Like A Child

I’ve been critical of leadership that treats churches like a rag doll, dragging it around wherever they please because they think it is “best.”

But sometimes you have to change, and the decision will not be popular. How do you do that and hold the church together?

1) You have to be confident that such a move is really in the best interest of the church. A good friend talked with me today about “progressive” leaderships, and those that are not. My thought was: “What does it mean to be progressive?” If progressive means that the congregation, by making these changes, will come to be more like Jesus, well and good. But if it means that they will simply look like other churches now getting their 15 minutes of fame – I doubt that it’s worth doing.

2) Leadership must all be on the same page. This is what we need to do. This is why we need to do it. Reasons must be clear, valid, and compelling.

3) Methodical and purposeful teaching should be given on the issue.

4) The example should be set by leadership. You cannot effectively teach what you yourself do not practice.

5) Remembering how long it took leadership to come to this conclusion, leadership should be equally patient with their followers, allowing them to digest the information, and understand that because they are not leaders, they may not grasp the information and the discussion as quickly as leadership did.

6) There will be some push-back. After teaching has been presented, leaders should identify and meet with the resistant, allowing them to have their say, questioning them about their understanding of the issue and the scriptures involved, and kindly inquiring as to their motive. This is a “one on one” matter. You can’t simply call for a “gripe session." Ailing sheep cannot be helped in a group. It has to be one on one.

A note about this "one on one" business. I heard of a church today where the Elders were so distant from the members that they had a policy of not serving as a reference for anyone in their congregation. One of two things is true: Either there are not enough Elders, or the Elders are not doing the job.

7) When the bottom line “I just don’t like it” is finally heard, leaders have to respond: “We know. And we are sensitive to that. And we hope you have seen how sensitive we have been. But you know as well as we do this is the right thing to do. We expect your support and participation. We are family, and families stick together even when they don’t agree."

Again: It all takes time, and patience.

Every leader should remember Jesus' words in Matthew 18:6 -- “if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.” Jesus wasn't talking about children. He was talking about adults. Adults who listen like children, reason like children, and behave like children. But because they are believers, they are precious in Christ's sight. How we treat and respond to them carries serious consequences. God is not willing any be lost, and leaders must not be either.

One more point: Leaders sometimes reason: these (who disagree with us) will not be lost to the Lord. They may be lost to our church, but they will go and serve elsewhere. Consider this: How will we ever convince people the body of Christ (the Church) is important, if we treat the body's members as if they are not?

The Old Way Is Best ??

What happens when “fried” chicken is no longer as profitable as “grilled”?

If you were in the fried chicken business, would you keep selling fried because that was your business model, or would you make the move to grilled?

There is a related issue that has to do with business ethics. IF you were the major fried chicken seller in the country, and you knew fried chicken was contributing to the over-all poor health of your countrymen, would you try to effect change in their diets, or would you continue to insist on fried chicken because, after all, that’s what everybody wants and that’s where the money has always been?

These are not hypothetical issues, and they DO have to do with the Church.

Kentucky Fried Chicken has been the leading seller of fried fowl for decades. But fried chicken has twice the calories per piece and two to three times the amount of fat. Since 2008, KFC has been marketing grilled chicken and I have to tell you, it’s good! I’ll never go back to fried.

But I digress.

Some KFC franchise owners are suing corporate because corporate is focusing more on grilled chicken. Despite the fact that this move has only increased sales, the franchise owners are upset because corporate made the move without consulting them, and they see the move as not being true to their heritage – the sign says Kentucky FRIED Chicken after all.

The exact figures are in a recent Washington Post article by Ylan Mui and reading it I thought: “how foolish and petty.” It would be a little different if sales were down because of the change (but only a little), but when they are the same, or up, why would you gripe? Especially when you know that this change in product presentation (it’s still chicken after all) is good for the future of your business!

What happens when churches implement important decisions that are unpopular, and when members have strong feelings opposing the change? Should leaders press ahead anyway? If yes, isn’t this running roughshod over the church, “lording” it over them as scripture forbids (Luke 22:25-26)?

Perhaps . . . but perhaps not.

For ages in this country (and still in some parts), black Christians and white deliberately worshiped separately. There was nothing right about this. We excused it sometimes as being about “culture” and “comfort.” But it wasn’t. It was about race and segregation and prejudice, and ignorance and mindless, stupid unfounded hatred. The right thing to do was to integrate the churches.

But how? That was really the issue. Some did it poorly. Some didn’t do it at all. But slowly, it happened anyway. And slowly is probably the way.

But slow doesn’t mean “put it off.”

KFC has made some critical errors in leadership, but these have to do with the way change has been effected – not the change itself. All this takes us back to the issue we’ve been discussing: how leadership effects change. Next week, I will have some suggestions as to how we can lead in important matters, when those who follow are likely to be resistant.

Term Limits

One of the suggestions I have received (to deal with the problem of leadership gone awry) is to have "term Limits" on leadership positions. I've seen this done several ways: one, to have leaders serve for specified periods of time, another where at intervals, church leaders are "reaffirmed."

Though I am persuaded that a lot of business practices are good practices for the church (budgeting, candor, accountability etc.), "term limits" is neither a business practice, nor a healthy church practice. It's more political than anything else and that influence is not one we want to embrace.

The whole concept of term limits flies in the face of what church leadership is about. Church leadership is about leading a family. It involves relationships and time, and time building relationships and reputation. Because Church is an all volunteer organization, absolutely NO ONE is going to follow anybody just because they have been given a "position" -- nor should they be expected to do so. Leaders who expect folks to just "fall in" because the New Testament prescribes "submission" are going to be disappointed -- and rightly so.

It's one thing for a leader/leadership that (in the course of time, despite proven wisdom, a demonstrated mind for Christ and heart for his people, and despite many and close relationships) encounters a recalcitrant flock. It's another matter entirely for a leader/leadership virtually unknown by the flock to encounter opposition. In the first instance, the flock needs to think seriously about the direction it is taking. Judgment awaits. In the latter instance, the leadership needs to think about the attitude it is exhibiting. Judgment awaits them too.

Why would we want leaders to have term limits who have developed long and lasting relationships with those entrusted to their care? The new leaders will have no such relationships and the goodwill and respect built up over the years by the old leaders will be lost. The most important part of church leadership will be lost. We'll end up with . . . politicians, leaders more concerned with agendas than the welfare of the family.

So . . . how DO we deal with leaders who have lost touch with their charges? These texts are instructive:

Galatians 6:1 -- Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted.

Matthew 18:15-16 -- "If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16 But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that `every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.'

In other words, when leadership goes awry, it is the responsibility of the "followship" to take leadership aside for consultation. The consultation should be private and personal. And if there are many aggrieved, they still should talk to them personally, one on one -- not as a group (which is where most folks want to start). The idea is to renew and rebuild, or build further, the relationships so vital to the healthy life of a church family.

The problems are not solved overnight. Family problems seldom are, and family problems are tough. At times you may think: 'What must the world think of us when we have these difficulties?' But, at this juncture, what the world thinks is immaterial. We are the family of God. It only matters what God thinks of his family. We must work through our problems to find His approval. When we divide and "begin again," the world sees us looking just like the world (divorcing, remarrying, bouncing from one family to another) and we perpetuate a cancer that will forever keep us from being seen by the world as the body of Christ.

Driving the Herd or Shepherding the Sheep?

[At the end of last week's column I said we would address the matter of whether it was ever appropriate for leaders to draw a line in the sand. Please allow me to delay that post a bit. I want to spend a little time addressing comments from last week's post.]

I agonized more than usual before posting last week's blog: "Please Leave Peacefully." Frankly, I found the story on which the post was based more than a little astounding and wondered if any Church leadership could really be so blind and insensitive.

Then came the email response. Others too have had the experience, so yes, the idea that Church Elders would make decisions that would deliberately alienate their flock (and not care) is not hypothetical, but real. One writer (not a preacher) responded that such had happened in his congregation and resulted in losing half their membership -- including all potential future Elders.

There are at least three basic issues in all this:

1) Elders may have a lack of understanding regarding the NATURE OF THEIR CALLING. It is the singular purpose of Elders (Pastors, Bishops) to care for the people God has entrusted to them by virtue of their appointment. Period. Nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing is to get in the way of this duty. Everything Elders get involved in can be delegated to others EXCEPT for looking after the welfare of a congregation's members. That makes everything else less important and anything that gets in the way of that ministry is nothing but a hindrance.

2) Elders may have a lack of understanding regarding HOW THEY SHOULD CARRY OUT THEIR MINISTRY. The board room is a poor place for shepherds unless they have gathered for prayer. Every Elder is responsible for knowing where their flock lives, what's going on in their lives, what their struggles are, and where their spiritual weaknesses lie. It's a tough job, beyond the abilities of any one man -- which is why there is always a plurality of Elders mentioned in the New Testament. Shepherding is done over dinner, and in personal visits in homes and hospitals where members can talk privately and confidently about their greatest dreams and most frightening fears. It is done on the telephone and with notes of encouragement via email and snail mail. It is done by attending the baseball/basketball/football games of our children and in the company of other adults where fellowship and bonding occurs. In short shepherding is done by being with people and sharing in their lives so they know you care about them. It is NOT done by driving them in the direction you think they ought to go. Shepherds lead. They don't drive. And the sheep know the shepherd's voice, and follow him with confidence, because they know their shepherd loves them and has only their best interest at heart -- not just because he's told them that, but because he's showed them that in his association with them.

3) Elders may have a poor sense of what their VISION for their church ought to be. Elders (and preachers too) often equate vision with church size, progressiveness, and community recognition. But the vision of Church leadership should focus on two things: bringing people to Christ and getting them to heaven. Are Bill, Bob, Sally and Susan Christians? Are Jamal, Jerry, Alice and Paula walking in the light of Christ or flirting with darkness? The vision is to get them to heaven. Anything, no matter how noble or desirable, that gets in the way of this vision is but a cataract and must be peeled away.

One of my correspondents hit the nail on the head: the problem in last week's scenario is that Church leadership lost touch with the very people they were supposed to be leading. The result was a lost flock.

Please Exit Peacefully

[Note: It has been characteristic in Churches of Christ that our worship music in assembly is always, only, in acappella style.

The reasoning behind this is, in a nutshell, as follows: The early church worshiped without instrumental music -- a known historical fact. The music worship of the church was exclusively acappella for the first thousand years of Christian history. Gradually, however, in an effort either to enhance the singing, substitute for the singing, or just make church music more popular, the Church universal has introduced instrumental music in the past millennium. It is a relatively recent innovation. Not everyone has accepted it. The Greek Orthodox church does not, nor do a few others, including the Church of Christ. Our goal has been to imitate the early Church in our worship, ministry, and fellowship. So . . . instrumental music has been out.

The goal of this posting however is not to argue the validity of this practice, but rather, to comment on leadership.]

Today at lunch I was told of a church where the Elders, on a Sunday morning, arose as one to make this announcement (I'm paraphrasing): "We have decided, in order to enhance our communion experience, that we will have instrumental music playing softly in the background during the Lord's Supper. We know that this will disappoint some of you, and upset others. All that we ask is, if you leave because of it, you leave peacefully."

I cannot imagine a business, in a highly competitive situation, saying to its customer base: We are going to radically change our product. We know you will not like it. We know some of you will stop being our customers. We wish you well, just don't say bad things about us."

When it comes to the Church, however, this may be one of those times when the business model doesn't fit us too well. The Church is first and foremost "family." We are the family of God. Nothing is more important than holding this family together. Those who divide it stand condemned even if their cause seems noble. A leadership willing to write off family members in order to pursue their own agenda is leading nowhere God's people need to go. What they are doing is perpetuating the cancers of self-interest and division. The next time some potentially divisive issue arises, will they say "adios" to more of their number? What they are really saying is: 'some people in this family are not important and we don't care if you come to the reunions or not.' Who would want to be a part of a family like that? How will such a church family ever really be successful in making disciples (what Jesus says is our task) when the very trait of being a disciple is that we love one another?

This takes us back to leaders focusing on the right goal. Elders, the highest level of earthly leadership in the Church, are charged with the welfare -- spiritual and physical -- of the people who comprise their church. That's it. Period. They cannot do that by kicking the sheep out of the fold, or making it difficult for them to stay. Where we go, as the Church, or as a congregation, we go together, or we don't go at all.

Like it or not, to save us all, we move at the pace of our slowest members. Until Jesus comes, the only one interested in culling the flock is Satan.

Having written all this, might there ever be a time to draw a line in the sand so to speak? That's next week.