Monthly Archive for May, 2010

30. How do you know when your church board is under-performing?

Published by Dr. Larry Perkins on May 27, 2010 in Board, Board Chair, Board Governance and Board Member. Closed Tags: , , .

If you have served as a church board chair for some time, then undoubtedly you have discerned areas in which the board could improve its work. But why do some boards consistently under-perform? What factors contribute to mediocrity? Surely Christ’s church and its people, particularly board members, deserve better. One place to start is by understanding what marks an under-performing board. A little analysis can be a significant stimulus to change. In your role as chair you have the opportunity — and responsibility — to help your board move to a new level of worshipful work.

Let me suggest a few factors (not in any priority) that might indicate to you as chair that the board is not performing to its potential:

1. decisions are made without reference to the church’s mission, values or vision.

Over time, because there is no guiding framework, decisions are made in a haphazard  and inconsistent way. Church health suffers because people sense lack of coherent direction.

2. no intent to measure effective implementation, i.e. no accountability.

When a decision is taken, its implementation is not assigned to any person or group and there is no time line for reporting the degree of success. The result is a board making decisions but not measuring the effectiveness of their decisions.

3. inability to understand the collective work of the board as spiritual work contributing to the health of the church.

The board lacks awareness of the connection between their work and the spiritual health of the church. The seriousness of their work and the importance of their leadership becomes diminished over time. Further, they only see some parts of their work together as spiritual, which says to the congregation that Jesus is only Lord of part of our lives.

4. failure to require annual evaluation of all ministry staff.

The board is unable to communicate to the church that the mission is being fulfilled because the board does not know how effective the ministry staff are in their work and whether their work truly is contributing to the mission of the church.

5. inability to communicate its decisions well.

Although the board may make some good decisions, there is no collective understanding about how these decisions will be communicated to staff, to the congregation or to external groups. These groups hear different messages from different board members and confusion grows.

6. inability to address a crisis well and learn through the experience.

As Peter Drucker is reported to have said, you only know who’s wearing a bathing suit when the tide goes out. Crises test the metal of a board and reveal how well it is working together. When a crisis catches a board by surprise and it has no policy with which to deal with it, then the board has the opportunity to discover how well it functions as a ministry team, discerns God’s will together, and provides prudent direction for the congregation. When it is all over, does the board take time to reflect and ask whether a policy might be developed to guide the board in similar, future situations?

7. allowing what has been to define what will be.

Theologically what the Spirit has given in Scripture has to define what will be. However, when it comes to practice or traditions, this is another question entirely. When a board continually defaults to what traditionally has occurred and refuses to risk change and new direction for the health of the church, then it is shirking its responsibility.

8. unwillingness to maintain confidentiality.

A sure sign that a board is not functioning well occurs when the content of board discussions seeps into the general congregation. Lack of confidentiality signals deterioration of trust in one another. When board members cannot trust one another, it is only a matter of time before the congregation loses confidence in the board as a whole.

9. lack of discipline to prepare well individually and collectively for each board meeting.

When board members come to meetings constantly unprepared, the board cannot do its work well. Vital information may be overlooked and poor decisions result. Misunderstandings occur because a board member has failed to read the reports and comprehend what the issues truly are.  Unless it is addressed, it will be a contagion that damages the ability of the board to work well together.

10. failure to act in the interests of the whole congregation.

In every decision that board must demonstrate that it has the good of the congregation at the centre of its concern. If the church perceives that the board is acting in its own interests or only in the interests of part of the congregation, again trust will soon evaporate and the board’s credibility will be destroyed.

When a chair discerns some or all of these things occurring, then he or she must find ways to motivate the board to embrace better, more productive ways. Ignoring these matters will cause good board members to become frustrated and leave the board.

29. Factors Influencing The Development of the Church Board Chair’s Role

Published by Dr. Larry Perkins on May 21, 2010 in Board, Board Chair, Board Governance, Board Member and Church. Closed Tags: , , .

It is true that a decade ago you would find little discussion about the role of a church board chair. However, in recent years awareness of the significant contribution that a church board and its leadership makes to the growth and health of local churches has developed considerably. What factors have led to this new assessment? I would suggest that following factors are probably primary:

1. The increased focus on local churches as ministry agencies who have a mission, values, vision and strategic plans requires, as a corollary, the definition of a leadership group entrusted with their fulfillment. As local churches become more intentional about these issues, then the function of the church board and its leadership also moves into the limelight.

2. The size and complexity of local churches as ministry entities continues to increase. While small churches remain dominant in terms of sheer numbers, the percentage of evangelical Christians attending larger churches has risen markedly. Governance processes necessary to lead such organizations concurrently must also change and evolve. The role and work of church boards shifts as churches grow in size. The chair of such a board must also possess increased competence if the board is to add the value to the church that is required to advance the mission.

3. Expectations among the members that the ministries of the church will function with excellence requires the board to take its work more seriously. If it does not pay attention to the essentials necessary for the church to work together in unity and make progress towards fulfilling its mission, soon it will hear about it from disgruntled, frustrated and disappointed believers.

4. The kinds of ministries that churches desire to implement are becoming more complex and require more deliberate planning, implementation and accountability. Otherwise the risks to the congregation, including spiritual and legal risks, become too great. It is often the church board which is expected to provide the prudent leadership required to ensure such ministry projects are successfull.

5. And then the expectations in society in general about the operations of non-profit charities have risen significantly. Financial accountability, employee relations, facility management (e.g. rentals), safety and protection of individuals in the care of a church — all of these factors and more place considerable responsibility upon a congregation and it usually looks to the church board to oversee these matters.

6. The religious diversity (perhaps chaos might be a more appropriate descriptor) characterizing our society requires church leadership to guide the congregation with greater wisdom and sophistication. The church board has responsibility in the midst of such confusion to oversee the spiritual health of the congregation and thus needs to exercise appropriate care for the spiritual well being of the members.

7. Perhaps as well boards members are not content to sit through frustrating meetings which are poorly organized and led. Nor are such members pleased to learn about legal liability that may accrue if they do not act with due diligence. Board members want to make a difference and there are too many other opportunities for interesting ministry in the Kingdom if their work as a board member is banal and boring.

As the role of the church board has evolved in response to these and other factors, so too have the responsibilities of the board chair. These developments are not bad. Rather, they present new opportunities for those willing to learn, commit, and engage. When boards decide to up their game, the church benefits and the Gospel shines more brightly through the faith community.

28. A Theology for the Role of Church Board Chair

Published by Dr. Larry Perkins on May 17, 2010 in Board, Board Chair, Board Governance, Board Member and Senior Pastor. Closed Tags: , , , , , .

I am asked occasionally whether there are biblical/theological principles that justify the existence of church boards and the role of the chair. This is an important question. Usually it arises because someone is concerned that all of this talk about church boards is based upon ideas brought into the church from outside. In other words, the very existence of church boards smacks of business influence, i.e. something alien to the essence of a New Testament church. The suggestion that a church board chair has a significant role to play in the health and leadership of a local church, similarly may be disturbing because the New Testament does not specifically mention such a church leadership function.

Further, different models of board governance are now proposed in the non-profit society world and churches have to think carefully about which model will cohere most adequately with their theological and other values.

Many people study “ecclesiology”, i.e. the theology of the church, as it is expressed in Scripture and contextualized in many diverse cultures around the world. However, few stop to think about the theological principles that have led some kinds of churches (primarily evangelical churches in North America) to adopt a governance structure that includes a board and board chair.

In responding to these kinds of questions, I think we must realize that the New Testament has very little to say about the way a local church organizes itself to accomplish its mission. Certainly a recognized leadership group is present, comprised of people termed “overseers” and “deacons”. The word “elder” also seems to describe some or all of the leaders in a local church. Within this group some will function more specfically as “pastors”. This spiritual leadership cares for, teaches, protects and encourages the congregation.  Contexts such as 1 Thessalonians 5:12-15; 1 Timothy 3; Titus 1; 1 Peter 5:1-7; and selected portions in Acts provide us with this data. Occasionally Paul will talk generally about the nature of the church and its collaborative, interdependent activities (e.g. Ephesians 4, Romans 12, 1 Corinthians 11-14).

Some of the house churches in the early days of Christianity seem to have a plurality among their leadership (e.g. consider the church at Antioch in Acts 13:1-3). What decisions this leadership group made and on what basis the congregation was brought into decision-making remains unclear. Paul urges the Corinthian church collectively to exercise discipline (1 Corinthians 5-6). The Jerusalem church together with its elders and representatives from the Antioch church discuss and come to decision about the matter of Gentile Christians (Acts 15). Similarly in Acts 6 the apostles, together with the Jerusalem church discern a solution to the dispute about fair care for all widows in the church. Galatians 2:1-10 may also suggest that in some cases specific leadership groups met to discern God’s direction.

When you study these texts and examples of church leadership, you will discern some principles, but also that considerable flexibility existed. Qualifications for people to participate as spiritual leaders in the church are provided. Some stories suggest that the leadership group took care to include the congregation in the final decision, when major issues were under consideration. Beyond these elements, the Holy Spirit seems to have let the good sense and wisdom of the leadership develop effective means to advance the church’s mission, with some attention paid to the cultural patterns in their context, providing the essence of the church was not harmed.

For example, it is probable that in some cases Jewish Christians adapted some aspects of  synagogue life and leadership as a pattern to guide the development of messianic assemblies. In the Greco-Roman world “societies” were common, regulated by specific laws, but organized for many different reasons, some of which were religious in nature. In other words so long as the theological principles defining the nature of the Messiah’s new people and its leadership were sustained, different organizational arrangements were possible.

I would suggest that the situation is similar today. In Canada, most evangelical churches have a leadership group defined as pastor/elders, or deacons, or a mixture of these offices. In recent decades as well most of these churches are defined as non-profit charitable agencies, organized in accordance with government regulations for such entities. Maintaining the theological principles expressed in the New Testament concerning the nature of the church, church leadership and congregational relations, while operating within these government regulations does pose some challenges. For example, there is some tension between the church as faith-community and the church as organization. However, this form of contextualized church governance does enable the church to appoint and enjoy the benefit of  spiritual leadership described in the New Testament, while at the same time taking full advantage of the benefits offered by being a non-profit charitable ministry agency. So long as the leadership understands the essence of the church and is aware of the primacy of the spiritual care and mission essential to the church, then the kind of governance pattern required for a non-profit charity can fit within the institutional life of a local church.

Now, there is no necessity for a church to organize itself as a non-profit, charitable society in Canada. However, it has advantages related to taxation, legal liability, and other matters. Providing a local church is able to accomplish its spiritual work by adopting and using such a structure, then theologically it may be appropriate. Should a local church decide to constitute itself differently, then it still has to sort out issues of leadership, authority and governance. Additionally, as a church grows in size, the governance patterns will have to be defined more carefully.

If a local church does decide to function as a non-profit, charitable society, then the role of the board and its chair needs to be acknowledged. Personally, I do not believe that this awareness detracts from congregational authority, the ability of pastoral leadership to fulfill its spiritual ministry, nor the opportunity for the church board to consider all of its work as spiritual work necessary for sustaining and deepening the spiritual health of a local church. Again I would emphasize, the spiritual leaders have to ensure in all of this that the nature of the church as the body of Christ is not compromised, but rather enabled to flourish.

Given that a local church board forms an essential spiritual leadership body in a local church, then the role of the chair in guiding such a body takes on certain significance. The chair usually will be one of the elders or deacons appointed by the congregation as board members and thus recognized as gifted, mature, and spiritually wise. The chair, in facilitating this group of spiritual leaders in a local church, has a responsibility to serve as elder or deacon in an exemplary way. Further, a board chair must demonstrate certain kinds of giftedness, if the spiritual work of the board is to be done well. And finally, because this person chairs the ministry team in the church entrusted with the responsibility to advance the church’s mission, the chair possesses considerable spiritual influence in the life of the church.

If you serve in the leadership of a church in a region of the world other than Canada, then you will need to contextualize the principles of church leadership and governance in ways appropriate to your culture.

27. Church Board Chairs and Lead Pastors — Understanding this Relationship

Published by Dr. Larry Perkins on May 12, 2010 in Board, Board Chair, Board Governance, Board Member and Senior Pastor. Closed Tags: , , , .

I recently did an informal survey of approximately 45 lead pastors and church board chairs to gather data to support a recent workshop presentation. In analyzing the responses, some interesting factors emerged which may help us understand the relationship between Lead Pastors and Church Board Chairs. While certainly not scientific, the results uncovered some interesting features.

First, only half of those responding indicated that the chairperson had a description of responsibilities. Second, most board chairs had served less than four years in their role and probably would only serve one or two terms. The turnover rate for church board chairs is significant. Sometimes this is mandated by policy, but more often other factors are instrumental. Third, most lead pastors had worked with the current board chair for less than four years.

With undefined responsibilities for church board chairs, significant turnover, and short-term relationships with lead pastors, we should not be surprised at the struggles that board chairs experience in seeking to fill this role well. There is a connection between this reality and the fact the churches often lack consistent direction. The seeds of board dysfunction may be sown in these details.

The survey also indicated that on average church board chairs are a decade older than lead pastors. Further, board chairs tend to have long connections with their churches (fifteen years is quite common), whereas in the case of lead pastors their relationship with the congregation tended to average around five years. Two observations arise from this set of data. First, some of the differences of viewpoint that emerge in discussion between a lead pastor and board chair are probably generational. Discerning this age differential and being conscious of it will help both individuals realize when conflicting views may arise because they come at issues from diverse, generational perspectives. Second, the extended tenure of the board chair personally in the life of the congregation in contrast to that of lead pastors will probably create a more conservative approach to change. Relationships with people in the congregation are stronger, his stake in the development of the congregation is considerable, and his experience of the past life of the church probably all influence his view of future potential substantially. A lead pastor who is relatively new in the church will need to work carefully in the nexus of these realities as he introduces change and seeks to garner the support of the board chair for such change.

In another set of data more than one third of church board chairs and lead pastors indicated that their boards lacked a clear statement of the congregation’s authority. In other words the board was not certain about the kinds of decisions they could make and the decisions that had to go to the congregation for final approval. Normally bylaws would define such matters. However, it appears that in a significant number of churches either this is not the case or the board is not aware that such bylaws exist. In either case, this needs to be remedied because it creates significant opportunity for conflict. If neither the congregation nor the board understands their respective authority, then jurisdictional disputes will certainly emerge. It will only be a matter of time.

As I indicated at the beginning, this is a small sample and the results are not scientific. However, the results have sufficient weight to offer some explanation as to why the relationship between the lead pastor and church board chair needs intentional care. Further the results suggest that unnecessary conflict occurs within churches because attention has not been given to develop clarity around roles and responsibilities. By helping the board recognize such deficiency and create clarity, a church board chair will reduce potential, harmful conflict, and free space within the life of the board to focus on fulfilling the mission of the church.

26. The Chair and New Board Member Orientation

Published by Dr. Larry Perkins on May 7, 2010 in Board, Board Chair, Board Governance and Board Member. 2 Comments Tags: , , , .

Orienting new members to a church board offers a wonderful opportunity for a chairperson to encourage, celebrate and mentor.  If a new board member starts well, with good information, an understanding of basic process, and assurance that he or she can fulfill this role by the Holy Spirit’s help, then the board as a whole will be blessed. As well, your role as board chair will be easier. So investing a couple of hours with new board members is time well spent for a host of reasons.

People come onto a board with widely varying expectations about the work of a board and how it accomplishes that work. If your board has a covenant that explains how the members have agreed to work together, then you have a great foundation upon which to begin the orientation process. Other documents that would be helpful to review in an orientation would include:

a. the minutes from the last two or three board meetings.  The minutes inform the new board   members of current discussions, the way in which the board makes decisions, and the general flow of the meetings;

b. any policies that the board has approved.  The new board members need to know the guidelines which the board has established for the operation of the ministry;

c. the church constitution and bylaws.  Because these board members are already members of the church they probably have some familiarity with this material. However, it is good to refresh their memories and draw their attention to the sections that define congregational and board relations;

d. the most recent financial statement (and annual financial report). Board members have fiduciary responsibility to preserve the assets of the organization and finances form a significant part of this treasure. This also brings the new board member up to speed regarding current risks, the shape of the church budget, and how the budget is structured. You will also quickly discover whether or not the new board members can actually read a financial statement and identify risks;

e. if there is a ministry plan for the church that the board has adopted, then this too is a vital piece of information for new board members to possess;

f. if the church is engaged in any legal issues, then the new board members also have to be briefed fully on such matters;

Recently a board chair shared with me a situation he experienced with a new board member. They were reviewing the board covenant and the new board member said that he did not agree with one part of it. The covenant stated that once the board has made a decision, the board members will support the decision of the whole. If unable to do so, then the board member should resign. The new board member felt he had the right to voice his dissent to board decisions in congregational meetings. In fact, he thought this was his obligation to some members whose votes probably had led to his appointment. Orientation to the board would give a venue to talk through such differences of opinion.

In this case several issues surfaced:

a.  the new board member did not appreciate that people who serve on a church board have to give attention to the church’s mission and not to any special interest group in the church. Each board member has an obligation to make decisions that are good for the whole, not just a part of the congregation;

b. dissent will occur in board discussions and decisions. A board member will not agree with everything that the board ultimately decides to do. Dissent can be noted appropriately in board minutes. The board in its reports to the congregation can, if it chooses, indicate that in some matters the board was not unanimous and explain, should it be helpful, the complexity of the decision and why the board reached the decision it made. However, board members should not voice their dissent outside of the board meeting. If that happens, trust is broken and the ability of the board to function is damaged. Board members have no obligation to report individually to the congregation how they voted on each and every issue;

c. The chair could also address the positive, namely that the board needs to hear all points of view in debate. Informed decision-making requires this and if the board does not support such a process, then it is neglecting its duty. However, once all of the points of view have emerged in debate, then the board must also sift, evaluate, and eventually decide which view is in the best interests of the church — enabling it to fulfill its mission, be true to its values, move towards achieving its  vision, and advance the spiritual welfare of the people. All of this must happen in a context where prayer is active.

So as board chair, work with your board to develop an orientation process that will help new board members to embrace their new roles well. If you ask the current members about their experience in joining the board, enough information will emerge to motivate the board to support this direction. From their collective wisdom you will be able to discern the kinds of things that the new board members most need to know. It is also possible that some of the board members who have served for a considerable period of time might be willing to assist you in this process.

A practical tip. Make sure you develop the orientation materials in electronic format. This will enable you gradually to develop a set of orientation materials that easily can be updated, put in powerpoint form, and placed on the church’s website. In this way you can develop a legacy for the next board chair.