Instead of a pyramid shaped structure for their relationship, Jesus humbled Himself, took on the form of flesh, and came down to where we are as humanity. He was in all points tempted like as we are. But Jesus went even further, He wrapped a towel around His waist and washed the feet of His disciples. Then He challenged them to do the same thing. He never denied that He was the Master, but His point was that if the Rabbi would wash the feet of the disciples, then surely the disciples should be willing to wash one another’s feet. This was to be a team, not a hierarchy.
Jesus had individually called each of the twelve men who would be his apostles. I’ve previously addressed the diversity and the “process paradigm,” but anyone who has served in a leadership position for any length of time knows the importance of getting the right people in the right places at the right times for the right reasons. Jesus was able to build a team of leaders who were so dedicated to the mission that they were willing to lay down their lives in pursuit of accomplishing His will. As a team they were willing to lay down personal agendas and work together to accomplish the task that Jesus had given them.
As a leader who has the responsibility of hiring and firing personnel, it is very important to understand that is easier to get the right people in the right place than it is to try to transform the wrong people into the right people, or to move someone from the wrong place to the right place.
When I came to the church where I currently serve, I had very little experience with hiring and firing. I had hired one additional staff member at each of my previous two pastorates, but upon arriving at this church I found that the every staff member and administrative personnel had either resigned or had been fired before the previous pastor himself resigned. So I came into the church with limited experience in the very area where there was the greatest immediate need. Over the next four years I learned by trial and error.
Jesus had the ability to look into the heart of man and He could see something in a man that others could not see. As a leader, then, we must always pray for and seek His guidance in making these decisions. I’ve found that the Holy Spirit often tweaks our spirit with those proverbial “red flags” and unfortunately, I’ve too often been guilty of pressing through those flags and making mistakes.
When the church council interviewed me concerning the potential of coming to the church as the senior pastor they asked me which position I would hire first. I stated that the first need was the administrative assistant. My experience is that a leader must be free to lead and not become bogged down in paperwork and number crunching. At my first pastorate we did not have a secretary and I often spent hour upon hour balancing books, writing cards, sending letters, scheduling events and so on.
Fortunately, this church had already hired an interim administrative assistant who was very committed to the success of the church and was well liked by the congregation. I agreed to allow her to continue in her position.
Next, the council wanted to know what ministry staff position I would hire. I said that the next person I would hire would be the minister of music. My reasoning was that aside from the senior pastor the music minister would be the most visible staff member and that praise and worship was the lifeblood of the Sunday morning service. Instead, of going with my instinct, I felt pressured to hire a children’s pastor first. I have no regrets about hiring this individual. He has done and continues to do a good job. He is a right person in the right place. However, the sequence of hiring was skewed. It tied up funds and made hiring the right music minister more difficult. In the meantime I began by playing and leading worship myself before hiring a succession of two other individuals who, while certainly capable people, were not the right fit for this church.
I was eager to get out of the position myself, so I hired too quickly. The first had the technical skills but lacked people skills. The second had an evangelistic fervor, but little technical skills and no vision for the church music program. I hired him with the understanding that his stay with us would be of a short duration while he pursued pastoral opportunities. It wasn’t until the third hire in three years that I found a man who had great people skills, had a powerful vision for the music ministry and had the skills necessary to lead the choir. In him we found the right person for the right position.
It would have been much easier on me and the church if I had followed my instincts from the beginning and made this position a priority from the start. Further, I realize in hindsight that I should have taken more time, should have watched them work with people, and should have done more background research before hiring anyone.
Building a great team begins with choosing the right people. Jesus chose carefully and, yes, even Judas was chosen for the role he would play. This doesn’t excuse him for his failure, but also does not suggest that Jesus made a mistake in bringing Judas onto the team. Jesus brought in the right people, at the right time and put them in the right place. That the church survived the crucifixion, the resurrection and ascension of the leader of the movement is testimony to the effectiveness of the team in taking the mission forward. It reveals that Jesus had built a great team to accomplish a great commission.
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Saturday, October 22, 2005
Charisma versus Character
Often when we think of a great leader we have in mind the larger than life caricatures of men and women whose lives and feats have become the stuff of legend. In the war movies of the 50’s, the political movies of the 60’s, the business movies of the 70’s and so on the great leader was someone with great charisma and presence. They were people who commanded attention, demanded respect, and inspired confidence. They were focused, vocal, direct and controlling. They were, to some extent, heroic figures that saved the day by the shear force of their own unyielding will. In the face of those caricatures many of us may well conclude that we may not have what it takes to be a great leader.
In contrast to those long-held stereotypes we have the prophetic description of Jesus:
2 For He shall grow up before Him as a tender plant,
And as a root out of dry ground.
He has no form or comeliness;
And when we see Him,
There is no beauty that we should desire Him.
3 He is despised and rejected by men,
A Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief.
And we hid, as it were, our faces from Him;
He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.
(Isa 53:2-3, NKJV)
This seems to be a far cry from the commonly held view of what a great leader should look like. In fact, when Jesus came to earth He “made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men” (Phil 2:7, KJV). How does a person become a great leader like that? It is even possible in our day?
The research of both Jim Collins and Thom Rainer provides some pretty conclusive evidence that this is exactly the type of leader that it will take to move a business or a church from good to great.
Thom Rainer, who studied "breakthrough churches", employed the model used by Jim Collins, whose research was focused on the businessess that went from "good to great". Collins admits that he and his team were surprised by some of their findings. The first surprise being that the businesses which broke out of mediocrity and achieved greatness were led by people who did not fit the stereotypical ideal of a great leader. He calls them “Level 5 leaders.” In contrast to the brash, self-assured, charismatic, leaders of fiction, these leaders were found to be “self-effacing, quiet, reserved, even shy—these leaders are a paradoxical blend of personal humility and professional will” (Good to Great, pp. 12-13).
Rainer was surprised with similar findings in his study of the leadership of breakout churches. He calls these pastors “Acts 5/6 leaders.” The men (all the pastors in his study were male) who moved their church from plateau or decline, to breakthrough and growth, were leaders of character, humility, and even vulnerability. He states that these pastors were more “thin-skinned” than “thick-skinned.” Thick-skinned pastors allow criticism to bounce off without affecting them. They take congregational losses in stride and press on with little or no emotional side effect. But the Acts 5/6 leaders, the leaders of the breakthrough churches, were deeply affected by the loss of members and they were often personally wounded by criticism. The difference between these leaders and other thin-skinned leaders was that while they were wounded, they did not quit. They continued to lead and to believe that God could still use them to move the mission forward.
Collins said that one characteristic of the good to great businesses and their leaders was the willingness to apply, what he called, “the Stockdale Paradox: You must maintain unwavering faith that you can and will prevail in the end, regardless of the difficulties, AND at the same time have the discipline to confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever it might be” (p. 13).
Here is where good and great leaders are separated. This is the line of division, the place where the average and the excellent are delineated. The great leaders, like Jesus, face difficulties but they neither run from them nor bulldoze their way through them. Instead, they maintain unwavering faith that they will prevail in the end. One setback is not the finish. One conflict is not the fatal. One betrayal, one denial, or abandonment in the time of greatest turmoil is not the end. Faith in the outcome, in the triumph of the vision, the mission, or the goal keeps one from quitting or giving up.
This is not, however, a denial of reality, or the inability to see and understand the challenge ahead—this is the paradox. It is the ability to keep the faith and to continue on, but it is not a bullheaded “my way or the highway” approach. It is faith in the outcome while at the same time being disciplined enough to confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever it might be.
I was on staff of a large church in our denomination. I came on staff shortly after the senior pastor arrived. While I was there I was given some background information on the church by some of the longtime members. It seems the church had been growing for several years and had been through several building programs, including moving three times to the current location. The facilities were beautiful and the programs were plentiful, but in the latter years of the previous pastor’s tenure the church had plateaued and was teetering on the brink of significant decline. At the request of the church council the pastor asked for a church consultant to come in and evaluate the church. At the end of the evaluation the report indicated that there was one weak link in the chain and that was the leadership of the senior pastor.
This was the brutal fact of their reality. The pastor had been there for a number of years and had led the church through a significant building program, but beyond the building he didn’t seem to have much of a vision. He was burnt-out and lacked the energy or the will to move beyond getting the building finished. He began to question himself and he lost faith in his own ability to lead the church forward, so he resigned.
Level 5 and Acts 5/6 leaders would have faced the brutal facts, would have sought personal coaching or personal revival, would have assessed thier own weaknesses and then would have hired people--with proficiencies in the areas of those weaknesses--to come on board and work with him. But good to great leaders and breakthrough leaders do not quit. Rainer found the average tenure of breakthrough pastors was just over 21 years—many times longer than the tenure of the average pastor.
Acts 5/6 leaders are more interested in the life, success and longevity of the church than they are in personal advancement or notoriety. For them, growing a church is not a means to an end in their personal professional life, but is an end in and of itself—to the extent that this growth represents souls won into the kingdom of God. Likewise, good to great leaders are motivated by the success of the company more than by having the spotlight shone upon themselves.
You may not have great personal charisma. You may not fit the caricature of the stereotypical great leader, but you may be able to develop the characteristics that both Collins and Rainer found to be indicative of great leaders. These very characteristics are found in Christ, and His character can be perfected in us as we endeavor to become more like Him.
In contrast to those long-held stereotypes we have the prophetic description of Jesus:
2 For He shall grow up before Him as a tender plant,
And as a root out of dry ground.
He has no form or comeliness;
And when we see Him,
There is no beauty that we should desire Him.
3 He is despised and rejected by men,
A Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief.
And we hid, as it were, our faces from Him;
He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.
(Isa 53:2-3, NKJV)
This seems to be a far cry from the commonly held view of what a great leader should look like. In fact, when Jesus came to earth He “made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men” (Phil 2:7, KJV). How does a person become a great leader like that? It is even possible in our day?
The research of both Jim Collins and Thom Rainer provides some pretty conclusive evidence that this is exactly the type of leader that it will take to move a business or a church from good to great.
Thom Rainer, who studied "breakthrough churches", employed the model used by Jim Collins, whose research was focused on the businessess that went from "good to great". Collins admits that he and his team were surprised by some of their findings. The first surprise being that the businesses which broke out of mediocrity and achieved greatness were led by people who did not fit the stereotypical ideal of a great leader. He calls them “Level 5 leaders.” In contrast to the brash, self-assured, charismatic, leaders of fiction, these leaders were found to be “self-effacing, quiet, reserved, even shy—these leaders are a paradoxical blend of personal humility and professional will” (Good to Great, pp. 12-13).
Rainer was surprised with similar findings in his study of the leadership of breakout churches. He calls these pastors “Acts 5/6 leaders.” The men (all the pastors in his study were male) who moved their church from plateau or decline, to breakthrough and growth, were leaders of character, humility, and even vulnerability. He states that these pastors were more “thin-skinned” than “thick-skinned.” Thick-skinned pastors allow criticism to bounce off without affecting them. They take congregational losses in stride and press on with little or no emotional side effect. But the Acts 5/6 leaders, the leaders of the breakthrough churches, were deeply affected by the loss of members and they were often personally wounded by criticism. The difference between these leaders and other thin-skinned leaders was that while they were wounded, they did not quit. They continued to lead and to believe that God could still use them to move the mission forward.
Collins said that one characteristic of the good to great businesses and their leaders was the willingness to apply, what he called, “the Stockdale Paradox: You must maintain unwavering faith that you can and will prevail in the end, regardless of the difficulties, AND at the same time have the discipline to confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever it might be” (p. 13).
Here is where good and great leaders are separated. This is the line of division, the place where the average and the excellent are delineated. The great leaders, like Jesus, face difficulties but they neither run from them nor bulldoze their way through them. Instead, they maintain unwavering faith that they will prevail in the end. One setback is not the finish. One conflict is not the fatal. One betrayal, one denial, or abandonment in the time of greatest turmoil is not the end. Faith in the outcome, in the triumph of the vision, the mission, or the goal keeps one from quitting or giving up.
This is not, however, a denial of reality, or the inability to see and understand the challenge ahead—this is the paradox. It is the ability to keep the faith and to continue on, but it is not a bullheaded “my way or the highway” approach. It is faith in the outcome while at the same time being disciplined enough to confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever it might be.
I was on staff of a large church in our denomination. I came on staff shortly after the senior pastor arrived. While I was there I was given some background information on the church by some of the longtime members. It seems the church had been growing for several years and had been through several building programs, including moving three times to the current location. The facilities were beautiful and the programs were plentiful, but in the latter years of the previous pastor’s tenure the church had plateaued and was teetering on the brink of significant decline. At the request of the church council the pastor asked for a church consultant to come in and evaluate the church. At the end of the evaluation the report indicated that there was one weak link in the chain and that was the leadership of the senior pastor.
This was the brutal fact of their reality. The pastor had been there for a number of years and had led the church through a significant building program, but beyond the building he didn’t seem to have much of a vision. He was burnt-out and lacked the energy or the will to move beyond getting the building finished. He began to question himself and he lost faith in his own ability to lead the church forward, so he resigned.
Level 5 and Acts 5/6 leaders would have faced the brutal facts, would have sought personal coaching or personal revival, would have assessed thier own weaknesses and then would have hired people--with proficiencies in the areas of those weaknesses--to come on board and work with him. But good to great leaders and breakthrough leaders do not quit. Rainer found the average tenure of breakthrough pastors was just over 21 years—many times longer than the tenure of the average pastor.
Acts 5/6 leaders are more interested in the life, success and longevity of the church than they are in personal advancement or notoriety. For them, growing a church is not a means to an end in their personal professional life, but is an end in and of itself—to the extent that this growth represents souls won into the kingdom of God. Likewise, good to great leaders are motivated by the success of the company more than by having the spotlight shone upon themselves.
You may not have great personal charisma. You may not fit the caricature of the stereotypical great leader, but you may be able to develop the characteristics that both Collins and Rainer found to be indicative of great leaders. These very characteristics are found in Christ, and His character can be perfected in us as we endeavor to become more like Him.
Friday, October 14, 2005
Progress versus Program
It seems to me that far too many leaders are looking for the proverbial “magic bullet,” that one program or innovation that will take their organization from obscurity to outstanding almost overnight. This rarely happens. Instead, study after study shows that persistence and patience are the qualities that leaders of outstanding organizations or churches possess. Jim Collins, the author of Good to Great (New York: HarperBusiness, 2001) reflects upon his research in preparation for writing his book. He says, in an online audio clip:
We learned in Good to Great, that in building a great institution there is no single defining action, no grand program, no one killer innovation, no solitary lucky break, no miracle moment. Rather, our research showed that it feels like turning a giant, heavy flywheel. Pushing with great effort, days, weeks, and months of work, with almost imperceptible progress, you finally get the flywheel to inch forward but you don’t stop. You keep pushing and pushing and with persistent effort you eventually get the flywheel to complete one giant slow turn. You don’t stop, you keep pushing in an intelligent and consistent direction and the flywheel moves a bit faster. You keep pushing and you get two turns, then four, then eight and the flywheel builds momentum, sixteen, you keep pushing, thirty-two, and it builds more momentum, a hundred, moving faster with each turn, a thousand, ten-thousand, a hundred thousand, then at some point, BANG!—breakthrough. (Jim Collins, “The Flywheel,” audio clip at http://www.jimcollins.com/hall/index.html, October 14, 2005).
Thom Rainer, in his book Breakthrough Churches (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), uses Collin’s methodology and applies it to a study of churches that have experienced breakthroughs. He observes that pastors of churches which have broken out of plateau or decline are pastors who have tenures that are much longer than average, and are men who just kept pushing. The statistics show that these men were often at a church for years before the turning point came and that it was not one program or miraculous revival that turned things around. Instead, it was commitment to the call, persistence in the face of adversity and patience in the face of panic. These men did not try to change the church overnight into something else, but they moved methodically in the direction they believed God was taking their church.
Having grown up in a Pentecostal church I have observed too many pastors and church members who believed that one great revival or employing the latest greatest innovation was going to miraculously transform their church into a thriving example of success. This is rarely, if ever, the case. Indeed, over time the failure of such hopes and claims have undermined the value of consistent and committed progress. The result has been cynicism and skepticism.
As Jim Collins states, the momentum for a breakthrough is like pushing a giant flywheel, it begins one inch at time before significant and self-sustaining momentum is attained.
Jesus began His public ministry at the age of 30 and for two years He walked the dusty roads of Judea preaching the message of the kingdom. At the time of His death He had only 11 loyal disciples and even they deserted Him in His moment of sacrifice. After the resurrection He appeared to five hundred, but only about one hundred and twenty obeyed Him and tarried in Jerusalem in anticipation of the coming empowerment of the Holy Spirit.
The beginnings of the church Jesus came to build were small and insignificant. He left a few people to carry the message and they faced extreme opposition, but two-thousand years later there are almost one billion people on the earth who claim the Christian faith. Jesus was wiling to move the flywheel one inch at a time. He was willing to go see one woman at a well, to heal one cripple at a pool, to lift one leper from his condition, and to touch the heart of one person at a time if necessary to illustrate the power of the kingdom, and to build His church.
Great leaders do not give up easily, and they are willing to move methodically toward the goal that they believe God has placed before them. Leaders who seem to appear suddenly on the stage of success have often worked in the shadows of obscurity for years before the flywheel began to move with the momentum that propelled the organization into greatness. It may begin with an inch, with slow steady growth, but progress in time becomes a powerful force that is hard to stop.
Wes Hardin is the senior pastor of the Word Vision Church of God in Macon, Georgia. In the winter of 2000-2001 the reports showed that the church averaged 264. In July 2005’s report the church showed an average of more than 570. I’ve known Wes for a few years now and I’ve watched the growth of the church. It didn’t happen all at once, but month by month with steady growth the church has continued to grow.
I recently saw Wes at a state function and asked him about the success of his church and in his quiet, soft-spoken, unassuming manner, he simply told me that they’ve been staying faithful and loving people and the church has continued to grow. It wasn’t an event, or a program, or a dynamic personality, but solid persistent and consistent leadership that has moved the flywheel an inch at a time. I believe the church has achieved momentum and in the months and years to come they will see even more significant growth. BANG! Breakthrough.
On the other hand, I watched a church explode in growth in just a few months from 100 to over 500. The pastor was featured in a prominent Christian magazine and became a speaker at some of our denominational meetings. Five years later the church, with the same pastor, is averaging less than 200 in worship attendance. Wes has never been featured in a major Christian magazine, but his church continues to grow. He is patient, persistence and consistent and the results are lasting.
We learned in Good to Great, that in building a great institution there is no single defining action, no grand program, no one killer innovation, no solitary lucky break, no miracle moment. Rather, our research showed that it feels like turning a giant, heavy flywheel. Pushing with great effort, days, weeks, and months of work, with almost imperceptible progress, you finally get the flywheel to inch forward but you don’t stop. You keep pushing and pushing and with persistent effort you eventually get the flywheel to complete one giant slow turn. You don’t stop, you keep pushing in an intelligent and consistent direction and the flywheel moves a bit faster. You keep pushing and you get two turns, then four, then eight and the flywheel builds momentum, sixteen, you keep pushing, thirty-two, and it builds more momentum, a hundred, moving faster with each turn, a thousand, ten-thousand, a hundred thousand, then at some point, BANG!—breakthrough. (Jim Collins, “The Flywheel,” audio clip at http://www.jimcollins.com/hall/index.html, October 14, 2005).
Thom Rainer, in his book Breakthrough Churches (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), uses Collin’s methodology and applies it to a study of churches that have experienced breakthroughs. He observes that pastors of churches which have broken out of plateau or decline are pastors who have tenures that are much longer than average, and are men who just kept pushing. The statistics show that these men were often at a church for years before the turning point came and that it was not one program or miraculous revival that turned things around. Instead, it was commitment to the call, persistence in the face of adversity and patience in the face of panic. These men did not try to change the church overnight into something else, but they moved methodically in the direction they believed God was taking their church.
Having grown up in a Pentecostal church I have observed too many pastors and church members who believed that one great revival or employing the latest greatest innovation was going to miraculously transform their church into a thriving example of success. This is rarely, if ever, the case. Indeed, over time the failure of such hopes and claims have undermined the value of consistent and committed progress. The result has been cynicism and skepticism.
As Jim Collins states, the momentum for a breakthrough is like pushing a giant flywheel, it begins one inch at time before significant and self-sustaining momentum is attained.
Jesus began His public ministry at the age of 30 and for two years He walked the dusty roads of Judea preaching the message of the kingdom. At the time of His death He had only 11 loyal disciples and even they deserted Him in His moment of sacrifice. After the resurrection He appeared to five hundred, but only about one hundred and twenty obeyed Him and tarried in Jerusalem in anticipation of the coming empowerment of the Holy Spirit.
The beginnings of the church Jesus came to build were small and insignificant. He left a few people to carry the message and they faced extreme opposition, but two-thousand years later there are almost one billion people on the earth who claim the Christian faith. Jesus was wiling to move the flywheel one inch at a time. He was willing to go see one woman at a well, to heal one cripple at a pool, to lift one leper from his condition, and to touch the heart of one person at a time if necessary to illustrate the power of the kingdom, and to build His church.
Great leaders do not give up easily, and they are willing to move methodically toward the goal that they believe God has placed before them. Leaders who seem to appear suddenly on the stage of success have often worked in the shadows of obscurity for years before the flywheel began to move with the momentum that propelled the organization into greatness. It may begin with an inch, with slow steady growth, but progress in time becomes a powerful force that is hard to stop.
Wes Hardin is the senior pastor of the Word Vision Church of God in Macon, Georgia. In the winter of 2000-2001 the reports showed that the church averaged 264. In July 2005’s report the church showed an average of more than 570. I’ve known Wes for a few years now and I’ve watched the growth of the church. It didn’t happen all at once, but month by month with steady growth the church has continued to grow.
I recently saw Wes at a state function and asked him about the success of his church and in his quiet, soft-spoken, unassuming manner, he simply told me that they’ve been staying faithful and loving people and the church has continued to grow. It wasn’t an event, or a program, or a dynamic personality, but solid persistent and consistent leadership that has moved the flywheel an inch at a time. I believe the church has achieved momentum and in the months and years to come they will see even more significant growth. BANG! Breakthrough.
On the other hand, I watched a church explode in growth in just a few months from 100 to over 500. The pastor was featured in a prominent Christian magazine and became a speaker at some of our denominational meetings. Five years later the church, with the same pastor, is averaging less than 200 in worship attendance. Wes has never been featured in a major Christian magazine, but his church continues to grow. He is patient, persistence and consistent and the results are lasting.
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
Process verses Departmental Paradigm
I recently received a newsletter authored by Allen Ratta in Connection Power News (Oct. 11, 2005), and the title of the article was “Key Processes for Church Health: Part 8, Processes Thinking.” In this article Ratta expounds on an idea or a paradigm which I have had of ministry for years, but which I have never attempted to articulate until now. I think that his insights are germane to the topic of leadership and how a leader thinks. In fact, I think process thinking comes much closer to the mind of Christ than departmentalized thinking.
As Ratta points out, most church leaders have a mental image of the organizational structure of the church which is pictured in an organizational flow chart. This chart usually forms some type of pyramid (even if an inverted pyramid) that is ultimately broken down into departments. The theory is that if each department does a good job then the overall organization will grow. For example, if the Sunday School department, and the children’s ministry department, and the music department, and so on, grow, then the church cannot help but grow as well. The problem with this approach is that by its very nature it engenders unhealthy competition for scarce resources, territorialism, tunnel vision, and may even cause an adversarial spirit within the organization.
What is process thinking? Process thinking can be mapped out but the map reflects an “over-arching process” broken down into “sub-processes” which are tied to the “purposes” of the church. For example, as Ratta posits, an over-arching process of the church is “Congregant Acquisition.” This is accomplished through three sub-processes of “outreach, connection and integration.” As we can already see, these three processes transcend departments. The process map has as an implicit underlying goal, the integration, cooperation, and symbiosis of departments. Outreach is not a department, but is the unified goal of all departments to some degree, as are connection and integration.
I have thought about this paradigm with respect to Jesus’ leadership and it occurs to me that while organizational structure became more solidified and defined in the Epistles, Jesus’ approach was much more process than departmental. Jesus had an over-arching process: To bring salvation to the world through His sacrifice and to propagate that message through the church. But Jesus did not create departments to accomplish this. He held the children in His own arms and did not leave it to the children’s minister. He went to the woman at the well and did not leave this to the pastor of evangelism. He visited the sick and did not leave this to the pastor of visitation.
I am not suggesting that one man or woman can be all things to all people. Further, I do believe that there individual members to the body, each with a specific gift and ministry. However, Jesus’ life was lived as an example of the over-arching process. His life is a reflection of the “body”. Furthermore, the metaphor of the body as individual members tied to one another reinforces the process paradigm, in that, “the ear cannot say to the eye, I have no need of you.” The health of the body is facilitated by an integration of the parts and not by an accumulation of segregated, disjointed, and competing parts.
It is never an issue of me or you reaching an individual, but of us working in unity to see new members added to the body. Ratta asks this question, “While there are a lot of vested leaders watching the health of their departments, who is watching the health of your critical ministry processes?” Is it not the leaders? As the pastor of a church, or manager of a business, the leader must keep the over-arching process in the forefront.
For example, in budgeting each department often views the dollars in terms of their specific programs instead of a purpose that transcends their own department. Resources are limited and sometimes the competition within an organization, even a church, can become contentious. The leader, however, should remind all other leaders of various departments that there is an bigger picture in play. Further, that when we focus on the sub-processes and seek to work together to accomplish these in pursuit of the over-arching process, then the health of one part will translate into the health of all the parts for the benefit of the body. When the choir and the children’s ministry both understand the over-arching process then together they can form a symbiotic relationship where the growth of the choir results in the growth of the children’s ministry, and visa versa. The paradigm is no longer competitive but becomes more cooperative and unified.
I think Allen Ratta has hit the nail on the head and has helped me to process my own thoughts on this subject. Your can receive the free newsletter Connection Power News at http://connectionpower.com
As Ratta points out, most church leaders have a mental image of the organizational structure of the church which is pictured in an organizational flow chart. This chart usually forms some type of pyramid (even if an inverted pyramid) that is ultimately broken down into departments. The theory is that if each department does a good job then the overall organization will grow. For example, if the Sunday School department, and the children’s ministry department, and the music department, and so on, grow, then the church cannot help but grow as well. The problem with this approach is that by its very nature it engenders unhealthy competition for scarce resources, territorialism, tunnel vision, and may even cause an adversarial spirit within the organization.
What is process thinking? Process thinking can be mapped out but the map reflects an “over-arching process” broken down into “sub-processes” which are tied to the “purposes” of the church. For example, as Ratta posits, an over-arching process of the church is “Congregant Acquisition.” This is accomplished through three sub-processes of “outreach, connection and integration.” As we can already see, these three processes transcend departments. The process map has as an implicit underlying goal, the integration, cooperation, and symbiosis of departments. Outreach is not a department, but is the unified goal of all departments to some degree, as are connection and integration.
I have thought about this paradigm with respect to Jesus’ leadership and it occurs to me that while organizational structure became more solidified and defined in the Epistles, Jesus’ approach was much more process than departmental. Jesus had an over-arching process: To bring salvation to the world through His sacrifice and to propagate that message through the church. But Jesus did not create departments to accomplish this. He held the children in His own arms and did not leave it to the children’s minister. He went to the woman at the well and did not leave this to the pastor of evangelism. He visited the sick and did not leave this to the pastor of visitation.
I am not suggesting that one man or woman can be all things to all people. Further, I do believe that there individual members to the body, each with a specific gift and ministry. However, Jesus’ life was lived as an example of the over-arching process. His life is a reflection of the “body”. Furthermore, the metaphor of the body as individual members tied to one another reinforces the process paradigm, in that, “the ear cannot say to the eye, I have no need of you.” The health of the body is facilitated by an integration of the parts and not by an accumulation of segregated, disjointed, and competing parts.
It is never an issue of me or you reaching an individual, but of us working in unity to see new members added to the body. Ratta asks this question, “While there are a lot of vested leaders watching the health of their departments, who is watching the health of your critical ministry processes?” Is it not the leaders? As the pastor of a church, or manager of a business, the leader must keep the over-arching process in the forefront.
For example, in budgeting each department often views the dollars in terms of their specific programs instead of a purpose that transcends their own department. Resources are limited and sometimes the competition within an organization, even a church, can become contentious. The leader, however, should remind all other leaders of various departments that there is an bigger picture in play. Further, that when we focus on the sub-processes and seek to work together to accomplish these in pursuit of the over-arching process, then the health of one part will translate into the health of all the parts for the benefit of the body. When the choir and the children’s ministry both understand the over-arching process then together they can form a symbiotic relationship where the growth of the choir results in the growth of the children’s ministry, and visa versa. The paradigm is no longer competitive but becomes more cooperative and unified.
I think Allen Ratta has hit the nail on the head and has helped me to process my own thoughts on this subject. Your can receive the free newsletter Connection Power News at http://connectionpower.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
