Monthly Archive for October, 2011

99. Emotional and Spiritual Intelligence: Capacity for Board Leadership

Published by Dr. Larry Perkins on October 31, 2011 in Board, Board Chair, Board Governance, Board Member and Senior Pastor. Closed Tags: , , .

Congregations usually appoint people to serve on church boards because in their view these individuals are spiritually mature and have demonstrated spiritual leadership. These qualifications fit well with Paul’s list found in 1 Timothy 3. There is also an expectation that emotional maturity will accompany spiritual maturity. In the operational life of a church board this maturity should find constant expression in the interactions, the discernment, and the self-care of the respective members. The chairperson in particular in most respects needs to embody and exemplify this maturity, even as we acknowledge that no one is perfect.

Spiritual and emotional maturity both depend upon and demonstrate spiritual and emotional intelligence. Spiritual intelligence in the Christian context describes the ability of a person to think and make decisions in alignment with God’s values and purposes expressed in Scripture and enabled by the Holy Spirit. Emotional intelligence within the Christian context is the Holy Spirit assisted capacity to discern, evaluate and control your own emotions as well as those of others, individually and in groups, in a manner that advances the Kingdom.  Spiritual intelligence should enable emotional intelligence capacity. When a believer is operating within a situation using spiritual and emotional intelligence appropriately, relationships, decisions, modes of operation, should evidence Christian values with clear attention paid to God’s mission in the world.

Of course, Evangelical Christians usually acknowledge another spiritual personality, Satan, who seeks to impair both spiritual and emotional intelligence capacity within human beings, so that these become destructive of self and others, and thwart God’s agenda. The New Testament describes this as blindness, arrogance, and hardness of heart. Mature spiritual intelligence within a believer will recognize these threats and not be naive in regards to their potency.

What relevance do these ideas have for the person chairing a church board? Let me suggest a few applications.

1. How chairpersons conduct themselves in their role influences the tone of board meetings and affects the ability of the board members to do their job well. People are quick to sense verbal and non-verbal cues that signal emotional upset. Shifts in spiritual attitude are a little more difficult to discern, but are no less influential. I am not suggesting that chairpersons should be unemotional or always spiritually effervescent, but rather as facilitators of the board’s “life together”  they lead by expressing a sense of deep faith and confidence in God and emotional stability in the face of significant challenges or surprises (e.g. a board member who fails to fulfill expected responsibilities). If the leader “loses it,” then the team becomes dysfunctional. I would not underestimate the difficulty of sustaining spiritual and emotional poise in the midst of “fierce conversations,” or when patience wears thin, or when you experience disappointment at the behaviour of a board member. If you do “lose it,” the only way back is through contrite apology and a commitment to rely upon the Holy Spirit so as not to fail in this way again. However, credibility once lost, is incredibly difficult to rebuild.

2. More often than not the chairperson will need either to discern potential direction in the comments of specific board members or to distill it from the multitude of voices participating in a debate. This requires both spiritual and emotional intelligence. We do not know through whom the Holy Spirit may choose to communicate the wisest direction or option. Sometimes the entire board seems to be at odds and ends and you may discern that a ten minute “prayer break” will enable the board members to regain necessary focus. Spiritual intelligence is alive to the Holy Spirit’s direction and responsive. It is also aware of Satan’s devious and destructive ways. When is the board finished with discussion and ready to make a decision? Where discussion ends with some indecision, it is the chairperson who needs to help the board find its way forward. Spiritual and emotional intelligence are important capacities in such times.

3. Instilling faith-based confidence in a board will require the chairperson occasionally to express such confidence personally.This will not be easy to do when the issues are significant and threats are compounding. Fear can drive out every ounce of spiritual and emotional intelligence very quickly. Remember the disciples’ response to the storm on the sea of Galilee in Mark 4:35-40. However, the chair’s spiritual preparation for each board meeting will be an important factor in leading with confident faith. This is particularly important at times when congregational life and vision seem especially vulnerable, e.g. pastoral transition, major conflict, financial exigency, moral failure, etc. While not the only one who carries such spiritual responsibility, the chair can become an important “anchor” for the board in the midst of the tumult. But this requires you to lead with spiritual and emotional intelligence.

4. Self-care as a board chair requires you to build your capacity for exercising spiritual and emotional intelligence. The weight of the chair’s role can be quite significant. Constant prayer, strong perseverance, confidence in God’s provision and wisdom, discernment, a teachable spirit — are all important components of spiritual intelligence. Cultivating the fruit of the Spirit generates emotional intelligence — peace, self-control, patience, joy, etc.

As he concludes his first epistle Peter urges the spiritual leaders of the churches he is addressing to “shepherd the flock of God” with a willing and eager spirit and to exercise that leadership by example, not coercion. He then tells them that in the midst of the most difficult circumstances they must “humble themselves under God’s might hand…casting every care you have upon him, because he cares for you” (5:1-4, 6-7). In this he demonstrates how spiritual and emotional intelligence work to enable us to be fruitful servants of God in the role of church board chair.

98. The Church Board Chair and the Interim/Transitional Pastor — Charting New Territory

Published by Dr. Larry Perkins on October 24, 2011 in Board, Board Chair, Board Governance, Board Member and Senior Pastor. Closed Tags: .

Many different circumstances can contribute to pastoral change. Sometimes the process of pastoral transition goes smoothly by God’s grace and the congregation senses God’s hand in every dimension. In other cases the transition unfortunately can be traumatic, both for the pastor and the congregation. Whether the pastoral change is unexpected or well-planned with careful foresight, the church board (in consultation with staff and congregational leaders) may be advised to consider appointing a short-term, transitional pastoral leader. A board chair is always involved in discerning congregational direction in these matters. What factors might lead a chairperson to regard a two-step process (i.e. transitional pastor followed by permanent appointment) as most helpful for the church? How does a church board chair work with a transitional pastor? What limitations should a church board impose upon such a position?

Several scenarios might suggest to a board chair that a transitional leadership appointment might be the best option. If the current lead pastor’s tenure has ended abruptly, with little opportunity to prepare for the transition, then a transitional leader could give the congregation and its leadership time to initiate a proper succession plan and search. The cause of the sudden change could be health, moral failure, unexpected resignation, etc. Perhaps the current pastor has served well for a decade or more, but before the next lead pastor is appointed, the church board feels it is time to rethink the congregation’s vision and reformulate the lead pastor position description and qualifications to suit the revised vision. However, it will take 12 months at least to accomplish this work. A transitional appointment can bring stability and also an independent voice into the process. Even if a good succession plan is in place and the transition is following a normal process, the congregation probably needs twelve to eighteen months to prepare themselves for new pastoral leadership and a transitional appointment can enable the congregation to move forward with its vision.

As board chair one of your responsibilities will be to help the church board assess its options and discern which one is best for the congregation. This will require the board members to have good information about the options, with some evaluation of which might be most suitable at this time. Some factors that will affect this might be estimated costs, availability of the right transitional leader, stability of the ministry staff, and specific issues facing the congregation. Another educational option would be invite the board chair of another church that has recently experienced such a transition to come and share his or her wisdom with the board members. Local denominational leaders will also be helpful resources in such situations.

Perhaps the most critical issue in developing a transitional pastoral position will be the degree of innovation and change the board wishes or will permit during the appointment. In some cases change will be the priority; in others the amount of change desirable and helpful may be much more restricted.

Once the board has discerned the best way forward, it may be required by the church’s bylaws to receive congregational support. Here again your role as church board chair will be important as you share with the congregation the board’s rationale for the recommendation it is making. Prepare well for such congregational discussions, seeking to anticipate questions and providing good answers in the decision profile. You may need to clarify how the transitional pastoral leader will be selected. It is probably wise to secure congregational support to authorize the board to make such interim decisions.

It is quite probable that the salary, benefits, and travel costs associated with a transitional pastor may be more than that budgeted for a regular appointment. The temporary nature of the appointment does bring unique expenses.

Develop a clear position description. If you expect the person to bring healing to the congregation, deal with expressions of grief, lead in recasting of vision, or some other specific pastoral function, then be explicit in the position description. Usually this person will oversee the preaching and worship ministry, lead the staff, and ensure good planning for the normal ministry functions and events that occur in the period of the appointment. Be explicit about how you expect this position to interact with the church board and the chairperson. Whether this will be a part-time or full-time position will depend on different factors.

Look for a transitional pastor who has experience in this role, demonstrates good problem-solving skills, possesses highly developed conflict management competence, and knows how to listen well.

How does a board chair work with a transitional pastor? It is probable that neither individual will know the other prior to this appointment, so it will take time to develop an effective working relationship and mutual trust. It would be wise initially to have limited expectations as to the depth of the relationship that may develop. Remember — the appointment is short-term. Determine to be gracious and respectful, seeking to help each other to succeed in the respective leadership roles at a time when the congregation really needs wise oversight. The chair will probably need to meet more often with a transitional pastor, at least initially, in order to help him understand the congregational ethos, the history of specific issues, and the priorities that need to be addressed.

Although the new appointee may have received good reports that orient him well to the context, inevitably there will be gaps and nuances these documents cannot express, but which the transitional pastor will have to grasp lest he create significant problems. In particular your wisdom about the operational life of the board will be a critical element. It would be important to help the transitional pastor understand the governance model the board follows and the expectations the board will have in terms of reports, recommendations, and other operational issues. If the board has mandated the transitional pastor to assist the congregation in re-framing its vision, then it is vital that the board and transitional agree on the process to be followed in developing this new vision. It will also be important to define the relationship of the transitional pastor to the board in terms of voting privileges. Be clear that the transitional appointee will not be considered for the role of lead pastor.

One of the ways a board chair can assist a transitional pastor would be to prepare an orientation package, perhaps similar to that used to orient new church board members. This set of documents will also be useful to assist the next lead pastor appointee. This could include a brief history of the congregation, a short biography of each board person and their history with and ministry in the church. Include a concise analysis of the key issues that the board has been dealing with during the previous twelve months. If your congregation has several ministry staff, ask the senior person among the staff to prepare a similar report relating to the staff and their ministry issues.

Consider carefully how you will assist the transitional pastor to finish well. In other words, how will you manage the hand-off between the transitional pastor and the new lead pastor? How will you say thank you? Perhaps you might also ask the transitional pastor to draft a concluding report that may identity organizational pathologies, including some recommendations that may lead to healthier relationships and organizational life within the congregation. The transitional pastor can be a wonderful consultant in this regard, bringing a set of fresh eyes to the congregation’s life and context.

 

 

97. Innovation as a Spiritual Discipline for Boards

Published by Dr. Larry Perkins on October 17, 2011 in Board, Board Chair, Board Governance, Board Member and Senior Pastor. Closed Tags: .

In articles # 94 and # 95 I have proposed that the concept of “spiritual discipline” applies to church boards and is broader than prayer, fasting, Bible study, and confession. It also includes intentional collaboration and consistent assessment. These are spiritual responsibilities and activities that church boards need to embrace if they are to steward the trust for good governance that congregations place in them and advance the mission. In this article I would add a third to this list — the spiritual discipline of innovation.

In the book of Acts the Holy Spirit continually drives the early Christian church to embrace innovation. The most significant of these is the full inclusion of Gentile converts within the Messianic movement. However, we know from stories such as Philip’s experience in Samaria (Acts 8) and Peter’s rooftop vision (Acts 10) that these innovations created significant challenges for God’s people. Yet, these early Christian leaders discerned that obedience to the new things God was doing was part of their discipleship. They could not follow Jesus and remain tied to traditions that no longer had any merit. They had to learn to see things through God’s eyes, feel things through God’s heart and value things based on God’s perception. The spiritual discipline of innovation requires Christian leaders to be open to the new opportunities that God may be gestating in the church or the community. Getting in step with God and keeping in step requires spiritual discipline. This is the spiritual discipline of seeing the world through God’s eyes.

We discover the first “board-like” group in the church, i.e. the apostles, wrestling with necessary innovation in Acts 6. Current practices for caring for the needs of widows in the church were not sufficient. A new paradigm was needed and the Holy Spirit enabled them to discern the necessary innovation and lead the church in unity to embrace it.

The spiritual discipline of innovation requires board members to believe that God is working and there is no place off-limits to his sovereign, innovative capacities and desires. This means that church board members need to be open to God-inspired innovation arising from any direction.People today speak of an event or experience as a “God-thing,” i.e. something only God could engineer and accomplish. So too church board members will have hearts attuned to discern when and where God is acting and align themselves with this.

But church board members must be wise enough to discern whether such innovation is from God or a satanic delusion. Not  every change is good or has a divine impulse. In Acts we read how Paul desired to take his mission into Bithynia, but the Holy Spirit prevented him. Presumably Paul’s desire did not arise from the right source. Sometimes theological innovation is destructive and heretical, not beneficial. John, the apostle, warned Christians to test the spirits to make sure they were being led in a godly manner.

Discerning whether a possible innovation is timely, missional, and God-sourced often leads to passionate conflict among Christian leaders. How does a chairperson help a board when it is in throes of discerning whether a proposed change in ministry or church practice should be embraced? A number of years ago church leaders were wrestling with the innovation of ‘seeker-sensitive’ church services. Debates within leadership circles were intense. I would suggest that a chairperson might assist a board in such discernment by:

1. helping them locate biblical stories that might parallel the contemporary situation and seek guidance from God’s previous work with his people;

2. take time to develop consensus. When momentous issues are under discussion, do not feel pressured to move quickly. Take time for prayer, careful reflection, gathering of good information, listening to diverse perspectives;

3. communicate often, as fully as possible, and then listen well.

Although consensus may be impossible to achieve, if people know they have been heard and their concerns prayerfully and respectfully considered, that does mean something in the end.

Another perspective on innovation that a board chair might use to help a board come to terms with change is the concept of “missional space.” Earl Creps in his book Off-Road Disciplines describes the boundaries of missional space as “heart dimension,” “venue dimension,” and “Spirit dimension” (145). Although he applies this concept primarily to evangelism, I think it has application to a board’s evaluation of any innovation. If people’s hearts are hard and defensive towards God’s plans, then the missional space will be very small and distorted. If we limit innovation to certain spaces, thinking God is not interested in or capable of acting in a certain context, then missional space again will be contrived and contorted. “Love needs an address!” (148)  We know that nothing godly happens in the church without the Spirit’s involvement. When we quench the Spirit, we shrink missional space to microcosmic proportions. Spirit-motivated innovation requires faith, boldness, and reliance upon God.

Part of this spiritual discipline will require a strong commitment on the part of church board members to educate themselves about their church, their community, and their opportunities and challenges. The chairperson exercises some influence in this. Conversations with the lead pastor, conversations with discerning believers in the congregation, coffee discussions one-on-one with board members, prayerful openness to the Spirit’s direction — all of these become windows through which to sense places where the vision and ministry of the congregation might engage innovative ideas. The annual board retreat can be a significant time for a church board to consider in prayer what new directions, new steps of faith, God may be asking the congregation to embrace. Board members need to embrace them personally and passionately first, if they expect the congregation to follow.

Through the prophet Isaiah Yahweh tells Israel “See, the former things have taken place [e.g. judgment and exile] and new things I declare [e.g. return and restoration]; before they spring into being, I announce them to you” (42:9). What “new things” will God be declaring through his Holy Spirit to your church board? What voice will He use to share this insight? What crisis might be necessary in order for church leaders to be ready to listen? Who will be willing to carry the burden of leadership in order to champion godly innovation? Somewhere in this mix the board chair must exercise careful leadership.

The pace and degree of innovation that a church board can manage will depend to a considerable degree upon the giftedness, faith commitment, discernment, and leadership ability of the board chair. Every chairperson will bring a different set of competence and spiritual understanding to this significant task. It will emerge from an understanding of the church’s mission, values and vision, as well as a holy dissatisfaction with the status quo. It will  proceed with deep dependence upon the belief that God desires his church to flourish, even in the difficult places. Your personal passion for the mission of this particular congregation will energize you. But even with all of this it will be your partnership with the lead pastor and your mutual commitment before God to advance the mission which will be the most critical factor.

96. The Church Board Chair and Lead Pastor Relationship # 4: A Recent Publication

Published by Dr. Larry Perkins on October 10, 2011 in Board, Board Chair, Board Governance, Board Member and Senior Pastor. Closed Tags: .

Recently on the website of Odgers Berndtson, Michael Naufal published a short, but helpful article entitled “The Chair-CEO Relationship: 10 Commitments for a Better Partnership.” These principles have application to the chair-lead pastor relationship in a local church. I have addressed some of these issues in previous articles (27. Church Board Chairs and Lead Pastors — Understanding this Relationship; 41. Church Board Chairs and the Relationship with the Lead Pastor #2; 43. The Church Board Chair and Pastor Relationship # 3 — The Unique Setting of the Small Church (less than 100 members)). However, Naufal identifies several additional issues that board chairs should consider as they seek to negotiate and tend their relationship with the lead pastor.

To summarize briefly, Naufal encourages chairs and CEO’s to pay attention to ten principles:

1. Keep everyone focused on the organization’s mission.

2. Clearly define and respect each other’s role.

3. Avoid territorial behaviour.

4. Add ‘innovative’ value.

5. Help to make the board stronger.

6. Develop a positive dynamic between staff and the board.

7. Make communication a priority.

8. Maintain a united front.

9. Protect and support one another.

10. Keep passions and emotions in check.

Each of these principles has application in the work of a church board chairperson, but need to be nuanced primarily because of the relational dynamics specific to congregational life. The spiritual ethos within which the respective roles of the chairperson and lead pastor operate influences and shapes this relationship. However, a chairperson should not be so naive as to think that this spiritual ethos eliminates all difficulties. The human condition of both pastor and chair do affect things, despite our best efforts and intentions. Personalities and professional differences complicate the relationship.

Naufal notes that “the most successful Chair-CEO relationships are built on partnership and a base of shared objectives, or commitments.” I think this statement, while true, is often difficult to implement within the church board chair and lead pastor relationship. The reason, I think, is because the professional mindset of many pastors (I hope I am not being unduly critical) identifies them as the primary spiritual and organizational leader within the congregation and this makes it difficult for them to perceive the board chair as a partner or peer in the fundamental leadership of the congregation. I think this is a source of frequent frustration on the part of board chairs. Conversely, most board chairs are lay people who have informal theological training, but little formal education in terms of church leadership and so they feel inherently a need to defer to the lead pastor’s wisdom.

Naufal also urges that the mutual commitments necessary for the chair-CEO relationship to work well be put in writing or a memo of understanding. I think that is wise advice. The relational ethos of congregational life leads people to assume too much about common understandings and then discover they were quite mistaken. Have a conversation with your lead pastor and seek to discern together your approach to some of these key issues and then formulate them in a memo of understanding. This will help to keep the relationship alive and well.

Two other observations. First, the issue of “territorial behaviour” does operate in some church settings. This is why Carver pays so much attention to developing policies that define the limits of the CEO’s authority. It is the board that defines the role of the lead pastor and the limits of his authority. The board does the same for the chair person. However, within a local church setting it is often hard for the people filling these roles to discipline themselves and adhere the board-established limitations. I think one way to overcome this problem is for the chair and lead pastor to agree that each has the privilege of advising the other in their respective areas of authority, but each agrees that at the end of the day the person who bears the responsibility also has the right to make the decision.Territorial behaviour would include any attempt by the chair to attempt to speak for the board when not authorized to do so and try to direct the lead pastor. Territorial behaviour would include any attempt by the lead pastor to bypass the board in terms of policy matters or other key decisions or refusal to be involved in performance evaluation.

Second, the importance of building the capacity of the board needs to be recognized by both leaders as critical to the health and development of the congregation. The board guards the mission and tends the congregation’s story. It is the strategic leadership body of the church and the stronger its capacity becomes, the better it is able to provide that direction. The board represents a significant body of spiritual maturity within the congregation and its wisdom should carry significant weight in discerning the vision and evaluating various options. The board carries the responsibility to manage risk for the congregation and so needs to be assessing what is happening and building in appropriate protections. I think sometimes lead pastors regard this perspective as counter-intuitive. For them the board is seen as a blockage, a hindrance, a necessary evil, something to “manage” lest it exercise too much power. Of course, there are situations where boards run amuk and need to be restrained. However, by and large church boards provide the most significant resource, apart from God himself, that the lead pastor has to fulfill his mandate.

I think I would add two principles to Naufal’s list. One is that both leaders need to have a commitment to sustaining board discipline. By “discipline” I mean the way the board operates, the participation of each member, the educational development of the board, and the assessment of the board.  There should be respect for bylaws and policy and where they are deficient a commitment to improving them by proper means. Factual reporting with careful analysis should be expected. Good process can be a wonderful handmaid to good decisions and great relations. If the board chair is seeking to keep the board’s work at a high level of  effectiveness, but the lead pastor does not really regard the work of the board as very important, then sooner or later serious conflict and frustration will develop.

The second additional principle would be agreement on the need for and mutual commitment to succession plans for the chair and CEO positions. Within churches succession planning has its own peculiar dynamics. On the one hand, the board will usually have some process for guiding the succession from one pastor to another. Often this is outlined in the bylaws. However, while the process is somewhat clear, the discussions within the board that enable good succession to occur usually do not begin until the pastor has submitted his resignation. There is a sense that if the lead pastor lets his intentions known too soon, that it will prevent a good conclusion from occurring. Yet, the more lead time the board has to plan for orderly and prayer-filled succession, the better it is for the congregation, for the lead pastor and for the board chair. On the other hand, few church boards have any succession plan in place for the board chair. Often this person’s role concludes with the conclusion of his or her term as a board member. Perhaps at the board meeting prior to this the board realizes that it needs to appoint a new chair and it is done in haste and with little forethought. This position is too important to the health of the congregation and the good operation of the board to be appointed in such a fashion.

 

95. Collaboration as a Spiritual Discipline for the Board

Published by Dr. Larry Perkins on October 3, 2011 in Board, Board Chair, Board Governance and Board Member. Closed Tags: , .

Christians working together in ministry teams have the opportunity and responsibility to experience and express spiritual disciplines collectively. If we think of a spiritual discipline as essentially attention paid to the instructions of Jesus such that we follow him obediently and take seriously our relationship with him, then all aspects of our lives can be perceived as a cluster of spiritual disciplines as we live with deliberate “consciousness of God.”

In the New Testament the principle of agapē, i.e. personal sacrifice for the good of the other, as well as the reality that believers together form the family of God in Christ and the temple of the Holy Spirit, requires us to nurture a collaborative spirit, a Spirit-inspired interdependence, as one of our most significant spiritual disciplines. In other words as a believer I have an obligation in Christ to be a peace-maker, “to please [my] neighbour for his good, to build him up” (Romans 15:2). Paul appeals in prayer that God would give the Roman believers “a spirit of unity among ourselves as you follow Jesus Christ” (Romans 15:5). I presume the Holy Spirit intended believers in the 21st century to take Paul’s words seriously. Following Jesus requires me to tend to relationships with Christians and non-Christians, seeking to work in collaboration to achieve the mission Christ gave to his church. This applies to church board members.

A church board functions as a living laboratory for expressing and testing the nature of Christian collaboration and interdependence in the body of Christ. Such harmony thrives on humility, a desire to learn, and a deep sense that Jesus lives in and expresses himself through his disciples. The Holy Spirit generates this collaboration as his fruit (Galatians 5:22-23). It is our response to the prayer of Jesus in John 17:21 — “that they may all be one.” Pursuing this goal defined by Jesus requires a deliberate state of mind and attitude of heart. And Jesus gives us the ultimate motivation — “to let the world know that you sent me” (John 17:23). There is as Paul declared “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Ephesians 4:5).

What are some of the polarities within congregations that threaten collaboration at the board level? One would be the tension between preservation (or traditional practices) and innovation. Discussions about worship practices would be a classic example. Another would be the conflict between presumptuous faith and prudent caution. This kind of polarity often emerges in discussions about budgets or decisions about undertaking major building projects. Then there is the common debate between maintaining congregational autonomy and becoming more interdependent with other churches in kingdom work. In this case it frequently finds expression in local church and denominational relations. And then there is the tug-of-war between theological purity and contextualization. As congregations become more multicultural it becomes a challenge to discern what is essential to Gospel obedience and what is merely tradition or cultural convention.

Some of these polarities arise because of generational differences, or modern vs. postmodern perspectives, or theological divergence. People listen to and regard as authoritative different pastors or writers or scholars and adhere tend to champion their divergent views. Often the debates swirl around the merits of diverse methods.

A board chair has to help the board recognize these differences, discern their merits, learn to listen respectfully, and remind the board members that their work as part of the body of Christ requires the spiritual discipline of collaboration, interdependence and harmony. The chair also needs to be reminded that dissimilar views do not equate with the category “enemy.” Rather the chair seeks to discern and affirm commonality in the midst of sincere differences. However a crucial element in this discernment is enabling board members through discussion to establish the relative importance of such diverse viewpoints.

The nurturing of unity does not require uniformity, but it does require repentance and respect for and commitment to one another as Jesus’ disciples. It can only be built upon mutual understanding. Lasting collaboration and relational harmony is founded upon collective agreement about primary gospel truth (usually expressed in a statement of faith), passionate embrace of the local church’s mission, and humble acceptance that we only see part of the picture.

Negotiating differences of opinion is the stuff of collaboration and proceeds in the light of a commitment to a greater good and glory defined by God. A board chair arbitrates and facilitates this exchange so that the board members can discern together with unity of spirit the best way forward and be willing to support it despite personal opinions. The spiritual discipline of collaboration enables the board to speak with one voice.

When a board members no longer believe that they can support the direction being taken by the board because in their view it violates the mission or some ethical or legal principle, then resignation becomes the appropriate response. However, resignation in such cases should be the act of last resort after the board member has exhausted all possible avenues that would enable unity and collaboration to continue. It should not seen as an easy escape hatch or a simple way to avoid the hard work required to “keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” When the going gets tough, significant spiritual energy must be expended to sustain the deep collaboration that board work requires.

The spiritual discipline of collaboration flourishes as board members learn to pray for one another and the collective ministry of the congregation.  Church board members covenant together in Christ to find the best way to advance the church’s mission, to control personal desires and pet projects for the good of the whole, and to work together in faith that the Spirit’s goal of love, joy and peace can be achieved. This is part of the spiritual battle in which church board members engage, realizing that Satan’s agenda is strife, disunity, and enmity within the church body. If he succeeds in generating disharmony within a church board, it will not be long before that disharmony surfaces in the interactions of the congregation.