Feed on
Posts
Comments

Around the board table, each leader brings a point of view rooted in subcultures he or she belongs to. Subcultures of sex, race, age, and nationality are often recognized. The Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator can help a group to acknowledge and “normalize” such differences. We have barely yet begun to see how powerful our occupational subcultures have become. Each person around the table has learned at work how to behave in groups. Those learnings came with powerful rewards and punishments and exert great power, especially when they go unrecognized.

I didn’t know that as a young minister, but now I do. As a consultant I often ask, “What is your work?” At first I expected some resistance. What I often find instead is that my question opens up a rich exchange about strong and different convictions about how groups get things done, and how that kind of diversity might be a good thing.

… read more of All I Really Needed to Know I Learned at Work

Ministry Together

My next book, due out in the spring of 2008, will be called “Ministry Together: The Art of Governance in Congregations.” Or not–I would welcome any thoughts you may have about a better title. Why “Ministry Together”? Well, consider the alternatives:

Ministry Apart. This approach has a long history, and takes many forms. Ministry Apart happens any time the division of labor between staff and board becomes a rigid absolute. The most obvious is when the lay governing board sits back in their chairs, arms folded, to judge–oops, “evaluate”–the clergy leader. The flip side of that coin is the clergy-dominated church where lay leaders’ only role is to help the clergy. A third kind of Ministry Apart is where board runs the church as though it didn’t have a staff at all, while the minister carves out a life of his or her own writing books, sitting on denominational or community committees, or doing pastoral counseling. The advantage of Ministry Apart is that the clergy don’t need much organizational leadership skill beyond staying out of other people’s turf, and the board does not need to learn how to be a board. Most board members already know how to be managers and workers, so this makes things easy. The downside, of course, is that sooner or later people step on one another’s toes, or it turns out that lay leaders hold clergy responsible when things don’t go as planned. Without an ongoing structure for connecting the ministry of clergy with the ministry of lay boards, the collision can be sudden and destructive.

Ministry in Tandem. My older brother Ralf was an inventor from an early age. As a teenager, he built a bike with a 6-foot banana seat and three sets of pedals so up to six riders could share the work. As the little brother, I regularly got to be one of the riders. That experience comes to mind when I watch congregations that have adopted some forms of the “shared ministry” idea. As on Ralf’s bike, everyone’s job description is pretty much the same, giving a great deal of forward thrust when everyone cooperates. There were even three sets of handlebars (though only one of them worked for steering). The disadvantages–both for the bike and the congregation–include awkward steering, a brittle ride easily thrown off by bumps in the road, and the potential for individuals to covertly resist the pedaling of others while seeming to be helping out. When everyone has the same job description, it is hard to make decisions, to change course, or to hold individuals accountable.

The middle path, then, as I see it, is Ministry Together. The core premise is that partnership works best when the parties have clear, separate roles. If it is clear which decisions I will ultimately make, I can consult with others without worrying that I’ll give away my power to act. Unlike Ministry Apart, where role boundaries are rigid, or Ministry in Tandem, where they are fuzzy, Ministry Together connects autonomous individuals and groups in a network of mutual accountability.

Q: Our board spends too much time reviewing and approving work that should be done by staff and committees. We know we shouldn’t micromanage, but we can’t seem to help it. How can we change?

A: You have a lot of company. Most boards criticize themselves for “micromanaging” and rightly so. This happens because tiny issues are more interesting and understandable than large ones, and more gratifying to address because they can often be solved quite quickly. Preference for micro-issues is so universal that C. Northcote Parkinson formulated it into one of his famous laws: “The time spent on any item of the agenda will be in inverse proportion to the sum involved.”

What can be done? Boards slip into triviality for two main reasons: because they don’t know how to delegate and because they don’t know how else they would spend their time. A third reason is that some people are so used to boards that deal with trivia they don’t recognize the problem.
Read more of Ask Alban: Re-inventing Boards that Bore.

The envelope please! Runner-up for Most Influential Book as rated by American clergy is…

“Ladies and gentlemen, will it be a book on spiritual practices? Biblical studies? The ever-popular ‘How to Blame Lay Leaders’? No, the topic of the second most important book this year is [drum roll] congregational administration!”

Who’d have thought it? For many seminary students, the course on administration is a pothole on the road to glory as a preacher or a pastoral caregiver. We all know great and successful clergy who never say “administration” without wrinkling their noses.

Read more of A Discerner’s Guide to Congregational Governance.

The Stewardship of Risk

Years ago a bright Yale student asked me how I would describe the difference between a church and any other charitable group. I gave the sort of answer most of us might give: I emphasized the church’s unique life-transforming mission and its special responsibility to treasure and transmit precious traditions across generations.It was a good answer–but today I am afraid I’d have to add that of all nonprofits, congregations as a group are the most cautious and least willing to accept risk in order to fulfill their mission.

Read more of The Stewardship of Risk.

Why We Do What We Do

To succeed, a congregation needs a lot of people to show up regularly, give generously, and work hard. Why do they do it? It’s a pressing question for religious leaders, especially in communities where religious participation is no longer a strong norm, or where paid work levies an increasing tax on every household’s time. Leaders need an answer to the question, “Why do we do what we do?”

This question stands at the center of theology and economics, which give different kinds of answers. Theology, once called the queen of the sciences, shapes the education of the clergy. Economics (a.k.a. the dismal science) influences everybody else, making it difficult sometimes for congregation leaders to understand each other when they think about motivating people.

Read more of Why We Do What We Do.

In support of her work with the Association of Theological Schools, Ginny Thornburgh, Director of the Religion and Disability Program of the National Organization on Disability, requested from Ian Evison and Dan Hotchkiss of the Alban Institute a review of information on the Internet about the efforts of theological schools to educate their students about ministry to and with people with disabilities.

According to Alban and Hotchkiss, “We found variety of such efforts at institutions across the American religious spectrum. While most of what happens at theological schools is now recorded on the World Wide Web, we make no claim that the survey is comprehensive.”

Read “Disability and Theological Education.”

Most congregations engage in some form of social ministry—or believe they should. Some call it missions, others outreach, social action, or benevolence. From relatively modest actions like collecting canned goods for the local food bank to major projects like building a house in partnership with Habitat for Humanity, the collective contribution of churches, mosques, and synagogues to the welfare of the needy is enormous. By contributing, they set an example of generosity and faithful stewardship.

But why do they do it? If the question seems impertinent, let me rephrase it: Why, exactly, should a congregation feed the hungry, clothe the naked, heal the sick, or free the oppressed? For Christians, I have almost answered my own question: in these words Jesus taught that service to “the least of these” was necessary for salvation. He was not saying anything especially original. For Jews, charity (tzedakah) is a basic part of being a good person. In these traditions, as in others, it is pretty clear that individuals ought to help others.

But why congregations? When other social agencies exist to help the needy, won’t they usually have more expertise and skill? Why not simply encourage members to give time and money to the best nonprofits in each field of service?

Read more of What is the Mission of “Missions”?

The most frequent mistake clergy search committees make is to focus too much on the perceived weaknesses of the previous clergyperson. If the predecessor was personable but poorly educated, the search committee scours the world for a Ph.D. and takes social skills for granted–after all, doesn’t every minister have them? If the last minister was an active organizational leader but an indifferent preacher, the next will spend most of the work week writing sermons and assume the laity will run the church. The trouble with this approach is that congregations are organized around the strengths of previous clergy more than their weaknesses.

Read more about Choosing Your Next Clergy Leader.

Relocating the Clergy Ego

When I speak at seminaries about leadership and management in congregations, professors usually need to be somewhere else, and students tend to doze. To wake them up, I mention a favorite topic, “ministerial authority.” Seminarians love to talk about the potent symbolism of the clergy role, and to picture people looking up at them projecting issues properly belonging to their parents. They reflect gravely on the special powers and obligations that the hands of ordination will load onto their heads.

On the whole this kind of talk is harmless; at best it gets some silly notions out of the way early. Seminary is the last occasion most students will have to fret about the perils of excessive clergy power. After graduation, those who take congregational positions mostly worry about how they are doing and all the things that measure that: praise, thanks, headcount, lack of controversy, money.

Read more of “Relocating the Clergy Ego.

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »