Jake had served on the board of First Baptist Church for twenty years. Even though he was 67 years old, he still enjoyed the stimulus that the board meetings provided. He loved his church. At this point the seven other members of the church board were relative new comers, none serving for more than ten years. They all kidded Jake and called him the “old man of the board.” He didn’t mind.

Changes were happening in the church. In the last five years new growth was occurring because a large housing development was emerging near the church and the township was forecasting up to 10,000 new people would be moving into that area in the next few years. But of course growth brings change. Jake was excited about this. He had known the lean years of slow growth and even decline and the hardships it brought to the congregation.

The annual board retreat was happening in the next few days and the agenda held promise of vigorous and visionary discussion. Jake was praying that God would guide the new board chair to lead the meetings well. He anticipated that his wisdom would be needed from time to time to keep things in good alignment. One of the proposals was to add a second morning service to cope with the congregational growth.

Twelve years previous the church had experienced a similar growth spurt. Jake remembered that the board recommended that a second service be planned and implemented. It was done, but instead of generating more momentum and growth, the opposite occurred. Attendance began dropping and discontent with the congregation swelled. Finally the board decided to return to the single service format. The crisis passed. As a result of that experience that board passed a new policy. If God were to bless the church with similar growth in the future, then the board was committed to planting a new congregation rather than starting a second service. Jake remembered that policy motion. He assumed others would know it as well and this agenda raised a bit of concern for him.

It was late Saturday morning and the church board retreat was progressing well. The chair felt everybody was working well together and it looked like the next agenda item — the proposal to initiate a second service — could be dealt with in the thirty minutes before lunch. The lead pastor who had just completed his seventh year of ministry with the church introduced the proposal, explained why a second service seemed to be the wisest course to follow and offered solid plans to deal with the logistical issues its implementation would create. Several other board members spoke in favour and within ten minutes the recommendation had been moved and seconded. Jake was not sure what to do. Did a policy motion passed by this church board twelve years ago have any relevance? Should it just be ignored and forgotten? But Jake felt he had a duty to raise the issue and so he spoke up.

The other board members could hardly believe what they were hearing. No one had ever heard of this policy motion before. The board secretary was not even sure whether minutes of those board meetings still survived! The only evidence available at the board retreat was Jake’s memory. Soon the rationalizations began. Some thought that a board policy motion made so many years ago was not binding on the present board. Others questioned whether in fact such a policy motion existed and wanted to press ahead. The lead pastor wondered out loud whether Jake was just being obstructionist because he did not agree with a second service.

The retreat hostess just then announced that lunch was ready to be served. So the chair called a recess and ask the pastor to offer a prayer of thanks for the meal. The chair was not all sure what he was going to suggest as a direction when the board convened after lunch.

**************

What guidance do you thing the chairperson might provide to the board at this point?

1.  Given that the content of the current motion did not require immediate implementation, the chairperson could recommend to the board that the motion be tabled until the secretary and chair had opportunity to do some research. They would seek to locate the board minutes from the board meeting twelve years ago and discern whether in fact the board had made such a policy motion. However, because this would be a board policy, the present board would have the authority to change the policy, should they so choose. Now if the board knew that a significant number of people in the congregation would remember this prior situation, then they would be wise to communicate with the congregation their decision and the rationale for the decision at the next congregational meeting to make sure all understood the direction being taken. This would be information for the congregation, not a matter of seeking their approval.

2. This case study indicates why it is important that board records be preserved, particularly the motions made by the board. These documents represent the decisions of the board and are the only official voice of the board. It is wise practice for policy motions to be collected together so that the board and its leaders have ready access to the policy decisions that the board has made. Given the ease with which such collections can be made using Excell or other computer programs, it is just a matter of discipline to ensure that this is done. Perhaps this situation served as a wake up call to the chairperson to make sure that the board’s records were in good order.

3. How do church board chairpersons (and lead pastors) inform and educate themselves as to actions of the board taken prior to their term as board leader (or lead pastor)? Often a chairperson will be someone who has served several terms as a board member and will have a fairly good idea of recent board actions. However, the only way to develop good understanding is to read prior board minutes. It does not take that long. This will also give the chair a good idea of what board  records exist in the church. If deficiencies are found in the records, then action might be taken to remedy the situation. Board minutes, once approved by the board, should be signed by the board chair and an official copy should be kept in a safe place as part of the official board records. Again, given computerization, an electronic file of such records can easily be created and copies of old minutes scanned into the database.

When a church board decides to lead their congregation in a significant building program, it has implications for the life and work of the church board chair. Risks of various kinds escalate – many of them new. Sustaining and strengthening congregational unity through the process generates significant challenges. Discerning and accumulating the resources necessary to complete the project are daunting. Enabling the board and the staff to keep the congregation’s focus on ministry and not the facility requires deep spiritual trust and determination. Finding the right expertise within the congregation to provide leadership in facility planning, oversight of the project, fund-raising, and various legal and financial matters becomes a matter of serious prayer.  Perhaps the greatest concern in this is the significant impact that such a project accrues to the lead pastor. Many pastoral leaders will not survive a church building project. Although the board chair usually works at an arm’s length relationship in most of these matters, he or she nevertheless carries significant responsibility to enable the church board to keep the pace and the peace over several years and see things through to a successful conclusion.

Let me offer the following reflections based upon my recent personal experience.

1. Discerning and appointing the right people to lead the building committee and the building finance committee are critical elements. I think the success of the entire project will depend largely upon the spiritual maturity and overall competence of these leaders. These are people who must be willing to make three to four year commitments that will require many meetings and constant oversight of many details. If it is necessary to change the leadership of either committee mid-course, this will create difficulty.
2. Ensure that the lead pastor is committed to the project’s completion and will stay in the role for at least six months after the facility’s occupancy. Pastoral change mid-course will probably bring the project to a halt until a new lead pastor is appointed and confirms support of the project. The lead pastor must expect and be willing to give additional hours of work to ensure the project’s completion. However, it is also important to protect the lead pastor’s time by not involving him in the day to day work of the building committee. Many decisions did not require the lead pastor’s input in the early stages.  As construction accelerates it will be necessary for key staff to give input and become more involve.
3. Build complete consensus on the church board for a positive decision. If the church board is not united in its vision for the project, then wait. You can expect some variance within the congregation (perhaps up to 10% is manageable), but I would strongly urge you to secure unanimous endorsement and support from the board to proceed.
4. Construct a financial model and resourcing plan that works. It is irresponsible to propose and recommend to the congregation a building project which is not supported by a workable financing model and plan – one that the congregation can accomplish with reasonable expectations. What amounts need to be raised? What mortgage can be sustained? What congregational growth can be anticipated in order to provide additional financial support? What is the long term impact on the annual budget to operate the facility? How will this be financed? What previous history of giving provides comfort that the congregation has the resources to support the project? What is a responsible faith gap? How will the congregation fund costs for future replacement of items in the facility? In the event of a financial crisis, what contingency funding would be available to sustain the mortgage for three or four months? Thinks these matters through very carefully and require the board to take the time to get it right. If the congregation senses that the financial model is not trustworthy, then the entire project will be vulnerable. Our approach was to ensure that the operational costs of the building plus financing not limit ministry. The advice we received was to cap this at approx 35% of total budget. And the operational costs are significant!
5. Delegate the proper authority to the building and building finance committees. It would wise to establish the building committee as an adhoc subcommittee of the board and the building finance committee as a subcommittee of the building committee. This keeps lines of accountability with the church board clear. If at all possible the church board should appoint one of its members as chair of the building committee, or least to be a member of the committee.  The board should define carefully the limits of the authority that the building committee has and should monitor compliance. Building committee reports should come regularly to the church board with recommendations for specific actions. Authorization to borrow funds or expend funds should be vested with the board and not the building committee. However, once the building project budget and financing are approved, then the building committee should be authorized to proceed within those established limits. Any significant variations should be approved by the board. One way to manage this is for the board and the building committee to agree on the major decision points in the course of the project. Before the building committee can move to the next phase, require the board to give its approval. This keeps everyone fully and appropriately involved.
6. Keep faith with your local civic officials so that the building plans receive official approval in ways that develop good relationships with community leaders as much as possible. Similarly, seek financing through a local bank or credit union, if possible, to support community relations. Be fair with the contractors and on time with your financial obligations. Be honest in all dealings and conform to legal requirements. This project is an opportunity for the congregation to express its Christian values in the community by the way it manages these affairs.
7. Although it will be a challenge, encourage the board to keep the vision for ministry at the centre of the congregation’s life. Remember that the facility, as wonderful as it will be, is only a means to an end, i.e. enhanced ministry! The congregation exists to pursue the Great Commission, not to build a great facility complex.
8. Keep good and full communications open between the board, the building committee, the pastoral staff, and the congregation. This is important to sustain harmony, to encourage giving, and to keep the vision in front of the people. Plan for more communication, rather than less. Let the congregation know what decisions they will be asked to make and how they will have input into the process and then keep your promises. Make sure that in these processes you follow the bylaws carefully and consistently. Listen carefully in all congregational meetings, take suggestions seriously, and respond to concerns in a timely and responsible fashion. The board is asking the congregation to take a strong step of faith and you will need their full participation throughout the process.
9. Remember that the building project for the congregation and the board is a walk of faith, an opportunity to trust God. It should be supported by specific prayer days; there should be testimonials to God’s special provisions; when challenges arise, bring them to the congregation for prayer; let the congregation know when the answers come! Celebrate every significant step with thanksgiving to God. At the end of the day, be generous in your thanks to all who contributed.

As chairperson you will need to determine whether you are willing to provide leadership to the board over a two to four year period, depending upon the size of the building project. If you are not prepared to offer that leadership, be frank with the board and work with them to discern the leadership that will help them to achieve this vision. Perhaps stepping aside will be your greatest contribution to the success of the project!

Conversely, if you believe God desires you to remain chairperson through this project, this period of your Christian life and service can be a most wonderful, spiritual experience as you see the evidence of God’s remarkable provisions.

Finally, let me encourage you to dialogue with your local denominational leadership as you begin this process. They will have some wisdom to share.

As chair you thought the church board meeting was going quite well. The basic items on the agenda were discussed with good interaction and reasonable decisions agreed. There were two items left. One was a discussion about the agenda for the Annual General Meeting that was scheduled in four weeks. The other was an item that Tom, the board vice chair had asked to be added to the agenda at the beginning of the meeting. He had called it “new ministry opportunity.” You were curious as to what Tom had in mind, but you had worked together for a number of years on the board and so you did not really give it a second thought.

So after the board had settled matters related to the AGM’s agenda, you turned to Tom and gave him “the floor.” About two minutes into his presentation you realized that Tom was about to present to the board for immediate decision a major issue. Tom was friends with the owner of a Christian pre-school which offered it services in rented quarters two blocks from the church. However, the owner of that facility wanted to evict the Christian pre-school. The operator had contacted Tom and pressed him to bring to the church board a plan for the Christian pre-school to rent part of the church facility. Time was of the essence because the pre-school operation had to vacate in less than ten days by the time the church board met. Tom urged the board members to approve his motion to rent part of the church facility to the pre-school operation.

One of Tom’s more persuasive arguments was that the income from the Christian pre-school would provide much needed funding for upgrades to the building facility. They needed to replace the roof and this would cost almost $75,000. The congregation already was 15% behind in its giving towards the budget and had no reserves. Tom stated that “this was God’s provision” for their need. It would be a good ministry and help the congregation connect with the community. According to Tom very little change to the facility would be needed to allow this to go forward and he was willing to donate time to get the changes done.

You raised several questions about liability, whether or not this ministry was in alignment with the mission and vision, and what implications this would have for other ministry uses of the facility. However, Tom seemed to have an answer to every objection and when he called for the question, the board supported his motion 6 to 3. Throughout most of the discussion the lead pastor said very little, but in the end did vote to support the motion. The board authorized Tom to confirm the arrangements with the Christian pre-school.

As the meeting drew to a close the various board members gathered around Tom and thanked him for his proactive proposal and seemed to be encouraged that the congregation might finally receive some financial help towards the facility repairs. You were not so sure.

Two days later Tom emailed you a note that he had finalized the arrangements with the Christian pre-school supervisor and had a signed, written understanding.

That Saturday you were browsing through the local paper when your eye caught the words “pre-school being sued….” As you read through the first paragraph you realized that the article was about the Christian pre-school that now had a written agreement to use your church facilities. Two of its teachers were being accused of child abuse.

**************************************

What options did this chairperson have in handling this situation?

1. One issue this case study raises concerns the addition of items to the agenda. On the one hand, it is important for board members to know they have the privilege of shaping the agenda. On the other hand, board members also need to add items in a responsible manner. Just because a board member wants to add an item to the agenda should not determine how the board decides to handle the item. These are two separate items. The board members should feel no obligation to act upon an item just because another board member has asked that it be added to the agenda. Similarly the chair should exercise  appropriate leadership on behalf of the board and ensure that normal operational procedures are followed. In this case the chairperson would appropriately recommend to the board that it ensure it has all of the necessary information in hand before it arrives at a decision, lest it incur unwise risk.

2. A second issue relates to policy that guides the manner in which the church board will enter into a formal, legal relationship with another agency. Such a policy, for example, might stipulate that all such agreements receive a legal review, be limited in term, and define the basis upon which the agreement becomes void. It probably should also require the church treasurer to evaluate the proposal and assure the board that the projected financial projections do indeed represent reality. The agreement should also stipulate what position within the church is responsible to give oversight to this arrangement. Will this responsibility fall under the lead pastor’s position description, or the facility manager’s or the board chair? As churches grow the potential for these types of inter-agency relationships will become more frequent. This a matter of risk management that the board has to exercise judiciously.

3. Tom seemed to make some general arguments that establishing this relationship would contribute in some ways to the advancement of the congregation’s mission. However, did he make the case that this was a strategic move? Church boards receive many different proposals for ministries and many different opportunities to engage in various enterprises, but in every case the board members must determine whether any of these truly are strategic for mission advancement.  Often these proposals are good, but not strategic, i.e. are not the two or three key things that the church leadership must embrace and drive for the mission is to advance intentionally and consistently.

4. As chair you should never allow someone in the congregation, not even the lead pastor or another board member, to sign an agreement on behalf of the board without the board first seeing, reviewing it and officially approving it. The board’s liability in such matters cannot be shifted to the person who signed. The board is responsible for all legal agreements made by the agency it is leading.

5.  What can you do as board chair to limit the potential damage to the church that might arise because of these impending legal issues with the pre-school? I think one of the first things I would do is talk to the pre-school CEO and determine as clearly as possible what the situation is. Then I would call an emergency board meeting to inform the board members and seek their counsel. One of the things I would recommend is that legal advice be sought regarding the suspension or annulment of the agreement. If the press hear that this pre-school is about to occupy your facility, undoubtedly an enterprising reporter will be seeking comment. Ensure that the board members, staff members and church members are advised not to talk to the media, but to refer the matter to the board chair or the lead pastor. Limit the number of voices speaking to the media about this.

“Bad strategy” occurs when leaders fail to define the challenge and therefore cannot “assess the quality of the strategy.” A second classic feature of bad strategy is “mistaking goals for strategy.” And third, bad strategy thrives when we embrace “fuzzy strategic objectives.” A long “to do” list is not a strategy. And finally Rumelt states that “a final hallmark of…bad strategy is superficial abstraction–a flurry of fluff–designed to mask the absence of thought.”

Rumelt also offers some analysis as to why bad strategy seems to be abound. A key issue here is the “inability to choose” from among many different goals the two or three key things that will advance the mission. Sometimes as well leaders borrow a template from someone else and try to apply it, but do so mistakenly.

This leads Rumelt to discern the essence of “good strategy.” The basic structure of a good strategy must include “a diagnosis: an explanation of the nature of the challenge;” “a guiding policy: an overall approach chosen to…overcome the obstacles;” and “coherent actions: steps that are coordinated with one another to support the accomplishment of the guiding policy.” He concludes by stating that “the core of the strategist’s work is always the same: discover the crucial factors in a situation and design a way to coordinate and focus actions to deal with them.”

Chairpersons in church boards are always dealing with issues of ministry strategy. Board agendas frequently have items such as “new ministry program proposal” or “review of annual ministry plan” or “discussion about enabling congregational growth.” When a chair knows such items are on the board’s agenda usually there is some angst as to just what is expected and whether the board has the capacity and understanding to make the right decision. For example, without a “good strategy” how will the board know whether a new ministry program proposal will be “strategic” to advancing the mission? Or, when the board seeks to discern how to stimulate congregational growth, is the board really willing to ask the hard questions and operate with a commitment to honesty, or is there a culture of denial as to the real causes for the lack of growth and thus a failure of will to address them?

Consider this scenario. A church board adopts as part of the congregational vision a goal to make 100 new disciples in five years. However, it spends little time considering what are the one or two critical challenges that must be addressed to make this goal a reality. In other words they have established a commendable goal but still have to discern a good strategy to achieve that goal. Many boards, once they have articulated two or three key goals seem to expect that it will just happen. The hard work of defining a good strategy to achieve the goal is either delegated implicitly to the ministry staff or just ignored. And if it is delegated to the ministry staff, little accountability is required. Often what emerges is a “to do list,” but without a coherent and consistent strategy that is identifying these activities as the critical ones.

What can a church board chair do to help the board “discover the crucial factors in a situation and design a way to coordinate and focus actions to deal with them?” First, the chairperson must be convinced personally that advancing the congregation’s mission requires clear definition of a limited number of key, specific goals. And then for each goal a particular strategy needs to be discerned and implemented to overcome critical challenges and enable the congregation to achieve that goal. If as chair you do not see the importance of these matters, then you will not give time and effort to facilitating the board’s work in this area. Practically speaking, agendas will not deal with such matters. Second, the chairperson must have some competence in the area of strategic planning, so that as interaction with the lead pastor about these matters occurs significant questions are asked and good planning emerges. If neither the chair nor the lead pastor have any competence in these matters, then the board will be severely hampered in its ability to offer the strategic leadership it is mandated to provide to the congregation. Third, the chairperson would be advised to encourage the board to engage in some education and professional development so that it knows what “good strategy” looks like and has some coaching in developing good strategy. One way to do this is to discern a local congregation whose board and key ministry leaders have some wisdom about this and are being somewhat successful in its implementation. Then ask that board chair and lead pastor to visit with your board and share how they are doing it and what the benefits have been. Many board members are intimidated by the term ‘strategy’ and do not understand why it is important or how strategic planning is done well.

Perhaps as a way to get started you as chair might schedule in  the next board agenda a discussion about one of the key goals the congregation has adopted. The discussion paper you prepare for that conversation would outline the major goals the board/congregation have adopted and then in regards to the particular goal you have selected, ask a series of questions. How does the board know whether progress towards achieving that goal has been made during the past 12 months? What evidence is there for this advancement? Can the board identify the critical challenges that hinder achievement and what specific strategies are being adopted to deal with those critical challenges? If there is no specific strategy, what should the board do develop one? Is the goal still significant or does it need to be reworked.  By posing such questions you begin to help board members think about some of the basic concepts inherent in good strategy and whether the board is at this point addressing its responsibility to develop and implement good strategy.

I am not sure what is worse — pursuing bad strategy or having no strategy. However, in reality every church board has adopted or permitted some kind of strategy explicitly or implicitly. So the key question is whether the strategy is good or bad, using Rumelt’s definitions.

Minimally a church board should review bylaws in a five year cycle. People change, circumstances change, congregation’s change, pastoral leaders change, government regulations change — all of which can trigger bylaw changes. As the congregation grows, it will require some new bylaws to be drafted, discussed and approved. Congregational size does change things, whether the change is up or down.

Most board members would rather watch paint dry than deal with bylaw revisions! It’s just the way it is. But as chair you might be fortunate to have among the board members someone who “purrs” when the word “bylaw” is mentioned because for them this is a world of challenge and opportunity. If you have such a person, then organize an adhoc bylaw review subcommittee of the board, with that person as chair. Mandate the committee to do two things. First, have them review the current bylaws and note aspects that need to be updated because of congregational or legal changes, or because certain situations have given the board new insight into better ways to guide the congregation. Second, have them recommend new bylaws that would be helpful for the gaps they have observed. Ensure that the subcommittee understands that they report to the board, not the congregation, lest they think that every suggestion they make will become part of the bylaws. Put a time line on the process so that it does not drag on interminably.

As chair you will want to keep close watch on the following items as the bylaw revisions proceed. First, the bylaws cannot contradict the constitution. Second, bylaws have to be compliant with any legal requirements related to non-profit charities. In Canada the Canadian Council of Christian Charities can provide you with careful guidance in this respect. Your denominational office will also normally be a good resource. Third, you may want to advise the board to have legal council review the proposed revised bylaws to make sure they are in good order and worded appropriately. Fourth, try to keep the bylaws as simple as possible. It is not wise to include “policies” as part of the bylaws. Rather the bylaws should stipulate that policy be created for specific aspects of congregational life and what policies the congregation has to approve. As well,  the process for revising bylaws should be defined clearly .

Another aspect of bylaw development that a chairperson needs to evaluate are the percentages required for quorums and approval of specific recommendations, with respect to church board and congregational meetings.  Be careful to establish achievable and realistic quorums. Conversely, you want to guard against the possibility of  a small, active minority taking control of the congregation and its assets. Remember that bylaws exist to sustain congregational life and help the congregation deal with difficult situations. They should provide the mechanisms needed for the congregation to survive “black swan” events, as well as internal squabbles. Particularly, the chair should evaluate carefully whether the bylaws as currently defined or proposed give the board clarity in its mandate and authority to lead and protect the congregation.

Leadership transitions, whether pastoral or board, often receive attention in bylaws. Again, your role as chair will involve you in these matters so you need clarity in the bylaws on these matters. Do the bylaws state clearly who has authority to appoint and dismiss the lead pastor and the appropriate processes that must be followed? Are the bylaws clear regarding the appointment of board members (whether elders or deacons or others), number of board members, board member qualifications, terms of service, resignation processes, chair appointment, etc.? In the case of a lead pastor transition, who appoints the search committee — the board or the congregation or the denomination? What is the composition of such a committee? Does the search committee bring the recommendation directly to the congregation or the board? What percentage of members voting at a duly called congregational meeting must be in support of the recommendation for it to be approved?

Financial matters are also normally part of bylaws. In particular what mandate does the board have to borrow money on behalf of the congregation? Under what conditions does the board have to seek the approval of the congregation? Do the bylaws require an annual financial review? They should. Is there a clause which defines what happens to the assets of the congregation if it is dissolved as a charity?

Bylaw revision is a matter of a board chair “taking care of business.” Remember that the mandate the church board has to do its work arises from those bylaws. If the bylaws become dated, it may put the board into a very difficult situation, unable to provide the strategic leadership that the congregation needs in a very important time. It is very difficult to revise bylaws when a congregation is in the middle to an emergency.

About a year ago the church board had a rather vigorous discussion about hiring a part-time worship pastor. Up to that point in the congregation’s history worship leaders were volunteers. The pastoral staff had presented the proposal, but only minimal details were in writing. The position description and qualifications seemed appropriate to the board members at that time. The lead pastor was authorized to oversee the recruiting process and to make the decision regarding the hiring, based upon the position description and qualifications approved by the board, which included the salary and benefits to be provided.

Jack, the board member who had made the motion to approve the proposal, had raised the issue of whether the position would be gender specific or not. The lead pastor indicated that according to current church employment policy it would not be gender specific. Jack, however, because he believed the position would involve some teaching of the congregation and it carried the designation ‘pastor’  felt that it would be appropriate for the position to be filled by a male. Jack thought in making the motion he had made that quite clear. The motion as it appeared in the official minutes, however, did not reflect that perspective. At the following meeting when those minutes were approved, no one said anything or sought to correct the minutes, not even Jack.

Several months later the lead pastor announced to the board that he had hired a person for the position.  The board members were quite excited, anticipating God’s provision for a rather important role within the congregation. When her name was announced, Jack was stunned. Jack was a detail person and usually brought his file of past board minutes to every board meeting in case he felt a need to refer to prior board actions. He quickly brought out his thick file folder and began leafing through the minutes until he located the minute concerning this new position. To his dismay he discovered that the minute said nothing about gender specificity. He then began to look through his copy of board policies and again discovered that no policy required gender specificity for any ministry staff position, except that of lead pastor. Despite his presumption in making the motion that the minute would include some notation regarding his intent for this role to be gender specific, this aspect of the motion was not included in the minute.

When Jack asked to speak, the chair expected that he would join with other board members in congratulating the lead pastor on completing this project and hiring a well-qualified candidate. However, when Jack began to speak the chair knew immediately a more serious issue was in play, namely the accuracy of the board minutes and determining what decision the board in fact had made when it approved the motion. With some emotion Jack explained to the board what he believed had happened and how his understanding of the motion had not adequately been expressed in the minute, even though he thought he had made his intentions quite clear at the time. Bob, a close friend of Jack, spoke and affirmed that this was his understanding as well. However, two other board members objected because in their opinion the minute was clear and expressed what the board had decided. When the lead pastor indicated that he would not have voted for a motion that in his view violated board policy, the chair knew that the board was in a serious predicament.

The chair had worked hard to help the board understand that approved minutes, recording the board’s decision, were the official record that expressed the mind of the board. What a specific board member thought the board had decided was in fact irrelevant — the minutes, once approved and signed by the board chair or secretary, became the official record available for public perusal. When the chair spoke for the board, the minutes became his primary guide for discerning the board’s direction. The chair quickly reviewed the minutes from that earlier meeting and discerned in fact that the minute recording the motion made no reference to gender preference. However, the chair also knew that Jack had raised this question because he found a brief notation about this in the personal notes he had taken during that meeting. Those notes were not official in any sense.

What leadership could the chair provide in such a situation? The hire was already made and could not be reversed without significant repercussions. The chair also knew that Jack could tender his resignation as a board member over this issue. His friend Bob might feel constrained to do the same. The lead pastor felt that the person hired would do a good job and had no intention of reversing his decision, which he believed aligned with board policy and the motion as it appeared in the official minutes.

What advice would you give to this board chair?

******************************************

1. Hindsight is always helpful. This case highlights the importance for the chair to make sure that board members have in fact read the minutes and agreed that they truly represent the decision made by the board. Often this part of the board’s work gets treated in a perfunctory manner, especially when consent agendas are the norm. The board chair would be wise, when the board reaches that point in the agenda for approving minutes, to pause and very deliberately ask the board members whether they have read the minutes are in agreement with them. It becomes very difficult to correct matters retrospectively.

2. Two conflicting dynamics affect the treatment of minutes within a church board. On the one hand, church board members like to operate with a certain informality and comraderie. If the chair acts too officiously, they often bristle at the strictures being imposed. On the other hand, board operations are important legal activities that have to proceed with due diligence. This requires formality at times, regardless of what some board members would like. It is the chair who has to find the right balance in these matters and help the board to attend to both equally well.

3. According to Robert’s Rules of Order once an approved motion has been executed, partially or completely, then no motion to reconsider or rescind can be entertained, particularly if a contract has been entered into because of the motion. If your church board or congregation has adopted Robert’s Rules of Order, then the motion as passed and implemented cannot be reconsidered or rescinded. Even if the motion could be reconsidered, probably too much time has passed for this action legitimately to occur. Even though an error may have been or miscommunication has occurred, the board’s motion cannot be changed at that point. All that can be done, it would seem, is for the board to reaffirm or change its policy for future reference, provide explanation to the congregation about the error that was made, and live with the consequences.

4. It is clear in this case that the board members were unfamiliar with the policy that guided the hiring of ministry staff. When the board is dealing with new decisions, the chair should ensure that the board is aware of any policy that applies to the decision and should have it reviewed by the entire board. This educates the board with respect to policy, reminds the board that policy was formed for the board’s guidance, and enables the board to evaluate whether the recommendation is consistent with current policy. If it is not, the board can change policy, amend the recommendation so that it aligns with policy, or reject the recommendation because it is inconsistent with policy. This is also a good reminder that all policies should be placed on a regular cycle of review and revision. A three year cycle is recommended and each new policy should include a date when it should be reviewed.

5. How should the chair help Jack and Bob come to terms with this situation? A friendly discussion about the relationship between a board member’s personal views and the policies established by the board seems to be in order. A normal operating procedure for a board member is to work within board policies. The chair can suggest ways and means by which a board member can request a review of board policy, if he/she thinks the current policy is not coherent with the congregation’s statement of faith or can be improved in some areas.

6. Perhaps as well the chair should take note that some of the responsibility for the current situation does lie with him. As his personal notes indicate, he knew when Jack made the motion that he had certain understandings which were in conflict with board policy. Knowing this, he should have advised Jack in the board meeting that his motion could not be entertained because it violated current board policy. If he wanted to make the motion as he intended, then he first needed to move an amendment to the current board policy. If the board agreed with the amendment, then his motion regarding the hiring of the worship pastor could then have been considered. If the chair was not aware of the policy, then this raises the question whether there are other board policies of which that chairperson is ignorant. He should make a note to review all policies to make sure he is knowledgeable of the board’s directions so that he can facilitate their decision-making appropriately.

Boardsource, an organization that seeks to resource non-profit entities, suggests that an effective and continuing board building cycle involves eight elements: identify, cultivate, recruit, orient, involve, educate, rotate and evaluate. In my view these eight elements, each of which is important, can be condensed into three broader issues:

1. how do we equip and bring people into a church board ministry (identify, cultivate, recruit);

2. how do we help board members work competently and spiritually during their terms (orient, involve, educate);

3. how do we help board member finish their involvement in this ministry well (rotate and evaluate)?

Euipping people for church board involvement and working within congregational processes to have them appointed to the board are somewhat uncharted waters for many chairpersons ministering in Evangelical congregations. If some in the congregation perceive that the current church leadership is seeking to pick and choose who will serve as board members, they may label this as political inference or manipulation of the congregation’s direction. Complete separation between the actions of the nominating committee and the current church leadership is considered a matter of integrity. However, practically and biblically such a stance has little to commend it. The congregation benefits normally from the discernment that spiritually mature leaders bring to such appointments. Any system can be abused and manipulated, but where church leaders are demonstrating integrity and acting in the best interests of the congregation and not for personal gain or power, it is helpful for them to give some guidance in the selection process. The question is how to do this in a way that fits within usual congregational process.

As board chair you know the various giftings, competencies, and spiritual wisdom that the board needs to provide strategic leadership. While you work as best you can with the board members appointed by the congregation, you also know that careful and appropriate recruitment can make an immense difference in the ability of the board to do its work. Some ways to accomplish this would include having some discussion among the current board members about their sense of emerging leaders within the congregation. Hold this conversation several months before the annual general meeting. There will probably be some concensus about two or three people that are gaining a reputation for spiritual wisdom and maturity. After consulting with the lead pastor and personal prayer, you might take some initiative and have coffee with one or two of these people that you personally believe have the qualifications (i.e. 1 Timothy 3) to serve. The purpose of the conversation is to explore this possibility with them. Most will be reluctant to consider this and will need encouragement. However, during the conversation, if your initial perspective is being confirmed, you might challenge the individual to pray about this opportunity. A week or so later followup and see whether the person would be willing to have their name given to the nominating committee for consideration. As chair you are a member of the church and can nominate people, but you might find it prudent to enlist the services of another board member to forward the name to the nominating committee.

Some congregations implement a more formal process. They empower the board members and pastors to ask four to six people, who have demonstrated the basic qualifications of 1 Timothy 3, to gather for some initial training and discernment, with a view to serving as church board members. While it is clear that involvement in such a process carries no guarantee that they will be nominated and appointed, it is understood that normally from this group the nominating committee will be seeking several to present to the congregation to serve as board members. However this is done, it is important to keep the process transparent.

Once the congregation appoints a person to the church board, then the issues involved in the second question become significant — how to help board members work competently and spiritually during their terms. The foundation for this will be a good orientation process, necessary to bring new board members into the world and work of the board. This will include developing relationships with current board members, instruction on the board’s mandate, modes of operation, and current priorities. As well, make sure the new members know the cycle of meetings planned for the coming year so that they build the dates into their personal schedules. Give clear direction as to expectations and ensure that all necessary documents are signed, i.e. agreement with code of conduct, congregational statement of faith, lack of prior criminal activity that otherwise would void their candidacy for board service.

There is also the ongoing educational development of the board  members — new and continuing. One of the keys to keeping board members motivated is to help them develop as leaders through their work as board members. The more they understand the nature of church boards, church governance, and the leadership of non-profit organizations, the better qualified they will feel to do their work. As they work effectively as a ministry team, their personal motivation will increase and grow. They will get excited about the way the mission is advancing and be willing to communicate this to others in the congregation.

Finally, the day will come when a board member’s term reaches its conclusion. How will you as chair prepare that individual to finish well? How will you gather the wisdom such a person has accumulated and retain it for the benefit of the continuing board? How will you celebrate that member’s contribution and appropriately thank them before the congregation for their ministry? Responding well to such issues will go a long way to encouraging others in the congregation to be willing to serve as board members.

As board chair it is important that you meet personally and individually with board members as their terms complete. This becomes your opportunity to thank them for their contribution, to discern what wisdom they can provide to the continuing board members, and to encourage them to get involved in some other congregational ministry as they move forward. This also provides you with the chance to give them some feedback on their board work. This might prove immensely helpful as other opportunities for them to work with non-profit entities, Christian or otherwise, arise.

Building a church board is a constant ministry. As chair this is one of your most important responsibilities. No one else can do it as effectively as you can. If it is done well, this can be one of your most important legacies to your congregation.

When the audit committee reported to the church board that there was a surplus of $15,000 in the prior year’s financial operation, the board members felt immensely grateful to God for his wonderful provision. Nothing like this had happened in recent experience and it was another indicator that spiritual health was returning to the church family. The board chair knew that the board would have to formulate a recommendation for the use of these funds that could be presented to the annual general meeting which was six weeks away.

The chair wondered at the irony of this situation. On the one hand God’s gracious provision was evident. On the other hand he knew from previous discussions in the board meetings that reaching consensus on what to do with these funds would prove difficult. Two members of the board believed that it was not right for the church to have financial reserves. In their view, if God gave the funds, these needed to be expended as soon as possible on ministry activities. Further, if in the future a financial crisis arose, God would at that point bring the resources through the faithful response of his people. Their theology seemed sound and many precedents could be cited to support their position.

Conversely, several members of the board were business owners and they knew the importance of building some reserves to carry a business through ‘rainy day’ periods. They firmly believed in God’s ability to provide, but also believed that God required them to exercise wise stewardship of the resources once provided. They too could provide theological warrant and precedent for their perspective.

At this point in its history the congregation had no financial reserves. If a financial emergency occurred, then some ministry staff probably would have to be laid off in order to sustain the congregation. As well, a recent building renovation had left a debt of $300,000 which for a congregation of 150 people would probably take four to six years to repay. They were managing now, but the building was mortgaged to support the debt and if a financial downturn occurred, who knew what the creditors would do. Further, if some serious repair became necessary, there were no funds to pay for it.

The chair himself believed that it would be prudent for the board to give leadership in developing a contingency fund equal to two of three months of the church’s normal operational budget. The current budget was $25,000 per month and so this principle, if acted upon, would require a contingency fund in the range of $50,000 to $75,000. In addition, even though the church building recently was renovated, there were no funds being set aside to pay for replacing equipment or carpets, repainting, or other things necessary to maintain the facility properly. The current generation was using the facility, but not paying for its maintenance. In essence they were downloading these costs to the next generation. He thought good stewardship required the board to lead the congregation in setting aside $5,000 a year to cover such replacement and facility renewal costs. He had shared with the board his concerns previously and suggested that a combined contingency and replacement fund could be established over a three to four year period through careful financial management that would create such a fund. However, significant voices in the board had not responded very positively to his suggestions. Maybe this unexpected $15,000 surplus could form the initial basis for such a fund.

So now the debate would be joined again, as the board would have to formulate a recommendation to the congregation about the use of these surplus funds. He was not sure as chair how hard he should push his proposals, even though he knew it was the prudent thing to do. Five years ago when the church was enjoying some surplus the practice had developed of giving the surplus away, or as some called it “tithing,” to some external ministry.The pastor always seemed to favour this kind of direction.

What leadership was he going to provide  to the board members about this?

Possible responses:

1. As chair he could present his viewpoint during the board’s discussion and see what the response would be. He could emphasize again the need for this current generation to exercise appropriate stewardship for its use of the facility. It might be positive or negative, but whatever the board decided, at least he had tried, even if they rejected the idea.

2. Another tact might be to introduce the concepts again and encourage the board to recommend that 50% of the surplus be used to initiate such a fund and that the rest be used in accord with previous patterns. This would get the fund established with $7500 as seed money. It would be a good start and could build consensus between the two views.

3. Another direction the chair could take would be to talk with the leader of the board audit committee and seek his advice. For example, did the auditor support the establishment of a contingency fund and would this lead the auditor to alter his report, upgrading his estimate of the financial health of the congregation? Further, he might have a side conversation with the lead pastor suggestion the consequences to his ministry leadership should cut backs to staff become necessary because the church had no resources to weather a financial crisis. This might encourage his support of a modest investment in a contingency fund. In other words some quiet work in the background might enable some board members to see the prudence of such a direction in a new light and be willing to give it support. Board education is a continuing exercise. He might even ask the chair of the audit committee to lead the charge on this issue.

Another question might be:  where in the New Testament does it require all elders to be preachers? They are to be capable teachers of the word of God, but Paul does not seem to require preaching competence (as we define it today) for a person to serve as an elder, i.e. pastor (I presume here that the terms elder and pastor apply to the same function). I wondered as well how a congregation might respond to a situation where the lead pastor was not the primary preaching pastor. How would this arrangement affect the ability of the “lead pastor” to “lead” the congregation when they did not see him consistently and personally providing spiritual guidance through the preaching office? Would it eventually erode his leadership? And then I thought about the effect of this arrangement upon the internal working relationship within the ministry team.

What complexities would such an arrangement create for a chairperson? From the viewpoint of organizational leadership it should work. There is still a lead pastor that the board can hold accountable as the primary leader within the organization. That lead pastor or the combined ministry leadership team has decided to delegate the majority of the preaching task to someone else within the pastoral team, presumably so that the lead pastor can concentrate on other aspects of ministry leadership that conform to his strengths, giftedness and experience. Lines of accountability are clear and responsibilities defined carefully. Theoretically it should function just as well as more usual arrangements.

The board, however,  may conclude that such an arrangement, while possible, will not enable the board to achieve the congregation’s mission and implement their vision effectively. Their conclusion may be based upon congregational dynamics, denominational tradition, and organizational realities. Primary preaching responsibilities are very important for communicating the vision and providing spiritual direction to the congregation. If the lead pastor is not involved in this activity regularly it might inhibit his ability to advance the vision and nurture the spiritual health of the congregation.

Perhaps as well the dual realities of the congregation both as community and organization require that the perceived leadership of the spiritual community be the same as the actual leadership of the organizational structure. If the leadership is divided and distinct, this may cause disruption and conflict at some point, particularly when changes in leadership occur.

I think it might be more effective to reverse the question and ask “Does the Lead Pastor have to be the Executive Pastor?” You will probably find many more examples of this kind of leadership arrangement functioning well within various congregations. Examples of the reverse are not common. Some congregational leaders are seeking to establish ministry leadership teams following the concepts of “prophet, priest and king” or “apostles, evangelists, prophets, teachers/pastors,” dividing ministry responsibilities in accord with perceived linkages between these ancient roles and contemporary leadership needs in a contemporary congregation. Such team concepts can work for a time. However, their success over a long period of time probably depends upon highly developed interpersonal relationships and perhaps the fact that preaching pastor and/or lead pastor was/were part of the founding leadership team. They would also require a consensual model of decision-making. If the primary leaders of the ministry team are part of a larger church board (however such a group may be defined), then other members of the board may feel at a disadvantage since they are not part of prior discussions about major issues. Or, if the ministry team is not part of the formal church board, managing the relationship between this strong ministry team and the church board will require considerable wisdom. It may be that the ministry leadership team is also officially the church board and in such instances the decision-making issues will acquire a different character.

A chairperson’s responsibility is to enable the church board to provide effective strategic leadership for the congregation. In helping the board to sort through such a question it needs to consider whether such an arrangement is biblically consistent and would truely advance the congregation’s mission or is merely an arrangement designed to serve the needs of one individual. In other words, this arrangement might be wonderful for the person seeking such a role, but ultimately detrimental to the health and long term development of the congregation. Given the nature of church community, sorting out such a question can be quite difficult, particularly if it means that the person may not be able to continue in the employment of the church. This is doubly difficult when the person is also part of the board because of his office. The conflict of interest issues potentially are quite significant. These factors might be particularly relevant if congregational leaders are considering a major change from a current, more traditional model.

Another factor would be whether or not the preaching pastor in such an arrangement would be able to survive. What does the non-preaching, lead pastor do if certain voices are critical of the preaching, for whatever reason? How much liberty in the Spirit does the preaching pastor have to present God’s word? These internal dynamics could become quite complex.

So, while such an arrangement is doable theoretically, the chairperson of a church board support it only after very careful examination of the possible consequences. It will probably work all right when things are going well, but may prove unsustainable when significant problems and conflicts emerge.

As chair person you facilitated a difficult church board meeting last month. The board’s discussion about a proposal from the pastor to hire a new staff person ended in a split vote. Last Sunday after the service you were having coffee in the church lounge area and chatting with several friends. None of them were church board members.

Just as things were wrapping up, one of them asked a seemingly innocent question about the split vote at the recent church board meeting. This caught you totally by surprise and you were stunned for a few moments as you scrambled to form a coherent answer, but not reveal your concern. At the same time your mind was going in circles trying to figure out how the board’s commitment to confidentiality for some reason had been compromised so quickly and so completely. You wondered how many other people knew about the board’s dilemma and the impact that this information might have upon the congregation. How would it affect their confidence in the board’s ability to provide strategic leadership? But even more significantly, you became quite concerned about what this meant for the board as a ministry team. What board member or members had done this and for what reason?

The next church board meeting was two weeks away. You figured that other board members and the lead pastor would soon discover this breach. You had never encountered such a situation as church board chair before and you struggled to discern what your response as board chair should be? You did not know who had compromised the confidentiality — although you had your suspicions. But even if you knew, what should you do? Information like this would spread quickly through the congregation. You were not sure how various board members would respond when they discovered this breach and what action they would want to take against the board member(s) who were responsible. What if it was the lead pastor who was guilty? Would the church board survive this challenge?

But then you took a deep breath and asked yourself whether the board had ever discussed the matter of confidentiality in any extended way?  While you as board chair may operate with certain expectations, did all the board members share your understanding of the need for and the extent to which confidentiality should be practiced? Were all things discussed at a board meeting “confidential” or just certain ones? Who arbitrated this? Should the board itself at the close of each meeting affirm what matters were confidential and what were not? And if some were not, what were board members authorized to say about them? Did this event provide you with an opportunity as board chair to raise the issue, do some educating with the board, and review policy or even develop new policy before any significant harm might be done? Was this a wake-up call?

***************************************************************************

How would you advise this chair person to respond to the various issues this breach of confidentiality would generate?

1. As chair you might review board operational policies (in whatever form they exist) and discern what exactly the board has said about this matter. Perhaps no violation has in fact occurred, because the board has not spoken about this matter. You are just operating on the basis of some personal assumptions or the awareness of some undefined tradition. So now might be the best time to raise the issue with the board. This could be done in the form of a discussion brief in which you define what the board has said about the issue and raise questions as to whether or not it is adequate. This enables a good discussion to be held without pointing fingers and getting all the board members on the same page.

2. If your church board already has developed clear policy on the issue of board confidentiality and all members were aware of it, then the problem may be one of clarifying exactly what matters discussed in a board meeting are confidential. Some board members may be parsing this matter differently. If you do not have a blanket statement that essentially regards everything that transpires in a board meeting to be confidential, unless the board members determine otherwise, then the chance for confusion among the board members will exist. So here again the review of policy and some discussion among the board members may be necessary. It is easier to have a uniform statement that everything is confidential, unless otherwise exempted by board decision, then to try and define in advance what should or should not be regarded as confidential. At the end of the day whatever is placed in minutes approved by the board should be consider public information, apart from minutes of in camera board sessions.

3. If your board policy on confidentiality is clear and communicating this information about the vote is a violation of that policy, then as chair you have a responsibility to raise the issue with the board members. Again, how you do this will be as important as the fact that you do it. So you will need to share with the board what occurred and remind the board of the policy regarding confidentiality. If the breach is considered significant, then the board should warn the offending member(s) and note that if it is repeated, their resignation from the board may be required. Perhaps also some apologies may be necessary. This is a serious matter. Once the matter is dealt with, however, you should as chair seek to move forward, expecting that all board members will work in compliance with the policy.