong.

Whenever the pastor is under attack, the pastor needs to define the process that the board should use.  If he doesn’t, the board will make up their own process, and much of the time, they will blow their church sky high.

It’s right for a pastor to say, “This is how we do conflict around here.”  In fact, church boards are looking for that kind of leadership from their shepherd.  Yes, he can leave the outcome with them … but not the process.

And I believe if the board ignores that process, or short-circuits it altogether, the pastor has the responsibility to blow the whistle on them because the process will determine the product.

I believe all pastors must do the following three things to prepare their leaders for conflict:

First, the pastor must preach on biblical conflict management and resolution annually.

When Paul writes to the church in Rome … or Corinth … or Thessalonica … and he specifies how to address conflicts … he’s addressing those entire congregations.  It is the responsibility of every believer to become a church conflict practitioner.

Second, the pastor must train the official board and staff on biblical conflict management at least annually.

He can do this before or during a board meeting annually.  Or he can do this as part of a regular retreat.

The pastor could even invite a church conflict expert to do that training.

But if the pastor doesn’t take the initiative, it will never happen.

Finally, the pastor needs to make sure that every board member owns a copy of a great book on church conflict … and that they consult it on occasion.

These are the five books that I most recommend:

https://blog.restoringkingdombuilders.org/2015/05/06/five-essential-books-on-pastor-church-conflict/

When the board gets stuck on a conflict during the year … presumably one that doesn’t involve the pastor … the pastor could ask, “What does Leas … or Steinke … or Haugk say about this?”

The problem is that when church leaders become anxious, they look for shortcuts.  The pastor has to teach his leaders, “Let’s look for the best long-term solution, not the quickest short-term one.  These books will help us do just that.”

Fourth, board members need to seek outside counsel when it comes to offering a departing pastor a severance package.

My friend Gene was given two weeks salary and a plaque as his reward for nine years of committed service.

That’s not just heartless … that’s evil.

But where could the board turn for counsel?

I discovered that in Gene’s case, the district knew about the false accusation against his daughter, but chose to do nothing.  They could have insisted that the pastor receive a generous and just severance package, but it wasn’t their practice to interfere in pastor-church conflicts … or so they claimed.

So where can church boards turn for information about pastoral severance?

A few years ago, sensing there is almost nothing about this topic in print, I decided to write an article about severance packages for pastors.  It’s now become my second most viewed article concerning pastoral termination:

https://blog.restoringkingdombuilders.org/2014/02/24/why-give-a-terminated-pastor-a-severance-package/

I have heard stories how my article has expanded the thinking of church boards, and for that, I am grateful.

In fact, sometimes I’ll notice that the article has been viewed 20 or 30 times in a day, an indication that it may be circulating among board members.

I commend every church board member who reads the article because they’re trying to learn what to do … unlike Gene’s board, which treated their pastor with utter contempt.

As the board member quoted at the beginning of this article admitted in the fuller comment I quoted in my last post, church boards usually treat their pastor the way they treat others in the business world.

What they forget is that God called their pastor to their church.

Finally, church boards often want guidance, but don’t know where to find it.

Several months ago, I had the privilege of consulting with three different church boards about their pastors.

I was referred to each board by the same Christian leader.

One board really listened to me and took my counsel to heart.  They made a change and secured an intentional interim pastor who later wrote me and thanked me for my counsel.  Things were looking up for them.

Another board chairman contacted me but didn’t agree with my counsel.  The last I heard, trouble was looking for his church.

While I don’t claim to be infallible, people like me …. who serve as outside consultants … can save a church time, money, and heartache just by considering another perspective.

Last year, I helped a pastor on the East Coast face down the bullies in his church.  He told me, “Jim, you have the best stuff on pastor-church conflict on the internet.”

I don’t know how to evaluate his observation, but I do know this: most church boards who struggle with their pastor need someone to listen to them … to guide them … and to advise them … and if they have to turn online for help, I hope my writings prove beneficial.

The boards that go it alone are the ones who cause the most damage to their church and pastor.

The boards that seek conflict training and outside expertise are the ones who cause the least damage.

How well trained is your church’s board in conflict resolution?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A friend sent me a link to a blog article by Christian leadership expert Thom Rainer yesterday.  His article was addressed to church leaders and titled, “Before You Fire Your Pastor.”

Here’s the article:

http://thomrainer.com/2017/08/before-you-fire-your-pastor/

In his concise way, Rainer shares eight “admonitions” to church leaders who are thinking about terminating their pastor.

To me, these were the highlights … followed by my own thoughts:

“You are about to make a decision that will shape your church, the pastor, and the pastor’s family for years to come.”

I don’t think most boards think about the pastor and his family much when they push him out.  They’re thinking primarily of the comfort level of the group they’ve been working with to get rid of him.

Since the board’s decision will impact their church for “years to come,” why not do an all-church assessment by an outside consultant first?  If the pastor really isn’t a fit, that will be made clear in the assessment, and the pastor and board can discuss a peaceful departure and transition … possibly mediated by the consultant.

Of course, the assessment might show that the board is the problem.  And that might be the main reason why boards are afraid of assessments.  I suggested calling in an outside consultant on two occasions several months before I left my last ministry, but nothing ever happened.

“Understand fully the consequence to your congregation. A church is marked once it fires a pastor. Members leave. Potential guests stay away. Morale is decimated. The church has to go through a prolonged period of healing where it cannot have much of an outward focus.”

Church conflict expert Peter Steinke says that it takes a church two to five years to heal after a moderate to severe conflict, and by definition, forcing out a pastor almost always constitutes a severe conflict.

Many times, the very individuals who pushed out the pastor end up leaving during the healing period.  Maybe they thought the church would get better without the pastor … and with them in charge … but when it doesn’t work that way, they bail.

Outreach usually dies after a pastor leaves … especially if the departing pastor was outreach-oriented.

“Consider the church’s reputation in the community. You are about to receive the label: ‘The church that fired their pastor.’ That will be your identity for some time.”

Most leaders who push out a pastor have never been in a church before where a pastoral termination occurred.  They don’t have any idea what happens inside a congregation after a pastor leaves.  They’re assuming they can handle any and all crises.  But without their pastor to guide them, they’re liable to make a mess of things.

Some people in my previous church tried to ruin my reputation after I left, and it stung.  (Some friends still won’t tell us what really transpired after my departure.)  But the church has suffered as well.

Reminds me of a post a friend put on Facebook several days ago: “Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves” … one for the pastor, one for the church.

“Let your pastor know why… he was being fired…. I am amazed how many pastors have no idea why they are being let go. That is cowardly. That is not Christ-like.”

There’s a simple explanation for this omission: most of the time, there isn’t a good reason for sending the pastor packing.  The reasons are more subjective than objective, highlight board members’ personal preferences rather than the pastor’s stubborn sinfulness, and don’t sound convincing when uttered in public.

I still don’t really know why I was pushed out of my last ministry.  After thinking about it for nearly eight years, I’ve concluded that it boiled down to personal revenge on the part of three individuals who spread their feelings to others.  But if that’s truly the case, who is ever going to admit it?  Maybe that’s why I have never heard directly from anyone who pushed me out at the end of 2009.

“Be generous. If your church does make the decision to fire your pastor, please be generous with severance and benefits. Don’t treat your pastor like a secular organization might treat an employee. Show the world Christian compassion and generosity.”

Sad to say, there are boards that look for every reason not to give their pastor a generous severance.  I remember one board that referred the pastor’s severance to the congregation hoping they would turn it down.

With some leaders, once they know a pastor is going to leave, he’s no longer worth anything to them anymore.  He’s dead weight.  (This is exhibited by the fact that after the pastor leaves, those who forced him out will never contact him again.)  They offer their pastor a token severance … threaten to pull it back if he doesn’t agree to their terms immediately … and send him and his family into the night with an exit that seems designed by the enemy.

The longer a pastor’s tenure at a church, the more committed he’s been to his congregation, and the more worthy he is of a generous severance package.  But since it takes at least a year to find a new ministry these days … and usually longer … the board has to factor that reality into their creation of any severance package.

After I read Rainer’s article, I perused the comments, and ran across this admission:

“I appreciate this advice. I have had to be part of a firing and it was not easy. I wish I had these guidelines then. The one part we did decent was giving the pastor in question a long run away to find new employment and kept his benefits going in the transition. I really think we could have done more, but it was something. Often I think this idea of helping pastors launch into another ministry or even transition to a vocation outside full time Christian service is foreign to elders or boards because it is rare in business fields unless you are a high c-level executive with contractual basis. Thus they balk at the idea thinking it bad business or poor stewardship. Finding a role in another church takes time. Often churches are slow to hire, for good reason, so we should reflect Jesus’ generosity when we have to fire someone understanding they can’t just walk into another job next door.”

Here is the phrase that sticks out most to me: “I wish I had these guidelines then.”

What can you and I do to help pastors and boards handle their conflicts in a more biblical, just, and Christlike way?

That’s my topic for next time.

“That sounds like a good idea, but looking at the budget, we just don’t have the money.”

How many times have church leaders uttered those words when someone … the pastor, a staff member, a team leader … proposed a new ministry?

According to church conflict expert Peter Steinke, money concerns cause more conflicts in churches than anything else.

Conflicts emerge most often because congregational giving falls short of meeting the annual budget.  And then the attitude becomes, “We can’t spend any money because we’re behind on the budget.  Maybe when we’re meeting or exceeding the budget, then we can talk about doing something else.”

But that attitude guarantees that the church won’t meet its budget.

When I was a teenager, I attended a church that had a two board system.

The elders were the spiritual leaders, and the deacons ran the facility and finances.

That system was guaranteed to make sure that nothing ever got done.

Why not?

The elders were chosen because of their walk with the Lord … while the deacons were chosen because of their business sense.

The elders would invariably propose, discuss, and agree on a proposal, like, “We want to have a special seminar this fall to emphasize healthy marriages.  We’ve contacted an expert in this area who has agreed to do a three-hour seminar for $500.”

Then they’d kick the decision to the deacons, who would veto it, claiming, “Since we’re behind on the budget, we don’t have the money.”

I heard that song and dance over and over again.

This is the most likely reason why so many churches in the 1970s and 1980s moved away from the two board system and instituted a one board system instead.

But even under the one board system, the same argument keeps coming up.

Why?

Because there are people on every board that believe that money is more important than ministry.

They won’t ever say that.  It sounds unspiritual.  But that’s how they behave.

And in the process, such people keep their church from expanding Christ’s kingdom in their community.

Let me share five principles defining the relationship between ministry and money:

First, money is a tool for ministry rather than the reason a church exists.

Churches don’t exist to raise and hoard money.

Churches exist to worship God, teach Scripture, and meet the spiritual needs of people in their community.

And money is one of many tools a church can use to fulfill those purposes.

But sometimes it only takes one person on the church board or staff to sabotage a church’s reason for being.

I once pastored a congregation where someone donated a six-figure gift to the ministry.

Even though we were behind on our budget, I wanted to use some of those funds for ministry.

The money wasn’t donated so we could hoard it or gain interest on the principal. The money was given for ministry … so I made a proposal to reach an entirely new demographic.

But someone on the board wanted to set aside those funds to put a new roof on one of the buildings … in five years.

Yes, a church needs to be a good steward of its facilities.

But church buildings aren’t going to stand before God someday, while every person in that community will.

Only people last forever.

Conflicts occur in churches where the pastor has a vision for ministry, while others have a vision for maintenance.

Second, a church budget is a servant, not a master.

I have lived by a budget for most of my married life.  I budget our tithe … our taxes … our house payment … our savings … and funds for our business.

I don’t consult that budget every week.  I consult it every day … usually several times.

But there are times when things arise that aren’t budgeted, but I do them anyway.

Several weeks ago, my wife wanted us to go away for our 42nd wedding anniversary.  I told her it sounded good, but I preferred to go away for just one night … and I had that budgeted.

But she wanted to go away two nights … and miss a day of work at our business … meaning we’d have to pay extra funds for employees.

I tried to reason with her, but she finally asked me, “When do I get a day off around here?”

She was right … and I relented.  Sometimes investing in your marriage is far more important than saving a few dollars.

But I have been in churches where once a budget category has been spent, that’s it … you can’t spend any more for the rest of the year.

In one church, the funds for refreshments between services dissipated during the summer.

That refreshment time was crucial to our ministry.  People stayed for goodies after the first service and arrived early for goodies before the second service.

And most of the time, our guests stayed as well … and that was our best time to connect with them all week.

If counting beans was most important, we’d pull the refreshments altogether … and lose our best opportunity to meet newcomers.

When I heard that the funds were gone, it didn’t phase me.  I told the person running the refreshments to keep doing them.  REACHING NEWCOMERS IS THE ONLY WAY ANY CHURCH CAN GROW.

But a board member … without authorization or discussion … went to the person running refreshments and told them that the goodies had to stop because we didn’t have the money.

Is the budget a master or a servant?

That board member believed it was a master.

I believed it was a servant.

I still do.

When the budget becomes a church’s master, then Jesus isn’t.

Third, a church has to prioritize outreach or it simply won’t grow.

And outreach costs money.

In fact, a church has to invest funds in outreach continually … and wisely … if it ever hopes to grow numerically.

Show me a church’s budget and I can tell you whether or not they plan on growing.

If they budget most of their money for facilities, salaries, missions, and education … maintenance items … then they don’t intend to grow.

But if they budget a generous amount of money for meaningful worship, creative marketing, special events, need-meeting seminars, tasty refreshments, and community projects, then they’re at least planning to grow.

If a church budgets for outreach, but giving doesn’t meet the budget, some will say, “Let’s get rid of outreach for the rest of the year.”

But when church leaders are serious about growth, they’ll say, “Either we need to raise more money or we need to cut other categories … anywhere but outreach.”

A homely story.

Let’s say Bill and Joanne get married, and they can barely make ends meet financially.

And then Joanne gets pregnant.

Are they going to say, “Okay, let’s have this baby, but we’re going to spend the same amount of money we spent before the baby arrived?”

No … they’re going to do whatever it takes to provide well for their child … and that includes trusting God to expand their budget.

God sends lost children to churches He knows will provide for them … and steers them clear of churches that put budgets before people.

Money flows toward churches that make plans to reach their community … and away from churches that focus only on themselves.

And you can take that last statement to the bank.

Fourth, God honors churches that take divinely-sanctioned risks.

Twenty-five years ago … around the time of our 17th wedding anniversary … my wife and I began talking about going to Europe for our twentieth anniversary.

We decided to save money for three years to make that dream a reality.

But along the way, it didn’t look like the trip was going to come off, so I told Kim, “I don’t think we’re going to be able to do this financially.”

She responded, “I’m going whether you go or not.”

We began doing research … watching Rick Steves’ videos … and talking to others who had been to Europe.

Then we visited a travel agent.  (Remember those?)

I can’t explain it, but everything came together financially, and on the morning of our twentieth anniversary, we found ourselves at the Schilthorn in Switzerland … high up in the Alps.

I’ve been to Europe many times since, and it all started with my wife believing that somehow … in some way … we were going to go!

In the Parable of the Talents, Jesus commended the servant who invested his talents for gain, but condemned the servant who buried his talent in the sand.

Sad to say, most churches bury their financial talents in the sand.

May I share one reason why that’s so?

It’s the misplaced pride of the pastor.

My wife and I attended a church north of Phoenix, Arizona, for eighteen months called Christ’s Church of the Valley.

Every summer, the pastor took his key leaders away for a weekend to visit a church … sometimes out-of-state … that was effectively reaching people for Christ.  (Such a trip costs money!)

Every time they returned, they had their thinking expanded … and came home with a boatload of ideas.

While we attended there, the church became the tenth largest church in the United States.

Rather than act like he had it all together, the pastor wanted to learn from other pastors and churches … and incorporate their best ideas into his ministry.

The church took many risks.  Many paid off … and some did not … but so what?  That’s the nature of risk-taking.

I heard about a church that gave out annual awards.  They gave an award every year to the person who took the biggest risk … and failed.

Why did they do that?

Because they wanted to highlight, “This is a church where we take risks.”

How risk-taking is your church?

Finally, a church needs to let God make their decisions, not money.

In his book Money, Sex and Power, Richard Foster writes the most memorable paragraph I’ve ever read about Christians and money:

“The Christian is given the high calling of using mammon without serving mammon.  We are using mammon when we allow God to determine our economic decisions.  We are serving mammon when we allow mammon to determine our economic decisions.  We simply must decide who is going to make our decisions – God or mammon…. If money determines what we do or do not do, then money is our boss.  If God determines what we do or do not do, then God is our boss.”

If it’s true that 85% of all churches are stagnating or shrinking, my guess is that most of those churches let money make their decisions.

It takes great faith to trust God over money.  As Jesus said, we can’t serve both.  But whenever church leaders say, “We can’t do that … we don’t have the money,” they’re confessing that money makes the decisions in their church.

And how can God bless such a church?

Now here’s the irony:

Pastors preach to their congregations, “The Bible teaches that God’s people should give a tithe of their income to the Lord’s work.  Even if you don’t have the money, just start tithing, and the Lord will bless you in many ways … including your finances.”

It takes faith to believe that God will take care of you if you give ten percent of your income to Him, doesn’t it?

And yet more often than not, those same leaders want congregational members to demonstrate faith in the way they manage their incomes but demonstrate faithlessness in the way they manage their church’s income.

There is nothing more exciting than for a church to focus on a God-given dream designed to reach others for Christ.

There is nothing more miserable than for a church to focus all its energies and finances on itself.

Focus on money … and the church will go downhill.

Focus on ministry … and the church will come alive.

Does your church focus on ministry or money?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I write a lot about the toll that forced terminations have on pastors and their wives … both personally and professionally.

I also write about the effects that pushing out an innocent pastor has on an entire congregation and its future.

But there is one group that I … and many in the Christian world … tend to forget about when it comes to pastoral exits: the average churchgoer.

Several years ago, I met with a longtime friend at Starbucks.  My book Church Coup had just been published and he wanted to discuss what I wrote.

My friend told me that he and his wife had been attending a church where they really liked the pastor … but seemingly overnight, the pastor disappeared … and the word was that the pastor did not leave voluntarily.

The church quickly hired a new pastor, and once again, my friend and his wife really liked him, but within a short period of time, that pastor was pushed out as well.

My friend and his wife were both hurt and sickened by what they had experienced.  He admitted that the two of them were not currently attending a local church although he didn’t rule out going to church sometime in the future.

My friend would be an asset to any church.  He has an earned doctorate … has taught in a Christian university … and for decades has been a key leader in one of America’s greatest institutions.

But somehow, I doubt that those who pushed out those two pastors even gave someone like my friend a second thought.

I suppose the only way to find out how the average churchgoer feels about their pastor is to call a public meeting and let each person vote on his future … either to give him a vote of confidence or to vote him out of office.

If and when a church does take that step, they’re almost always shooting themselves in both feet … as well as the heart.

Since most church leaders don’t want a pastor-board or pastor-staff rift to become known, they’ll work behind the scenes to try and checkmate their pastor privately.

But … and I ask this question all the time … how many people attend that church because of the pastor … and how many attend because of the pastor’s detractors?

Let’s say Sonrise Church averages 300 adults every Sunday.

And let’s say 15 people … that’s 5% of the congregation … want Pastor Paul to leave.  (That’s a typical percentage.)

And let’s say out of those 15 people:

*there are two board members and their wives.

*two are the associate pastor and his wife.

*there are three couples who believe the associate should be the pastor.

*there are three older individuals who have been in the church since its founding.

Then let’s say that out of the 300 who attend Sonrise:

*240 (that’s 80%) attend that church because they love Pastor Paul’s sermons … leadership … and personality.

*30 attend because they’re loyal to the church as an institution.

*15 attend because they’ve been there for more than 20 years.

*15 want Pastor Paul to leave.

Let me ask several questions about this situation:

First, why do most people attend Sonrise Church? 

They attend Sonrise because of Pastor Paul … pure and simple.

They may have initially come to Sonrise because of a personal invitation or a marketing tool, but they have made Sonrise their church home because they like the pastor.

Virtually nobody attends Sonrise because of the church board or the pastor’s detractors … and it’s highly likely that the great majority of the people couldn’t even name one board member.

Second, how likely is it that those 240 people are aware that 15 people want to get rid of Pastor Paul?

It’s not likely.  Those 15 know they must act in secrecy or risk having their plot exposed.  While they speak almost exclusively to each other, they are open to increasing their ranks if they know for certain someone feels as they do.

But if even a handful of those 240 discovered the plot, they might ream out the plotters, or contact Pastor Paul or another leader with their findings.

Third, why don’t the 15 leave the church quietly instead of trying to force out their pastor?

I wish I knew the answer to this question.  It would save everyone a lot of heartache.

My research and experience tells me that the 15:

*believe they are smarter and more spiritual than their pastor.

*believe they know the direction the church should go in the future.

*believe that one of their group should be the church’s true leader, not the pastor.

*believe that they somehow “own” the church in a greater way than others.  (This is “my” church or “our” church, not “their” church or “his” church.)

*believe that the pastor is either a “bad man” or a “bad leader” and deserves to be sent packing.

Fourth, how likely is it that the 15 are aware of the love and loyalty that the 240 have for Pastor Paul?

Again, it’s not likely.  Most of the 15 have closed ranks and only socialize with each other.  They don’t socialize with many people from the 240 … and when they do, they either discount their feelings or disagree with them.

If someone came to any of the 15 and said to them, “Most of the people in this church have great affection for Pastor Paul,” they would respond, “I don’t think that’s accurate.”  But they’ve isolated themselves from others for so long that they can’t accurately measure reality.

Finally, what’s the best word to describe the feelings of the 15 over against those of the 240?

Sinful … with selfish a close second.

Most of the time, when a faction pushes out an innocent pastor, they are thinking primarily of the wishes and desires of their own group rather than the church as a whole.

In fact, the faction is blind and deaf as to how the average churchgoer feels about their pastor.

I have heard the following statements from non-leaders whose pastors were forced out:

“The spirit has gone out of this church.”

“I don’t think I will ever be the same.”

“I’m so hurt that I can’t bring myself to go to church anywhere.”

“He was the best preacher I ever heard in my life.”

In their book Church Refugees, Dr. Josh Packard and Ashleigh Hope claim that a high percentage of Christians are now “the dechurched.”  To save what’s left of their faith, they’re “done” with the local church, and never going back.

I wonder how many of those people were driven away from a church where a small percentage of bullies organized to take out their pastor.

The Book of James ends this way:

My brothers, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring him back, remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of his way will save him from death and cover over a multitude of sins.  James 5:19-20

The implication in this verse is that the “wanderer” has left the fellowship because he or she did something wrong.

But it is entirely possible in our day for someone to wander away from church … or their faith … because of the way that professing Christians treated their pastor.

Thirty years ago, I attended a conference led by Win Arn called “How to Close the Back Door to Your Church.”  I learned a great deal.

One of the things I learned is that a church needs to track its attendees closely.  Once someone misses a few Sundays (at my last church, it was two), they need to be contacted right away.

Once people have missed six to eight Sundays in a row, they are nearly impossible to get back because they have reinvested their lives in other things … and have concluded that “the people of that church don’t care about me.”

When a faction in a church … whether it’s the official board, or just 5% of the congregation, succeeds in forcing out their pastor … the last place they’re focusing is on the average churchgoer.

They’re focusing on keeping the staff in place … selecting guest speakers for future Sundays … finding an interim pastor … and putting together a team to search for a new pastor.

So it’s easy for people who are angry … or bewildered … or hurt to slip out the back door and never be seen again.

It’s getting more and more difficult to win people to Christ these days.

How tragic for Christ’s kingdom if we bring some through the front door … and lose even more through the back door … because we keep beating up our shepherds.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One of the primary factors in causing – and perpetuating – conflicts in churches is narrow thinking.

When people feel highly anxious … and under stress … their thinking ability shrinks.

Here are several examples taken from my own ministries over the years:

*When I was a teenager, our youth group used to meet before the Sunday evening service on the church campus, but the trend was toward meeting after the service in a home.  When the issue came before the congregation (which it never should have done), a furious discussion ensued.  The church secretary was so against the youth meeting in homes that she stormed out of the meeting, entered the church office (the door was at the back of the auditorium), and slammed the door behind her.

When she slammed the door, she in essence quit her job and left the church.

That’s narrow thinking.

*In my second pastorate, our youth pastor took the youth group to a Christian rock concert, which was fine with me.  The deacon chairman’s two children seemed to enjoy the concert, but not their father, who gave me a 15-page summary of a silly book slamming Christian rock music.  I wrote comments in the margins and asked to meet with him to discuss his viewpoint.

He asked me, “Are you going to let the kids go to any more rock concerts?”  I replied, “Yes.”  He responded, “Then we’re leaving the church.”

That’s narrow thinking.

*In one church, a woman on the worship team convinced herself that the congregation was going to start singing for half an hour every Sunday even though I had different plans for our worship time.  Because she was causing dissension, I invited her to my office, listened to her concerns, asked her if she understood my reasoning, and asked her to bring any additional complaints to me personally.

A few weeks later, she was basically telling people, “Either Jim goes or I go.”

That’s narrow thinking.

When we’re anxious and under stress, we often see only one or two ways to resolve a situation.

One common reaction to stress is the classic fight or flight syndrome.  In churches, this is usually directed against the pastor when someone says, “Either he goes or I go.”

On the old 24 TV series, Jack Bauer would often do something rash … like kill someone … and when he was confronted, he’d say, “I didn’t have a choice.”

That’s narrow thinking.

In his excellent book Congregational Leadership in Anxious Times, church conflict consultant Peter Steinke writes:

“When we are flooded with anxiety, we can neither hear what is said without distortion nor respond with clarity.  Bruce McEwen, a neuroendocrinologist, comments that stress limits our repertoire of responses.  Fixated on what is endangering us, we forfeit our imaginative capacities.  We act with a small and sometimes unproductive repertoire of behaviors.  With fewer alternatives, we act foolishly.”

When a church leader … like a pastor, staff member, or board member … is under great stress, they are tempted to make decisions that will end their temporary stress.

But the problem, of course, is that they may alleviate their own stress but create much greater stresses for others down the road.

Here are some thoughts as to how church leaders can better handle stressful decisions:

First, the bigger the decision, the more time the leaders should take.

I once spoke with the chairman of a church board that had fired their pastor.  Based on what the chairman told me, the pastor deserved to be removed from office.

The pastor did something in a board meeting that was not only wrong, but dangerous.  His actions created enormous trauma for everyone involved.  After the pastor left the meeting, the board chose to let him go and voted to give him a token severance.

I told the chairman that it was fine to decide to fire him that night but that the board should have waited several days before deciding on his exit package.  They were so stressed that, in my mind, they would have made a better decision had they waited.

Most of the time, I believe church boards should give a departing pastor a generous severance package because it provides the pastor with more options for his future.  The fewer the options, the greater the stress … and the greater the chance the pastor will start a church in his former church’s backyard.

Second, the bigger the decision, the more experts should be consulted.

In the first chapter of my book Church Coup, entitled “Pushed,” I recounted how the church board in my last pastorate tried to force me to resign.

When I met with the board at a showdown meeting, I asked them how many experts they had consulted to make their decision.  Their answer?  “Two” … and one person gave me the name of a pastor in another state.

By contrast, a few days later, I had consulted with seventeen experts, including seminary professors, conflict professionals, Christian counselors, an attorney, and several former board chairmen.

To this day, I remain convinced that the board’s thinking became so narrow that they didn’t really know what they were doing … and I told them that to their faces.

Proverbs 15:22 says, “Plans fail for lack of counsel, but with many advisers, they succeed.”

Proverbs 24:6 adds, “… for waging war you need guidance, and for victory many advisers.”

The pastors, staff members, and board members who create the most chaos in their churches are the ones who either don’t consult with anyone or who listen to only one or two others.

To truly resolve a major conflict, a leader needs “many advisers.”

Third, the bigger the decision, the more options need to be generated.

In his book, Steinke tells the story of a church board where their thinking was dominated by money worries.

A new board member named Chip offered various imaginative ideas for dealing with the church’s perpetual financial crisis, but the other board members “couldn’t accept the fact that their offerings reached the top five years ago and were steadily declining.”

The four leaders who were focused on finances had blocked an attempt to turn one of their two worship services into a contemporary one five years before.  When they made that decision, about forty members left … and took their checkbooks with them.

Over the previous five years, the board had come up with only one option continually: a line of credit at the bank.

Chip finally asked the board this question: “Are we going to stay focused on difficulty or are we going to look at the possible?”

(Besides many more options, that church also needs a new board.)

New leaders often bring fresh approaches to stressful situations … and should at least be heard.

Finally, the bigger the decision, the more calm the leaders’ spirits should be.

I don’t know about you, but when I’m super-stressed, I don’t tend to make good decisions.

Pastors … church staffs … and board members react the same way.

When church leaders undergo stress, their tendency is to alleviate the stress quickly … and in the process, they often make horrendous choices.

It’s better to take some time … dig into God’s Word … cast your burdens on the Lord … and ask Him to give you a peaceful heart.

That can be done individually, but it’s often wise to do it as a leadership group.

My third pastorate was my best, but it was also the most stressful.  In the first few years, we often had board meetings that lasted five to seven hours.

Our first chairman would usually choose a passage of Scripture and read it aloud to the rest of us.  Then we’d pray around the room, asking God for His guidance and direction in the decisions we were about to make.

While some board members probably wanted to “get in and get out” of the meeting quickly, the decisions we made were so important that we needed to have peaceful spirits.

This concept is so important to me that if I were running the church board, I’d tell the others, “We’re only going to make decisions when our spirits are calm.”

Taking time … consulting experts … generating options … and creating peaceful spirits are great ways for church leaders to expand their thinking.

And expanded thinking leads to churches that advance Christ’s kingdom.

 

 

 

 

 

%d bloggers like this: