Monthly Archive for July, 2011

86. “Indifference” — an Important Attitude Within a Church Board and Chair

Published by Dr. Larry Perkins on July 25, 2011 in Board, Board Chair, Board Governance and Board Member. Closed Tags: , , .

Charles Olsen in his chapter on discernment (Transforming Church Boards into Communities of Spiritual Leaders, pages 95-97) offers the outline of a process that will enable a church board to engage “the practice of faithful listening.” As part of the process he encourages board members to pray alone, “seeking the weightier good” and suggests that some might pray “I am indifferent to which choice God will choose in this issue.”

Normally we might consider indifference to be a negative attitude, displaying a lack of care and thus disowning any stake in the outcome, but this is not what Olsen is talking about. Rather he is referencing a Jesuit practice in which leaders faced with key decisions were trained to become indifferent, i.e. free of prejudices and attachments and therefore free to choose any course of action (Chris Lowney, Heroic Leadership, 119) which they discerned represented God’s will. One is liberated to pursue one goal — serving God, and not beholden to any particular personal attachments.

Paul in 1 Timothy 3:9 says that one of the qualifications for spiritual leadership and service in the church is “keeping hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience.” I think he comes close here to this idea of indifference — pursuing God’s purposes above everything else. Or perhaps Peter’s advice in 1 Peter 5:2 when he urges church leaders to exercise their pastoral responsibilities “willingly” and not out of any motivation for personal gain, touches this issue.

When church board members convene, they bring into the meeting a whole mass of goals and desires they want for the church or maybe themselves — and many of these might be very good in themselves. Some feel they have to advocate for a specific decision because of their relationship to a particular group in the church. Other kinds of conflicts of interest get in way as well. Cultivating a mindset of “indifference” is one helpful strategy to control our egos and the pressures we may feel from external groups. Again, indifference does not mean church board members do not care about the outcome, but rather the only thing they truly care about is discerning God’s will in the matter and pursuing that with energy, wisdom and passion. They jettison personal whims and cling doggedly to the pursuit of God’s will.

Church board chairs have to exemplify this perspective in their leadership of the board. A chair’s singular motivation is to assist the church board to accomplish its work in ways that add to God’s reputation and advance the mission of the congregation. As various proposals and issues move across a church board’s agenda, the chair may or may not have particular interest in any of them. However, a chair has to retain a certain ‘indifference’ to the specific item in order to help the board members achieve a consensus as the best direction. If as chair you feel strongly about a particular issue and desire to speak to it, then it would be wise to turn the chair over to the vice-chair for that part of the meeting so that after the decision there can be no criticism that you were steering the church board in a certain direction.

What other ways can you as chair help the church board members “cling doggedly to the pursuit of God’s will?” You can make sure that the process for all board decisions and actions intentionally is integrated with a deep sense of the spiritual work in which the board members are engaged. Help the board members understand that “conflicts of interest” are not only financial, but involve the pursuit of personal agendas at the expense of the good of the congregation. Always be concerned that the board members have the right information to make the best decision. As the board is about to act, remind them that all of their actions should serve to advance the mission of the congregation and are they sure that they have discerned “the weightier good” among the various options? Perhaps in the context of a particularly significant decision you as board chair might relate a biblical and/or congregational story that reminds the board of God’s faithfulness or the need for spiritual courage or the importance of making difficult, but right decisions.

When people are so wedded to past solutions, become passionate advocates of a particular point of view, or respond only as ‘yes-men’ to someone’s recommendation, then they “operate at the mercy of [their] blind spots because [they] cannot prepare for what [they do] not see” (Ronald Heifetz, Leadership Without Easy Answers, 33). The practice of indifference enables people to consider options that they had never thought about previously. People become more creative and adaptive, and discern better solutions. Prayer can be a significant spiritual discipline in helping church boards practice indifference to everything but God’s will and find consensus based upon their shared values.

Indifference, when properly understood and practiced, enhances a person’s spiritual intelligence and controls emotional attachments. To put it in biblical terms, it enables us to “walk in the Spirit” together. But it often takes time for church board members to reach this point of indifference. I have led enough church board meetings to observe the members work through the following stages of a decision:

a.  each person presents their perspective — some more ardently than others. Various possible directions are placed on the table;

b. in stage two the board members develop a more objective consideration of the “goods” that the various options offer and a ranking of the possible outcomes begins to emerge;

c. stage three involves one or two board members working through the possibility that the option they championed may not be the one the board is discerning to be the best. They struggle to reach “indifference” and trust that God’s is speaking through the other board members;

d. stage four occurs when the board members achieve consensus about a particular direction. It may take three or four meetings for this stage to be gained, but it is worth the wait.

Church board chairs will find it helpful to be discerning about the development of ‘indifference” and not to press for decision too soon. I have also observed situations where the voice of one board member eventually has convinced the entire board that his or her option does in fact present “the weightier good.” If the board had closed discussion too soon, the board would not have recognized this and made a poor decision.

85. Book Review # 6: “Transforming Church Boards into Communities of Spiritual Leaders” by Charles Olsen (Alban Institute, 2001).

Published by Dr. Larry Perkins on July 18, 2011 in Board, Board Chair, Board Governance, Board Member, Book Reviews and Senior Pastor. Closed Tags: , , , .

Charles Olsen writes as a seasoned “church renewalist” who has a special passion to enable church boards  understand themselves as spiritual communities who are “inspirational to the congregations they lead” (xvi). He speaks from a wealth of research directed particularly to the difficulties and lack of fulfillment many church board members experience.  Over several years, supported by a grant from The Lilly Endowment, he developed a model that enables church boards to integrate spirituality and administration and through this new integration to transform church boards into “communities of spiritual leaders.”

His model for church board meetings develops around four practices:

  1. History giving and story telling
  2. Biblical-theological reflection
  3. Prayerful discernment
  4. “Visioning” the future (xi).

He desires church board members to grow in vitality and maturity of faith, to develop new capacity to theologize, to recognize and value corporate spirituality, to develop a more positive climate for recruiting new board members, and to enable church board members to enjoy a vital experience of serving (xii). The overall motif that describes the model is the phrase “worshipful work” which enables the board member to function as a spiritual leaders in this role and enables the board as whole to emerge in its own right as a spiritual community (xii). This community does its service-work from within a framework of praise, study, caring, discernment, and hope (xv).

The first two chapters present the concept of “worshipful work” within a church board setting and how this approach can combat “creeping cultures: the Spirits of the Agenda of Board Meetings.” The initial chapter presents the idea of shaping the agenda in the form of a service of worship. He provides a specific example (Appendix 1, 181-182) of an agenda that revolves around assembling in God’s name, celebrating the past (reports), proclaiming God’s Word (studying specific issues), presenting our offering (giving oversight to ministries), giving thanks to God (concluding in prayer and intercession), and going out in God’s name (charge and benediction).  Such an approach controls the temptation that church boards have to function merely as an advisory group, a political interest group, a “brokering of interest” group, a bureaucratic agency, a managerial committee, or a business entity. The outcome is to generate a church board culture in which true spiritual leadership blossoms. This requires the spiritual art of discernment, vision clarity, and “breadlike” (i.e. nurturing) implementation. He urges the presentation of reports as stories or opportunities for theological reflection, the development of an annual agenda, use of consent agendas, and agendas that are structured around common worship themes.

In Part 2 Olsen shares four “transformational practices for the agenda of meetings.” He begins by reminding us that each congregation has a “thick history” replete with stories of God’s leading, provision, and grace – and church boards need to rehearse past and present stories. These establish a context and consciousness of “sacred space” from within which the board members engage their responsibilities. Sharing stories helps to clarify and generate vision and enables discernment.  Some stories need to come “from the edge” in order to challenge complacency or misunderstanding.

Chapter four focuses on “distilling wisdom.”  How does a church board understand and  employ  biblical, theological and church traditions or values in order to inform their current ministry? Often biblical-theological reflection among the board members needs encouragement because many have never done it and feel intimidated in the presence of the pastor. Conversely, there is the danger of someone pronouncing God’s will and shutting off debate and discernment prematurely.

“Prayerful discernment” forms the focus for chapter five. I think this is perhaps the most helpful and creative part of Olsen’s book. Discernment is to see or know what God has already decided and have the courage to pursue it. The challenge is to create a corporate process that enables a church board to practice “discernment.” The spiritual ethos of a church board requires a process that integrates elements of rationale decision-making, with the prayer-filled activity of biblically-informed reflection. It requires the church board to relinquish personal and corporate ego (90-91) and be willing to take hold of the direction God is giving. Some key principles Olsen proposes for prayerful discernment include:

  1. Be selective in the number of issues to be discerned – limit it to no more than one per meeting;
  2. Begin with corporate and private self-surrender. The goal is to reach a point of personal indifference as to which direction God chooses – each person only desires God’s direction;
  3. Gather information from many sources, including scripture;
  4. Agree on what the corporate prayer is in relation to this matter – what is the church board asking God to do in this decision;
  5. Seek consensus by clarifying what is good about each option until board members perceive what is “the weightier good.”

He suggests five stages in any discernment process:  rational stage (data gathering); communication stage (enabling all to understand); guiding principle stage (what is the issue); analytical stage (focus on options that only relate to the guiding principle); intuitive stage (coming to consensus) (95-96).

The next issue Olsen tackles is “Going Somewhere: The Practice of ‘Visioning the Future” (Chapter 6).   In his view “vision is connected to history and stories” (biblical and otherwise), “vision is connected to biblical-theological reflection” (a prophetic sense of what God is about), and “vision is connected to discernment” (discernment sees things as they are in the present; vision has eyes for the future) (104-106). For Olsen it is critical that vision is only implemented when it “is worn or embodied by the vision holder” (107).

The final section of his book is cast in the form of “an open letter to Board and Council Members.”  With considerable creativity Olsen tracks the various stages of participation in a church board that an individual experiences, from the initial request to consider such service, to ending well. This section responds to the data he gathered in surveying hundreds of church board members. He describes the decision to serve as “no longer a matter of convenience or choice. You will have made a covenant with God and the faith community. Be sure to count the cost, for there is a cost to be counted” (125).  Preparing to serve requires some awareness of the nature of spiritual leadership in contrast to natural leadership (130).  He defines such service as “a call to Scripture,..prayer,…fast,…generosity,…special graces,…destiny” (132-136), which form the spiritual disciplines that sustain such spiritual leadership. Of course, the orientation of new members to the policies and procedures of the board and its current issues remains a significant component.

The chapter suggesting good ways to assimilate into a church board recognizes that this transition can be very positive or very frustrating. Board leaders should not assume that new members “can fit right into the old scheme and begin to operate” (140). He describes various stages of the development of new board members: inclusion, elation, disillusionment, and commitment (145-152). His comments about the reality of disillusionment pinpoint a serious issue among new church board members. He references Bonhoeffer’s treatment of “disillusionment” in Life Together (particularly the first 22 pages). Disappointment inevitably happens in a board member’s service, but this has the potential to be a doorway into true community and true service in God’s grace as we replace our dreams with the vision God has for his church.

The metaphor of “Rowing the Boat” captures the work of the “active, established board members” (153). The key principles Olsen identifies include working together, working in confidence (i.e. trust in God), depending on the gifts and presence of the Spirit, identifying with people in friendship, engaging in a ministry of healing, announcing the Gospel, accepting and learning from failure, and living graciously with success (157-163). Using Christ’s metaphor of wolves and lambs, he urges church board members to adopt a lamb-like character which includes trust in the Shepherd, willingness to be vulnerable, determination to work in an honest, straightforward manner, being hospitable, and being peaceable.

He concludes with some reflections on how to finish well. He warns that at such points of transition people should be prepared to “adjust, grieve and discern what your next calling will be” (169). Exercise the spirit of forgiveness and be thankful. Ask for an exit interview with one or two elders in which you can share your observations and counsel. This is for the good of the board as well as for the good of the board member. It enables the church leadership to think with you about ongoing ministry involvement and helps the board member avoid the dropout syndrome.

In several appendices Olsen provides a sample meeting agenda, suggesting ways to incorporate worship into the agenda’ s flow; a tool to discern a board’s culture; and a tool to identify natural leadership.

I think Olsen by and large succeeds in his goal of enabling church boards to change their culture and become communities of spiritual leaders within their congregation. The steps he proposes, both on the part of individual board members, the board leadership, and the board as whole, if taken seriously and implemented will change perspectives and enable boards to transform their operations into sessions of worshipful work. However, this is all premised upon a well-developed partnership between pastor and board members.

He believes in the power of story, whether biblical, congregational, or personal, to change perspective and attitude when time is given to reflect carefully on them. The ability to set our stories in the context of the biblical traditions is transformative and hope-giving.  He places the emphasis in church board service where it needs to be – on the spiritual context in which it is occurring. Church board chairs will discover numerous innovations by which to embed more intentionally the board’s entire agenda in the context of sincere worship (Romans 12:1-2).

I am not sure Olsen helps a church board chair and lead pastor understand their relationship within congregational and board life. Perhaps the diversity of church polity that occurs within the congregations he works limits his ability to address this in a principled manner. Within churches adhering to congregational governance this relationship remains a critical issue. In pages 77-80 Olsen outlines various stances that pastoral leaders take within church board settings (stances that vary from meeting to meeting). These include visionary, gatekeeper, spiritual director, mentor, architect, liturgist,  politician, or officiant. I appreciated his encouragement to pastoral leaders to invest themselves in the church board because it “is a crucial arena for congregational renewal and revitalization” (76). However, where is the church board chair in this mix?

Some discussion in his presentation about various models of governance used in non-profit agencies and their relevance, if any, for assisting the worshipful work of a church board would also be helpful. It is one thing  to recognize the limitation that business and organizational models have for church leadership, but the reality is that most congregations are organized as non-profit entities. Such models can be seen as part of God’s natural revelation and thus have potential value. Church boards have to create some model of board governance that is consistent with their mission, vision, values and history. I think church board chairs struggle with this question as they seek to help church boards integrate spiritual values with the operational requirements.

Olsen also avoided some of the more challenging aspects of church board work – pastoral evaluation, employee failure, relationship  between governance and management, board assessment, and managing risk. I realize that his goal was to present a wholistic approach to church board ministry, but demonstrating the benefits of such an approach by showing how it helps a church board to handle specific challenges such as these would be helpful.

Some congregational traditions are not tilted towards formal liturgy. However, I think that the suggestions Olsen makes can be adapted to the worship ethos of most congregations. The bigger challenge for most congregational board members is to discern how their work with the board is “spiritual work” and to keep this connection strong and relevant. Apart from an introductory Bible reading and reflection, with some prayer at the beginning and end of the meeting, helping board members keep spiritual leadership in focus is a challenge. Perhaps as Olsen suggests, considering reports as rehearsals of the ways that God is working and giving thanks to Him for his continued activity in the congregation is one way. This might require such reports to be reshaped or at least include one story that specifically demonstrates how God is working within the congregation.  Also the idea that the board as a whole should discern what it should pray for, i.e. the desired outcome, as it wrestles with a key issue has some merit. Incorporating the phrase “worshipful work” into a church board chair’s vocabulary could be in important first step.

Lastly, I would observe that in many Evangelical congregations the emergence of the ministry staff team tends to overwhelm and upstage the role of the church board as spiritual leaders in the congregation. While we may give lip service to the idea that church board members should be spiritual leaders, rarely do they have opportunity to live this out in their congregational settings because the pastoral team is seen as the collective spiritual leadership in the congregation. The pastoral leadership does not know how to integrate the board in a meaningful way into the active spiritual leadership of the congregation. Until this changes church boards and church board chairs can work diligently to transform their approach to their work, but still not be able to fulfill their role as spiritual leaders within the congregation. Of course, such recognition must be earned by wise and trusted leadership and cannot be demanded.

84. The Challenge of “Friendship” for a Church Board Chair

Published by Dr. Larry Perkins on July 11, 2011 in Board, Board Chair, Board Governance, Board Member and Senior Pastor. Closed Tags: , .

In a recent column on “Governance and Sustainability” in the National Post (July 5,2011) Shaun Francis and John Kelleher reflect on lessons learned ten years after the collapse of Enron Corp. According to Shaun and Kelleher, one of the findings of the U.S. Senate subcommittee lead by  Sen. Carl Levin and expressed in the report “The Role of the Board of Directors in Enron’s Collapse” was that “chairs must see friendly relationships as a danger signal.” They summarize this situation in the Enron board this way: “There were few dissenting votes, few difficult conversations, and many directors with close personal relationships with management teams members.” In their view a board chair exercises some oversight of the internal board relationships and this requires “real distance and real tension.” Presumably the danger arises in corporate board rooms because board members fail to exercise their responsibilities and chairs do not create space in board operations for rigorous debate and overlook implicit and explicit conflicts of interest that arise because personal relationships are allowed to influence judgment.

Enron Corp. was a business and the way a board of directors operates in a business environment will be different from non-profit board operations. However, I think Frances and Kelleher have identified a key challenge with which  church board chairs in particular wrestle. Consider the values that spiritual leaders (usually those appointed as church board members) are expected to demonstrate: love, mutual submission, humility, compassion and peace-making. And mix into this the critical need for the church board to function well as a ministry team, with the lead pastor (and other some other pastoral staff present) involved and all engaged in “worshipful work.” Is it necessary, is it possible, is it even desirable for a church board to incorporate “real distance and real tension” into its dynamics in order to ensure that the board is doing is work well?  Or can a church board chair do his or her job well by encouraging deep spirituality within a board, even if “real distance and real tension” are not part of a church board’s ethos?

What’s are the valuable lessons that a church board chair should learn from this call for “real distance and real tension?”

First, we should affirm that the values and behaviours engendered in believers by the Holy Spirit are good and must be expressed, even within the ethos of a church board. If church board members have to deny the very values that mark them as believers in order to govern the church, then this mode of leadership has to be rejected as inherently sinful. However, I do not think church board members have to deny their life in Christ in order to serve with integrity, commitment to truth, and a clear sense of justice. Rather the presence of the Holy Spirit should be promoting the practice of integrity and urging believers to act justly because these characteristics are  inherent in God’s nature. It is not a question of being either loving and peace-making or acting with integrity and justice. No, all of these must find integration in the wisdom and empowerment of God’s Holy Spirit.

Second, church board members, and this includes the Lead Pastor, must work and minister together with a deep sense of respect for one another. Where true respect and humility are present, there one can engage in “fierce conversations” without rupturing relationships. The biblical mandate is “to speak the truth  in love” which indicates that we can in Christ speak the truth robustly within the framework of loving relationships. This is the challenge of our life in Christ. Within the life of the Christian community we do not try to safeguard objectivity by enforcing relational distance. No, we safeguard objectivity by pursuing transparent truth-telling that occurs within a context of deep care and concern for one another. It is because God loves us to deeply that he has told us the truth about our sinful condition.

Third, within Scripture we read continually about God’s intent to assess and evaluate the work of every human being. While we are not to respond judgmentally towards other believers, i.e. with a critical and harsh spirit, we are to required to test for truthfulness, to evaluate the “spirits,” to provoke one another unto godliness, etc. Christianity is not about niceness, but rather a sincere love that sacrificially gives itself for the good of the other and often this kind of love requires truth-telling in order to avoid the sin of hypocrisy.

Fourth, Christians are human beings and we desire the affection and regard of others. And so we often engage in avoidance mechanisms in order to safeguard affections and not risk the loss of place in the community. The same dangers lurk within a church board with the result that keen discussion and rigorous debate fail to materialize, i.e. there is no “real tension.” The agape love that characterizes believers does not promote avoidance, but rather the “admonishing” and encouragement to holiness that generates faithful life in Christ. 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 defines how this Christian vision of love enables personal honesty and sustains healthy relationships in a context of frank and trusted discourse.

How can a church board chair encourage a deep spirituality within board relationships and operations, while promoting and protecting the need for honest, forthright discussion? I think one way forward is to affirm that true spirituality will require, indeed necessitate, truth telling. When discussion briefs are presented, the ideas they propose have to be evaluated rigorously. The health of the congregation and the advancement of its mission require it. However, at the same time, the chair must assure those presenting the discussion brief that rigorous debate does not demonstrate disrespect for anyone, but is in fact the fundamental means by which the church board shows it regard for the ideas. They care enough to engage the ideas carefully and thoroughly. Individuals who are part of the pastoral staff must learn and come to value the fact that not every proposal they bring to the church board will be accepted. Rubber-stamping every proposal will generate hypocrisy and deception.

Secondly, the chair needs to be rehearsing within the board that voting no or asking tough questions is not a rejection of a person or an attack upon their ministry. Church board members need to be reminded, as do pastoral staff and volunteer leaders, that their function is to exercise careful discernment about the major issues facing the congregation and sometimes this will require tough choices. Voting no is not an assessment of the person presenting the idea and may not even be a statement that the idea lacks merit. Rather, it may be saying that as good as the idea may be, it will not serve to advance the congregation’s mission. Or it may be an issue of timing and resources, given current priorities. The chair needs to help the board discern what “no” means.

Thirdly, tensions do arise among church board members as discussions proceed. A chair should regard this a normal. However, such tensions need to be tempered through periods of prayer and worship. Paul’s admonition that the “sun should not go down upon our wrath” also applies to board members and their relationships. Have vigorous, respectful debate, but at the end of the meeting affirm your mutual love and care for one another in Christ. Keep the tone civil and keep the discussion focused.

83. “Respect” — The Golden Rule in Church Board Relationships

Published by Dr. Larry Perkins on July 4, 2011 in Board, Board Chair, Board Governance, Board Member and Senior Pastor. Closed Tags: , .

In numerous publications dedicated to helping non-profit boards do their work effectively the writers often mention the importance of mutual respect among the board members as a critical element. As well, respect, along with trust, oils the relationship between the board and the CEO. In addition there has to be respect for the “institutions” of governance that the agency has created to sustain and advance its ends. But what is respect and why is it so important, particularly in church board work?

Respect includes the concepts of esteem, deference, and showing high regard for someone or something. In the New Testament believers are commanded “to honour everyone” (1 Peter 2:17), as well as “to submit to one another in the fear of the Lord” (Ephesians 5:21), i.e. show deference to one another. This respect demonstrates itself in the practice of agape-love, a love that sacrifices itself for the good of the other out of love for God and for neighbour. The command to love God includes respecting and honouring Him for all He is worth. We also read of commands to respect and honour those who exercise spiritual leadership within the congregation.

In a recent article (75. “Thinking Institutionally”) I commented on Hugo Heclo’s plea for a fresh appreciation for the importance of institutions to the “humanity” of our culture. Within the context of the church similarly, I believe, the day has come for us to renew our respect for, our esteem of, the governance processes that sustain our faith communities. I am not calling for a mindless acceptance of institution for the sake of institution or a thoughtless compliance with authority. What I am urging is that board members and pastoral leaders, as well as members of the congregation, respect the ministry teams that seek to govern and lead the congregation, i.e. church boards and ministry staff.

Respect and esteem does not mean immunity from change or revision. If as board members we respect the institution of the church board and what it seeks to accomplish on behalf of the congregation, then we will press to make that board work as effectively as possible — and this will mean change and revision to board policy and process continually.  Respect is not passive, but active, demonstrating its regard for the potential that a church board has to nurture and enhance congregational health. Respect induces self-control so that my personal conduct will enable the board in its work, and not hinder it. Respect means that I will listen carefully to what other board members say because the Spirit will be speaking through them and giving wisdom to the board in their comments. Respect means that I will take each decision seriously and not merely raise my hand in a rote manner. Respect means that I will invest the time to prepare well for each board meeting, giving myself to prayer and careful reflection about the issues at hand. Respect means that when I believe the recommended motion is not the right direction to take, I will have the courage to express my views wisely and collegially.

A church board chair exercises considerable leadership in modelling and encouraging respect for the ministry of the board and its significant place in congregational governance. The disciplined efforts of the chair to develop and circulate agendas in advance, to encourage and promote good decision-making, to build the relational dimensions within the board, all develop respect for the board and its work. When respect leaves the room, then the chair should call the board or board member to account because of the importance of the board’s work. This does not mean eliminating humour or working with an ethos of grim discipline. Joy and exuberance can be quite compatible with respect. Knowing the boundaries and when to call the board back to a more serious mindset belongs to the art of good chairing.

I think as well that the attitude of the lead pastor to the board is an important factor in building congregational respect for the board. Sometimes a lead pastor or others on the pastoral staff will see the church board as an obstacle to achieving their vision or as a power group in the congregation that only serves to restrict his or her abilities. Such attitudes will be expressed verbally or non-verbally and when perceived become very damaging to the relational realities of congregational life. Pastoral respect for a church board should result in wise work with the board chair to build the capacity of the board and enhance its governance leadership within the congregation. This does not mean that the church board “rubber stamps” every idea the lead pastor presents, but it does mean that the board will give these ideas a robust, prayerful and careful review so that the lead pastor knows the respect the board has for his ministry leadership. Respect begets respect.

Conversely, church board members must respect the ministry leadership of the lead pastor. If questions arise about the capacity of this individual to fulfill the responsibilities defined in the position description, this is something for the personnel committee of the board to discuss with the person. If they determine together that there is an issue to be addressed, then recommendation should be made to the church board. This could include special training, coaching, hiring additional staff, etc. Respect for the lead pastor means that issues are addressed transparently and with a desire for the good of the individual.

A church board should always be cultivating the respect of the congregation for its work. When respect is present then trust and credibility usually are its companions. Sometimes church boards think they should never admit to the congregation that in hindsight their decision about a certain matter was misguided and they are reversing their direction or changing it substantially. The congregation normally will respect a board that has the humility in its leadership role to recognize an error and act expeditiously to introduce remedy. Church boards and its members are not infallible. Good listening to congregational concerns and serious consideration of workable responses also builds respect. I would suggest as well that transparency and effective communications contribute substantially to congregational respect.

Romans 12:10b could be translated “showing leadership to one another in honour,” i.e. lead the way in honouring one another! This applies to church board members, pastoral leadership and Christians in the congregation. A strong indicator of church health will be respect among the leaders for one another and respect withing the congregation for its leaders. But remember, respect has to be earned constantly and cannot be demanded.