Your toughest management challenge is always yourself.   Bill Hybels

Imagine a compass—north, south, east, and west. Almost every time the word leadership is mentioned, in what direction do leaders instinctively think?

South.

Say the word leadership and most leaders’ minds migrate to the people who are under their care. At leadership conferences, people generally think, “I’m going to learn how to improve my ability to lead the people God has entrusted to me.”

South. It’s a leader’s first instinct.

But many people don’t realize that to lead well, you need to be able to lead in all directions—north, south, east and west.

For example, good leaders have to lead north—those who are over you. You can’t just focus on those entrusted to your care. Through relationship and influence good leaders lead the people over them. Much of what I do at Willow Creek, through relationship, prayer, and careful envisioning, is to try to influence those over me—the board and the elders.

Effective leaders also learn how to lead east and west, laterally, in peer group settings. If you don’t learn how to lead laterally, if you don’t know how to create win-win situations with colleagues, the whole culture can deteriorate.

So a leader must lead down, up, and laterally. But perhaps the most overlooked leadership challenge is the one in the middle. Who is your toughest leadership challenge?

Yourself.

Consider 1 Samuel 30. David, the future king of Israel, is a young emerging leader at the time. He is just learning to lead his troops into battle. He’s green. But God is pouring his favor on David, and most of the time the battles go his way. One terrible day though, that pattern changes. After returning home from fighting yet another enemy, David and his men discover soldiers have attacked and destroyed their campsite, dragged off the women and children, and burned all their belongings.

This would define “bad day” for any leader! But it’s not over. His soldiers are tired, angry, and worried sick about their families. They’re miffed at God. A faction of his men spreads word that they’ve had it with David’s leadership. They figure it’s all David’s fault, and they decide to stone him to death.

In this crisis David’s leadership is severely tested. Suddenly, he has to decide who needs leadership the most. His soldiers? The officers? The faction?

His answer? None of the above.

In this critical moment he realizes a foundational truth: he has to lead himself before he can lead anybody else. Unless he is squared away internally he has nothing to offer his team. So “David strengthened himself in the Lord his God” (1 Samuel 30:6). Only then does he lead his team to rescue their families and what’s left of their belongings.

David understood the importance of self-leadership. And although self-leadership isn’t talked about much, make no mistake, it is a good part of the ballgame. How effectively can any of us lead others if our spirits are sagging, our courage is wavering, and our vision or commitment is weak?

Last summer I read an article that created some disequilibrium for me. The author, Dee Hock, challenged leaders to calculate how much time and energy they invest in each of these directions—people beneath them, over them, peers, and leading themselves. Since he’s been thinking and writing about leadership for over 20 years and is a laureate in the Business Hall of Fame, I wanted his wisdom.

His recommendation: “We should invest 50 percent of our leadership amperage into the task of leading ourselves; and the remaining 50 percent should be divided into leading down, leading up, and leading laterally.” His numbers bothered me so much I put the article away. But I let it simmer, which is my normal practice when someone messes with my mind.

While that was simmering, I read an article by Daniel Goleman, the author of the best-selling book, Emotional Intelligence. Since that book was released in 1997, Goleman has been spending his time analyzing why some leaders develop to their fullest potential and why most hit a plateau far from their full potential.

His conclusion? The difference is (you guessed it) self-leadership. He calls it “emotional self-control.” What characterizes maximized leadership potential, according to Goleman? Tenaciously staying in leadership despite overwhelming opposition or discouragement. Staying in the leadership game and maintaining sober-mindedness during times of crisis. Keeping ego at bay. Staying focused on the mission instead of being distracted by someone else’s agenda. All these indicate high levels of emotional self-control. Goleman says, “Exceptional leaders distinguish themselves because of superior self-leadership.”

As I read his corroborating data, I thought, Maybe Dee Hock’s percentages aren’t all that absurd!

Recall the first five chapters of Mark’s Gospel. Remember Jesus’ pattern of intense ministry quickly followed by time set aside for reflection, prayer, fasting, and solitude? That pattern is repeated throughout his ministry. Jesus was practicing the art of self-leadership. He would go to a quiet place and recalibrate. He would remind himself who he was and how much the Father loved him. Even Jesus needed to invest regularly in keeping his calling clear, avoiding mission drift, and keeping distraction and temptation at bay.

This is self-leadership. And nobody—I mean nobody—can do this work for you. You have to do this work yourself. Self-leadership is tough work—so tough, Dee Hock says, that most leaders avoid it. Instead, we would rather try to inspire or control our people than to do the rigorous work of reflection.

Some years ago a top Christian leader disqualified himself from ministry. A published article described his demise: “[He] sank like a rock, beat up, burned out, angry and depressed, no good to himself and no good to the people he loved.”

When this pastor finally wrote publicly about his experience, he said, “Eventually I couldn’t even sleep at night. Another wave of broken lives would come to shore at the church, and I found I didn’t have enough compassion for them any more. And inside I became angry, angry, angry. Many people still wonder whatever happened to me. They think I had a crisis of faith. The fact is I simply collapsed on the inside.”

He failed the self-leadership test. He should have regrouped, reflected, recalibrated. Maybe taken a sabbatical or received some Christian counseling. Goleman would say that this guy lost his emotional self-control. Now he’s out of the game.

A little closer to home, I’ll never forget when three wise people came to me on behalf of the church. They said, “Bill, there were two eras during the first 20 years of Willow Creek history when by your own admission you were not at your leadership best—once in the late seventies and again in the early nineties. The data shows Willow Creek paid dearly for your leadership fumble. It cost Willow more than you’ll ever know when you were off—not hitting on all 8 cylinders.”

Then they said words I’ll never forget: “Bill, the best gift you can give the people you lead here at Willow is a healthy, energized, fully surrendered, focused self. And no one can do that for you. You’ve got to do that for yourself.” And while they were talking, the Holy Spirit was saying, “They’re right, Bill. They’re right.”

Because I know what’s at stake, I ask myself several self-leadership questions on a regular basis.

Is my calling sure?
On this matter, I’m from the old school. I really believe that if you bear the name of Jesus Christ, you have a calling, whether you’re a pastor or a lay person. We all must surrender ourselves fully to make ourselves completely available to God. Ask, “What’s my mission, God? Where do you want me to serve? What would you have me do in this grand kingdom drama?”

Remember what Paul said about his calling? “I no longer consider my life as dear unto myself. Only that I fulfill the mission or the calling given to me by God himself” (Acts 20:24).

What happens when you receive a call from the holy God? Your life takes on focus. Energy gets released. You’re on a mission.

I have to keep my calling sure. So on a regular basis I ask, God, is your calling on my life still to be the pastor of Willow Creek and to help churches around the world? And when I receive reaffirmation of that, then I say, “Then let’s go! Let’s forget all the other distractions and the temptations. Burn the bridges!”

If you’ve been called to be a leader, it’s your responsibility to keep your calling sure. Post it on your refrigerator. Frame it and put it on your desk. Keep it foremost in your mind.

Is my vision clear?
How can I lead people into the future if my picture of the future is fuzzy? Every year we have a Vision Night at Willow Creek. You know who started Vision Night? I did. Guess who I mainly do it for? Me. Every year when Vision Night rolls around on the calendar it means that I have to have my vision clear.

Every leader needs a Vision Night on the calendar. On that night you say, “Here’s the picture; this is what we’re doing; here’s why we’re doing it; if things go right, here’s what the picture will look like a year from now.

We prepare very diligently for Vision Night at Willow Creek. We have countless meetings to discuss the future. We spend many hours in prayer: “God, is this what you would have?” We search the Scriptures. By the time Vision Night rolls around, the vision is clear again. But it takes a lot of work to clarify the vision and to keep it clear. Nobody can do that work for you. It’s the leader’s job.

Is my passion hot?
Jack Welch, the celebrated leader of General Electric, says, “People in leadership have to have so much energy and passion that they energize and impassion people around them.”

I couldn’t agree more. When I appoint leaders, I don’t look for 25-watt light bulbs. I look for 100-watt bulbs because I want them to light up everything and everyone around them.

Whose responsibility is it to keep a leader’s passion fired up? The leader’s. That’s self-leadership.

Last year, at an elders’ meeting, a couple of the elders asked me, “As busy as you are, why do you fly out on Friday nights to speak in some small out-of-the-way church to help them raise money or dedicate a new facility? Why do you do that?”

My answer: Because it keeps my passion hot.

Last year I helped a church in California dedicate their new building. One guy took me to the corner of the auditorium, peeled the carpet back, and showed me how everyone in the core of their church had inscribed the names of lost people in the concrete. Then they covered it over with carpet. In that auditorium they’re praying fervently that the lost will be found.

It was a four-hour flight back to Chicago. I was buzzed the whole way. That church fired me up! I just love watching men and women throw themselves into the adventure of ministry. It inspires me. I know that my passion has to be white-hot if Willow is going to catch it. I can’t become a 25-watt bulb—nor can you.

We do a lot of conferences through the Willow Creek Association. At times pastors of flourishing churches will pull me aside and say under their breath, “I have to come here once or twice a year just to keep my fires lit.” They seem embarrassed about being here so often, as if it’s a sign of weakness.

I tell them, “If you’re a leader, it’s your job to keep your passion hot. Do whatever you have to do, read whatever you have to read, go wherever you have to go. And don’t apologize. That’s a big part of your job.”

Is my character submitted to Christ?
Leadership requires moral authority. Followers have to see enough integrity in the leader’s life that high levels of trust can be built. When surveys are taken about what it is that inspires a follower to throw his or her lot in with a particular leader over a long period of time, near the top of every list is integrity.

A leader doesn’t have to be the sharpest pencil in the drawer or the one with the most charisma. But teammates will not follow a leader with character incongruities for very long. Every time you compromise character you compromise leadership.

Some time ago we had a staff member who was struggling in his leadership. I started poking around a little bit. “What’s going on here?” I asked.

Then the real picture emerged. One person said, “For one thing, he sets meetings and then he doesn’t even show. He rarely returns phone calls and often we don’t know where he is.”

I spoke to that guy and said, “Let’s get it straight. When you give your word that you’re going to be at a certain place at a certain time and you don’t show up, that’s a character issue. That erodes trust in followers. You clean that up, or we’ll have to move you out.” If character issues are compromised, it hurts the whole team and eventually impacts mission achievement.

I don’t want to be a leader who demoralizes the troops and hurts the cause either. So on a regular basis, I sing Rory Noland’s song in my times alone with God:

Holy Spirit, take control.
Take my body, mind, and soul.
Put a finger on anything
that doesn’t please you,
Anything that grieves you.
Holy Spirit, take control.

It’s the leader’s job to grow in character. No one can do that work except the leader.

Is my pride subdued?
First Peter 5:5 says, “God opposes the proud. He gives grace to the humble.” Do you know what Peter is saying? As a leader I have a choice. Do I want opposition from God in my leadership, or do I want grace and favor?

If you’re a sailor, you know how hard it is to sail upwind. You also know how wonderful and relaxing it is to sail downwind. Peter is saying, “Which way do you want it? Do you want to sail upwind or downwind? If you’re humble, the favor of God carries you. If you’re proud, you’re sailing into the wind. God opposes the proud.”

Do you want to know the best way to find out if pride is affecting your leadership?

Ask.

Ask your teammates. Ask the people in your small group. Ask your spouse. Ask your colleagues. Ask your friends, “Do you ever sense a prideful spirit in or around my leadership?” If you just couldn’t ask a question like that, then you probably do have a pride issue!

It’s a leader’s job—with the Holy Spirit’s help—to subdue pride.

Are my fears at bay?
Fear is an immobilizing emotion. Sometimes I ask pastors, “Why haven’t you introduced more change in your church when you know the church is crying out for it?”

I ask business leaders who are hesitating to launch a new product, “Why haven’t you pulled the pin?”

I ask political leaders why they haven’t taken a stand on a particular issue, one I know they have strong personal convictions about.

So often the response is: “Because I am afraid.” Fear immobilizes and neutralizes leaders.

Believe me, I am not above this. I remember the morning in the year 2000 when it became clear to me that we needed to launch a $70 million building program. Our vision for the future was clear. The elders, the board, the management team signed off on it. The last step in the whole equation was for me to have the guts to pull the trigger. And you know what swirled around in my mind? The minute you go public with a $70 million campaign, there’s no backing out. It’s pass-fail. I realized that everything we had worked for over the past 25 years, all the credibility our congregation has established in our community and around the world was on the line. Fear kept building in my heart. Why expose Willow to that kind of risk? We’re cruising along. We’re growing and baptizing a thousand people a year. Why are we doing this?

I am not above letting fear mess with my decision making as a leader.

At a certain point, I just had to say, “I can no longer let fear sabotage my leadership.” I reminded myself of that little verse, 1 John 4:4, “Greater is he that is in me than he that is in the world.” I asked myself: Has God spoken to me? Has he made his direction clear? Is the leadership core with us? Is he going to love me if I fail? Am I still going to heaven if this whole thing doesn’t turn out right? I struggled but finally I found the courage to step out in faith. (The campaign was enormously blessed by God. Our church could have missed a great miracle had fear won the day.)

Are interior issues undermining my leadership?
All of us have some wounds, some losses, and some disappointments in our past.

All that stuff has helped shape or misshape us into the people we are today. I laugh at people who say, “My past has not affected me. My family of origin has not affected me.”

Leaders who ignore their interior reality often make decisions that have grave consequences for the people they lead. Most of the time, they’re unaware of what’s driving their unwise decisions. Some pastors make grandiose decisions that enslave everybody in their churches to an agenda that’s not God’s. It’s an agenda that comes out of their need to be bigger than, better than, grander than.

Other leaders are incurable people pleasers. Every week they want to take a poll to see where they stand in the Nielsen ratings.

Who’s responsible for your interior issues getting processed and resolved? You are. I am.

I’ve spent lots of time in a Christian counselor’s office. I still am in contact with two Christian counselors. And whenever I think, Man, there’s some stuff coming out of me that has nothing to do with the Holy Spirit, and I don’t understand it, I call these counselors. I say, “I don’t understand why I said what I said, why I did what I did. I know it’s junk. Would you help me?” Effective leaders must get a handle on their “junk!”

Are my ears open to the Spirit’s whisper?
I estimate that 75 to 80 percent of the breakthrough ideas in my leadership over the years have come from promptings of the Holy Spirit, not through hard machinations of my mind. Some of the great sermon series or vision adjustments, value clarifications or strategy changes, some of the greatest people selections have not been due to my cleverness. It has been the Holy Spirit whispering to my spirit.

Leaders cannot afford to be deaf to heaven. Training, process, and strategy are all good. Developing your mind is essential. But ultimately, we walk by faith, not by sight. There is a supernatural dimension to leadership and it comes our way by keeping an ear open to heaven.

I ask myself regularly, Can I still hear God’s voice? Is the ambient noise level of my life low enough that I can still hear God’s voice when he speaks? And do I still have the guts to obey him even though I don’t understand him all the time?

Is my pace sustainable?
I came close to a total emotional meltdown in the early 1990s. Suffice it to say I didn’t understand self-leadership. I didn’t understand the principle of sustainability. I fried my emotions. I abused my spiritual gifts. I damaged my body. I neglected my family and friends. And I came within a whisker of becoming a statistic.

I remember sitting in a restaurant and writing: “The pace at which I’ve been doing the work of God is destroying God’s work in me.” Then I remember putting my head down on my spiral notebook in that restaurant and sobbing.

But I asked myself, Bill, who has a gun to your head? Who’s forcing you to bite off more than you can chew? Who’s intimidating you into over committing? Whose approval and affirmation and applause other than God’s are you searching for that makes you live this way? The answers were worse than sobering. They were devastating.

The elders, to whom I’m accountable, did not cause my pace problem. It wasn’t caused by the board or the staff or family or friends. The whole pace issue was a problem of my own making. I had no one else to blame. That’s a terribly lonely feeling—having no one else to blame.

So I sat all alone in this cheap restaurant in South Haven, mad as a hornet that I couldn’t blame anybody for my kingdom exhaustion and my emotional numbness. To find the bad guy, I had to look in a mirror.

To further complicate matters, the only person who can put a sustainability program together for your future is you. For 15 years, I lived overcommitted and out of control, and deep down I kept saying, Why aren’t the elders rescuing me? Why aren’t my friends rescuing me? Don’t people see I’m dying here?

But it isn’t their job. It’s my job. Please, if you haven’t already, commit yourself to developing an approach to leadership that will enable you to endure over the long haul.

Are my gifts developing?
Pop quiz: What are your top three spiritual gifts? If you cannot articulate them as quickly as you can give your name, address, and phone number, I’m tempted to say, “You need your cage rattled!” Before you write me a note telling me I’ve made you feel bad, I need to let you know that on this issue, I have Sympathy Deficit Disorder. Maybe I need medication or something. But seriously, leaders have to master their spiritual gift profile. They must know which gifts they’ve been given and how they rank in order.

In addition, the Bible holds every leader accountable before God for developing each of those gifts to the zenith of their spiritual potential.

It’s sobering to have to ask myself regularly, Bill, you know God’s only given you three gifts. Some people have five, six, or seven. You’ve been given three—leadership, evangelism, and teaching. Are you growing them? Developing, stretching these gifts? Reading everything you can read? Getting around people who are better than you in these areas? Are you developing the three gifts God has given you? Because those are the ones I’ve been given, they’re the only ones I’m going to stand accountable for before God someday. I’m learning that I cannot give myself any slack when it comes to spiritual gift development.

Is my heart for God increasing? And is my capacity for loving deepening?
Have you reminded yourself recently whose job it is to grow your heart for God? Is it the church’s job? Your small group’s job? No. It’s your job to make sure your heart for God is increasing. Nobody can do that for you. You’ve got to develop the spiritual practices that keep you growing towards Christlikeness.

Likewise, is your capacity for loving people deepening? If you think about it, you realize God has only one kind of treasure. It’s people.

When our kids were young and Lynne and I needed some husband-wife time, we’d get a babysitter. And I’d give those sitters my little talk. As we were heading out, I would say, “You need to know something. We only have two treasures in this life, only two. I don’t care if you wreck our car or if the house burns down while we’re gone. Really. Just promise me. Promise me you’ll take really good care of our children. They are all that really matter to us in this world.”

God is saying to leaders, “Promise me. Give me your word. Take care of my treasures. Grow in leadership so that you become the greatest you can be at taking care of my treasures. Love them. Nurture them. Develop them. Challenge them. Mature them. They are all that really matters to me in this world.”

And right now would be a good time for you to say to God, “I will.”

Bill Hybels is pastor of Willow Creek Community Church in South Barrington, Illinois.

Scott E. Shaum
Barnabas International

On Authority
If a police officer exclaims, “Stop in the name of the law,” she is using a form of authority. Authority has been granted and delegated to this person for the purpose of upholding the law. It is to be used for the protection and service of others, not for the personal gain of the officer. This simple illustration points out several relevant dynamics of authority.

Authority is received from others. It is delegated.
Authority is granted from a greater authority. People who take authority are referred to as “dictators.” It is wise for a person to not seek higher position, but rather wait on God and for that position to “seek” them. It is extremely difficult if not impossible to wean out any hint of personal ambition in the pursuit of any position of influence. Our identity is too tied to what we do and how others perceive us. A potential leader waiting in the wings is wise if she waits on the Lords and humbles oneself in that posture of waiting. If God is in it, the person will receive greater influence at the right time and in the right manner.

Authority is granted for the accomplishing of a task.
The purposes of leadership are as myriad as the positions held by them. The key principle here is one of influence. A person is granted authority – be it positional or relational – that they may influence others for a common good. Too many leaders mistake that the position they have received is the end in itself. However, leadership is granted for very specific purposes and the leader has been granted influence to move people and resources toward that missional objective.

Authority is for the purpose of benefiting others.
One of the greatest downfalls of leaders is mistaking that positional authority is deserved and all the perks that come with it are a right. If one holds to the principles of servant leadership, then the Lord washing the disciple’s feet as recorded in John 13 is the primary set of directions to be followed. A leader is to set one’s own concerns and ambitions aside for the greater good and the personal benefit of every single person within reach of that leaders influence. “Perks” are not to be sought. Words such as “my staff” or “my church” are revealers of blindness in this area. People and organizations do not belong to a leader. Words really do matter here. This is the most likely area of misuse of authority. If the police officer in the above illustration were to use her authority for her personal gain, she would be accurately described as corrupt. This is true for any person in any leadership position.

In their must-read book, The Ascent of a Leader, authors Thrall, McNicol and McElrath, state, “The character ladder leads to a relational organization – a community – that honors the completion of tasks. The capacity ladder typically leads to a task-driven organization, at the expense of people. This ladder creates people-users – leaders who use followers for their benefit, to further their own success. But leaders on the character ladder treat people as the object and focus of their success. They lead for the benefit of their people, not just their own success.”

I argue that a key marker of “success” for any leader in any position is that those who they influence experience marked growth – be that professional competency, relational skills, spiritual depth and/or character development. A wise leader pursues maturity in their followers in each of these crucial areas. As this happens, there is little that can stifle the accomplishment of that group’s mission.

But what makes authority spiritual?
Our extremely basic look at authority sets the table for us to reflect on spiritual authority. Of course, the first response to the question of what makes authority spiritual is “God.” This is obviously true. But all authority traces its ultimate roots back to the one who is Authority. It is possible for men and women to be in positions such as a pastor at a local church or leading a church planting team in Pakistan and not lead with spiritual authority. What makes authority spiritual is Presence – the Presence of God. A leader who consistently demonstrates the presence of God in their personal life and in public leadership are walking in spiritual authority. It is the very, living, active, shaping work of God in and around and through a person that marks spiritual authority. This is a key attribute to look for in anyone who has been granted any level of leadership position. It is foolish and unwise for any leader to assume that just because they are leading a spiritual organization or have a spiritual title that they are functioning in spiritual authority. A leader is not the one to affirm this dynamic in their own life – God and others are the ones to validate it.

How does one obtain spiritual authority?
Is it even possible to “obtain” this attribute? Yes and no. No because God is the one who grants it and we cannot manipulate that process. However, we can facilitate it. The only way a leader can carry the presence of God into public leadership is if they have spent adequate time in the presence of God themselves. This goes way beyond the concept of personal “devotions.” Adequate is a very loaded term. What is adequate for this season may not be for the next. The leader who sub-categorizes life in the areas of personal “devotions” at home and a leadership role at the office and not intricately mingle the two are gravely mistaken.

Moses may be the most graphic illustration of this dynamic. He was certainly a changed man after the burning bush scene. He did indeed lead Israel out of Egypt. However, it is during the periods on Mt. Sinai when he repeatedly spent time alone in the presence of God for up to 40 days at a time that his authority escalated in spiritual scope. Exodus 33 is a wonderful passage to study this dynamic in his life. Even after the time on Mt. Sinai, Moses continues to spends periods of time in the tent of meeting with God (Joshua is there too being shaped by this Presence). Moses becomes so aware of the desperate need for God’s presence he fights for it in Exodus 33.

The only way my personal influence will begin to reek of the aroma of God’s presence is to knowingly abide in that presence all through the day. As I practice times of solitude, prayer, silence, pausing through the day at different times to pray, and other crucial disciplines, the possibility of God’s presence seeping its way into my life and work increases. I cannot manipulate this process, but I can facilitate and seek to remove anything in my life that might hinder it.

The effectiveness of a leader hinges right here. God is the one who transforms character. What every community and organization needs are leaders who ooze God from the very beings. Spiritual authority is sensed, felt, experienced in a gentle, gracious and strong way as followers spend time with these marked leaders.

Taking Spiritual Authority to the Streets
If there are elements of this article that have caught your attention, I encourage you to assume the Holy Spirit has put His finger on that very point for your reflection and growth. All leaders must maintain a life-long learning posture. It is primarily in the context that our character is exposed, tested and shaped. Spiritual authority is a trait that can ever be grown in. In fact, God beckons each leader to be a follower and journey with him deeper into his presence that more of his presence can go with the leader.

Take the following questions and reflect on them with deep consideration and ideally with other people. I have also included three must-read titles at the end of this list.

How are you manifesting the truth that the influence you have is for other’s benefit not yours?

Are you keenly aware that authority has been granted to you, that it is not yours to keep?

How can you protect a natural slide from missional use of authority to personal gain from authority?

How are the people within your influence experiencing personal, marked growth and development? How can you more internationalize that process?

Can you identify specific examples of the manifestation of God’s presence in your personal and public life? List them.

How are you seeking to deepen the spiritual quality of your leadership? How can you do this in private? How can you do this while “on the job?”

How are you fostering community in your work environment?

Do those you lead approach you with frustrations, concerns, disagreements, and feedback? If not, how can you foster such a grace-centered, open environment?

Three books to read now:
The Ascent of a Leader by Thrall, McNicol, and McElrath
Strengthening the Soul of your Leadership by Ruth Haley Barton
A Leader’s Legacy by Kouzes and Posner

THEME: MANAGEMENT SKILLS: DELEGATION

THE STORY

In 1961 Rick, presided over a disastrous meeting where members of a committee wanted to help a Bible translator in Papua, New Guinea set more appropriate work priorities.

The translator rejected this input in an embarrassing show of anger during the meeting and continued doing what he had been doing. Those involved ended up beginning from scratch in building a relationship with him.

In a prior meeting, this committee raised the question whether this worker was putting the cart before the horse in focusing on literacy work before making more progress on his linguistic analysis and translation goals. The committee decided invited him in to see if they could learn more about what he was doing and perhaps straighten him out. Bad idea!

This committee experienced constant tension between helping and evaluating. Their mandate from leadership was to do both. To evaluate, they would look at what the workers were doing by checking what they had produced (on paper). A focus on helping would suggest ways of coming along side to provide needed expertise at crucial times.

Doing a language project is huge, yet there were some on the committee who just wanted to evaluate rather than give the best help. Their approach tended toward criticism, which would often leave the workers feeling isolated and discouraged about their massive analysis and translation task. A focus on helping the workers would have included evaluation with a goal of finding ways to help.

Most of the time consultants from the committee met with workers individually to review their language work. This called for good interpersonal skills on the part of the consultants. When a person’s work is being examined, that person usually feels put on the spot—tested—with the real possibility of having weaknesses exposed. Having this happen while in training is one thing, but this was real life so the potential embarrassment was greater.

In 1963 Rick got a taste of the work of this committee from the other side of the table. He had worked in a Kunimaipa Village on grammar from story materials he had gathered. He knew these stories would be a great resource for analyzing the grammatical structure of the language.

Rick took what he had learned in the form of a finished analysis back to the main center and gave a copy to the committee (of which Rick had been the leader until about that time). So in the last few weeks before Rick and family left Papua New Guinea for a study program and a year of sabbatical, he was approached by a grammar consultant who had looked over his work. The consultant had little to say about the noun analysis and didn’t like the way Rick had presented the verbs.

Rick found himself justifying his analysis of the verb structure to someone who didn’t speak the language or have any familiarity with it other than the information Rick had given him. Instead of trying to find out why Rick had done it the way he had, he began criticizing the analysis and presenting his own way of doing it. The criticism hit at the most basic level of analysis: how the prefixes and suffixes attach to the verb stems.

Rick shared examples that showed the weakness of the criticism, but the consultant remained committed to his analysis, expecting Rick to submit and adopt his view. They couldn’t agree, and the consultant never got back with him to try to resolve the matter.

Rick knew intuitively that he shouldn’t do what this person wanted but also felt the conflict could have been avoided altogether had the consultant taken a helping stance. Had he been willing to listen to why Rick did the work as he did, a foundation for future collaboration would have been set. Rick knew that what he had done was not only an acceptable way of analyzing the language but also the best way. Also, he felt that his analysis was groundbreaking work—though not a word of commendation was given.

LEADERSHIP ISSUES

1. What were the mistakes of the committee when they tried to get the worker to change his priorities? Can you suggest an approach that might have worked?

2. The episode of the committee calling the translator to give account raises the question of how to change the priorities of someone to whom full responsibility for a program has been delegated.

3. If you had been in Rick’s shoes, would you have been encouraged or discouraged by the way the consultant handled this matter? Compare and contrast the work of a mission leader or district supervisor of churches with that of the consultant in this story. Are there more similarities than differences? What lessons do you see here?

4. Is it your impression that by delegating so deeply, the organization that Rick was part of had lost control of the work? What is it in the story that prompts your reaction to this? What could the organization do to maintain control?

RELEVANT SCRIPTURES

1. Exodus 20:12: Parents have a huge job given to them by God. Why did God command us to honor our parents?

2. I Corinthians 7:17-24: Paul seems to be saying in v. 21 that being a slave is irrelevant. Why would he do that?

3. II Corinthians 8:23: Paul honors Titus as a partner and a fellow worker. Later Titus was working on his own and received Paul’s instructions. It’s obvious that Titus was a trusted worker to whom Paul delegated a lot of responsibility. What would suggest to you that they not only trusted each other but also that Titus had a good idea of what Paul expected?

4. I Peter 2:16-18: We are to live as free people but at the same time to show respect, honor, submissiveness, and servanthood to those over us. What is the balance between these two sides? What is the reason for this push toward humility?

ALTERNATE PLANS OF ACTION

1. The role of a consultant is to make suggestions based on his/her broader experience and to be a sounding board in relation to what the consultee is seeking to do. This consultant needs to be guided to work in that mode. This consultant was too much in love with his own abilities for language analysis and so was pushing when he should have been presenting options and making suggestions. Usually, a consultant who has established a poor mode of working has to have some strong motivating force to get him to change to a less aggressive manner. Sometimes just working alongside an effective consultant for a while is enough, but it might take ending his consulting role for an extended time and then bringing him back in as a trainee consultant.

2. We have no way of knowing whether the analysis done by the consultant might have been based on newer ideas from his own training that would have been more useful and more publishable. Perhaps Rick’s work was incomplete and not able to account for all the data. Rick’s analysis looked more elegant than that proposed by the consultant, but there are also other criteria by which such analyses are evaluated. In that same New Guinea program there were people who refused help even from people with international stature and so the analysis done by them lacked depth and acceptance by a broader audience. In such cases it is perhaps helpful to have a way of bringing in consulting that would coordinate between neighboring and related language programs.

3. Another way of dealing with this situation would be to set up basic formats for grammar and phonology data that would be easier to use by the language team. Instead of writing a potentially publishable paper on these aspects of the language, each team would simply provide data from the language and give optional suggestions on how the data might be analyzed. The actual analysis would be done by a consultant primarily and then finalized in consultation with the language team. This way of handling things might result in higher quality analysis of languages and might also give the language work teams more time to deal with matters like getting the translation program moving and tending to the physical and spiritual needs of the people.

CHOSEN PLAN OF ACTION

Action Option 3 was developed by the Branch consultant corps and used about 5 years after the above stories took place until the present. Language workers who had an interest in doing linguistic analysis had the option of actually writing papers for publication on their language work if they wished.

LEADERSHIP PRINCIPLES

• Teach consultants what their role is and how to stay in that role.
• Understand that the consultee may be feeling happy with his work, including how it fits the language.
• Positive commendation is usually the best motivator for those doing original work. Use small bits of criticism carefully, phrase as suggestions about alternatives for how to do things.
• Learn the difference between resistance to any and all suggestions and selective openness at key points. Follow through with a consultee to complete anything left hanging in an initial visit.

© Stone Forest Leadership Alliance  All Rights Reserved

Walking on the Forest Home Conference Grounds of Southern California one afternoon, I desperately sensed a need for God’s fresh touch and anointing for my increasing ministry responsibilities. I had set aside a day to wait upon God for His voice.

As I walked and prayed, I came upon a memorial to Billy Graham that marked the very place he had driven an important stake in his life and ministry. His covenant with God was to solely use the Scriptures as his authority in his preaching even though others might not. Many believe it was this hour of decision, honored by God that gave Billy power in his preaching.

That day I asked God to make me a man with similar convictions. I prayed that I would have a lifelong commitment to master the Word of God as much as possible in my lifetime and to use it faithfully as my authority in life and ministry. As I look back over my life, it has always been during such extended times with God that He has driven major, life-changing stakes deep into my value system.

THE PRIORITY OF EXTENDED TIMES ALONE WITH GOD

The devotional lifestyle of men and women of God in the Scriptures went far beyond daily fellowship with God. They committed themselves to extended times alone with the Father, waiting on Him in prayer for His will and blessing. Examples can be found in the lives of Abraham (Gen. 18:22), Jacob (Genesis 32:22-32), Moses (Ex. 3), Nehemiah (Neh.1), Daniel (Dan. 9), and even Jesus (Lk. 6:12).

God has always forged and developed His servants in prolonged times set aside for/and with Him. Why is this essential?

SPIRITUAL RENEWAL AND REVITALIZATION (Ps. 51:10-12)

How often have our hearts cooled to the Lord in the midst of a demanding ministry? Being in God’s presence for an extended time revives our love relationship with Christ and allows Him to search our hearts for sin we need to confess or encumbrances we need to prune. We need times with Him to strengthen our defenses against a subtle and deceptive enemy, as we fix our eyes on our Sufficient Companion and Commander – Jesus Christ. As the saying goes, we need to come apart, or we will come apart. . . emotionally and spiritually.

REFLECTION TIME AND MEDITATION (I TIM. 4:15-16)

Finding time for reflection in a high-paced society is one of our greatest needs. We are constantly bombarded by the world’s values. We need time to consider what we are learning and how to absorb it into a biblical value system. Even secular leadership stresses the need for creative planning and reflection. Every Saturday night my dad made vegetable soup. It was delicious when first cooked. But when it sat for a couple days, it was scrumptious! Why? During that time the flavors blended, the seasonings were assimilated into every portion of the soup. So it is in our Christian life. Unless we take time to reflect on what God is teaching us through the Word and life experiences, they will not blend into our spiritual blood system and internal character. The route between head knowledge and heart conviction is meditation.

ETERNAL FOCUS

It is easy to lose sight of eternity! We become so immersed in our immediate circumstances that we cannot interpret them from an eternal perspective. Like viewing a battlefield from a reconnaissance plane, a day of prayer helps us see the world from God’s viewpoint. Increased time in the Scriptures retunes our lives to play in symphonic harmony with God’s eternal purposes and will (2 Cor. 4:16-18).

CLARIFICATION OR CONFIRMATION OF HIS WILL

We are prone to be driven beyond the will of God for our lives by our enemy, Satan. He delights in seeing us get overcommitted so that we wear out. God often needs to slow down the erratic pace of our lives so that He may bring our heart beat in rhythm with His own. I believe it was in Moses’ special times of prayer that God intimately revealed Himself, His ways, and His future plans to him. The Israelites only saw the acts of God as they unfolded day by day (Ps. 103:7).

REHEARSING THE WORKS OF GOD (Ps. 77:11-12)

The Lord often reminded Israel to recall and review His works for their own sakes, their children, and future generations. It was their refusal to maintain this vital growth principle that plagued Israel’s courage, faith, praise and vital relationship to God. Periodically rehearsing the things God has done restores new confidence in God and our love to Him.

UNHURRIED INTERCESSION FOR OTHERS

This is a great time to get caught up on praying for missionaries, non-Christians, our pastors and Christian associates, and our government – to name a few. We need to learn to pray with authority and to break down Satan’s strongholds around the world.

INCREASED PREPARATION AND MEMORIZATION OF SCRIPTURE

Most often we prepare today what we will teach or share tomorrow. We need to be preparing now for the future, giving the Word of God time to brew in our lives so it becomes part of us before we pass it on. I have heard that Howard Hendricks chooses a book of Scripture to study in depth each month. This becomes his reservoir for future messages. Bill Gothard sets aside one day a week for meditation and memorizing a chapter of Scripture.

SETTING PERSONAL OBJECTTVFS…SPIRITUAL GROWTH, MARRIAGE, FAMILY, MINISTRY

Where is God working in our lives right now? Our families? What would we like to see God do in our lives and ministries in the next six months?  We need to take extended time for personal inventory and get new direction from the Lord in these vital areas of life.

THE PRACTICE OF EXTENDED TIMES WITH GOD

A. Divide The Time With God Into Four Parts.

1. Wait on the Lord in reading Scripture, in confession, and in worship.

IN THE SCRIPTURES…you may want to read a large portion of Scripture or just review verses you have previously underlined. Read out loud.

IN CONFESSION AND CLEANSING …Ask God to search your heart for areas in your life that are blocking real fellowship with Him. As the Holy Spirit reveals sin, confess it. This is not to be a time of morbid introspection, digging up past garbage that has already been dealt with, but a time of forgiveness and cleansing. If God reveals sin against a brother, write it down and take care of it when you return.

IN WORSHIP…Psalms 103, 111 and 145 are great portions to pray over in worship. Enjoy the Lord’s presence unhurriedly.

2. Reflect and Meditate.

ON THE WORKS OF GOD…Journal the ways you have seen God work, answers to prayer, vital encounters with God, things you are thankful to God for (from as far back as your conversion). Review these faith-builders each time you spend extended times and add fresh accounts.

ON YOUR CALLING TO MINISTRY…Review often why you know God has called you to your particular life ministry. This gives renewed conviction that He will use you and enable you to do what He has called you to do.

ON THE PROMISES OF GOD AND LIFE-MOTIVATING VERSES…What are some promises God has sustained over the years? What are some life verses that have motivated you and given you direction? Periodically review them on days alone with God.

ON WHAT GOD IS TEACHING YOU IN HIS WORD…Journal your daily encounters with God, then use these extended times alone to review what He has been teaching you.

3. Intercede for yourself, your family, and others.

4. Prepare and plan, setting new objectives for life and ministry for the next six months.

B. SET EXTENDED TIME ALONE WITH GOD ONE OR TWO MONTHS IN ADVANCE. Expect something will always come up to keep you from this time. The enemy knows the life-changing impact of this time.  You must make time, or you will never find it.

C. CHOOSE A PLACE FREE FROM DISTRACTIONS, where you can walk and pray aloud. It needs to be away from your home and office. Christian retreat centers usually allow you to spend time away like this, or if necessary, go to a motel. You need to get away from your present environment to be able to see objectively.

D. PREPARE FOR THE TIME ALONE THE DAY BEFORE. Bring a bag lunch…Determine where you will read…What challenging book to bring along…A notebook to journal thoughts…An extra pen…A hymnal for worship, etc.

Times alone with God must be tailored to your personality and style. These times will be challenging to maintain but will pay great dividends in your life and ministry.

Luke 5:15, 16

Summary
The work of investigating personnel problems, confronting difficult people and addressing sin is both loving and gracious, resulting in a stronger, more effective mission community. Despite the importance of directly addressing personnel problems, many find these situations awkward and uncomfortable and consequently do not fully address even the most serious of issues. The Bible gives both clear principles to follow when addressing sin issues within the Christian community as well as stern warnings for neglecting this important work.

Failure in the life of a Christian is an opportunity—it is an opportunity for God to transform us and it is an opportunity for Satan to destroy us. As we come alongside fellow believers who have fallen into sin, failed in leadership or otherwise lost their way on the mission field, it is important to realize that there is an ongoing spiritual battle taking place. The process of confronting problem behaviors will help guide the intervention toward spiritual and relational restoration and will prevent the enemy from using the failure to his advantage.

The confrontation dilemma
A common question that is raised in mission circles is whether or not the mission agency is like a New Testament church or not. If the mission agency is like the local church, then the question arises whether or not the same principles of leadership selection and discipline of leaders should be followed within the mission. While this is an interesting theoretical question, the problem that mission agencies have of addressing personnel problems on the field is much more fundamental. Let’s look at what actually happens on the mission field and within agencies. More often than not, problems are not directly addressed and when issues do surface, there is much confusion as to who is responsible to respond. For instance, the field leadership refers the issue to the regional leadership, the regional leadership then brings in the home office and finally the home office suggests that it is really the sending church’s responsibility to give their recommendation on a course of action.

Sadly, the following two stories illustrate how this lack of clarity in confrontation often plays out in real life. A husband and wife sat in the member care provider’s office and in tears told the sad story of their broken marriage. He had an affair but when confronted by his wife ended the relationship. It seemed appropriate for them to inform their mission, which the wife initiated. When sharing the story with the mission leader, she was shocked to hear him say, “Well, you know everyone sins.” These words were a knife in her heart. It was clear that if they were going to address this failure in their life and ministry, they would have to do it on their own.

Another missionary, depressed and exhausted from ministry, was ready to leave the field when he shared this story. As a team leader he was responsible for holding team members responsible for how time was managed and responsibilities were carried out. One new single male missionary seemed reluctant to fully participate in team projects. While he never complained or gave any outward sign of being unhappy, he just did not spend time with team members or report his actual work activities. After a few weeks, the team leader privately asked the new member if anything was wrong. He said he was fine, but maybe experiencing some cultural stress. He tried staying connected with family members via Facebook, Skype and used other Internet avenues to keep up with sports and news from home. Some weeks passed and it was obvious that little time was being spent in language study or team projects. Not knowing what else to do, the leader formally met with the missionary to discuss the problem. The man listened, said very little in response other than he was doing his best. Now the atmosphere within the team changed. This man was upset anytime he met with the team and complained openly about the leadership to sympathetic team members. The team leader finally brought in the leadership from the home office. Suddenly the tables were turned. The home office reminded the field leader that this man had 100% full financial support by several important supporting churches and that he needed to learn how to be more accommodating to the individual needs of his team members. The leader realized that he had actually had no support even from the mission agency to carry out the duties of his
job.

It is probably close to twenty years ago that I realized there was a significant problem within the church when it came to handling discipline issues. Working as a psychologist, I often received referrals from pastors and church leaders of individual church members who had caused problems within the church. At first, I felt honored that I was called upon to be a part of such important restoration processes. Then I began to realize that many times people were being referred to a Christian psychologist for help in place of being involved in church discipline. This was not always true, but more often true than not. For example, one of the pastors of a large church was found to have pornography on his computer at work, including that of young children. He was confronted and then sent for counseling. Once the pastor was “in counseling” the leadership of the church stepped back and dropped the issue. The damage that was done to the wife of the offending pastor was almost beyond repair. She had always thought the men of the church had such great integrity and strong Biblical convictions—now she saw that these convictions were relatively shallow at best.

Knowing why we confront
These failures in addressing personnel problems within missions and even within the church need to serve as important reminders to field leadership when they take steps toward investigation and discipline of personnel. The leader needs to be certain he understands why disciplinary action is needed and be willing to carry out the discipline to the full extent he is able. Doing what is right and doing what honors God is the standard that the leader needs to live up to, regardless of the cost. Only then will his conscience give him peace that he has done all that he could to speak truth, act lovingly and carry out Biblical principles of discipline and restoration.

Discipline has a very important role to play in the life of the individual believer, the mission agency and the church. There are three main, Biblical reasons why we engage in disciplinary actions. First, discipline serves the purpose of encouraging individual righteousness. Hebrews 12:7-12 refers to discipline producing “a harvest of righteousness” in the life of the believer. The second reason given for discipline found in both the Old and New Testaments is to maintain the purity of the larger group. The “yeast” that works itself through the whole batch mentioned in 1 Corinthians 5:1-12 is referring to Christians who are living in sin associating with and having fellowship other believers. We need to keep our circle of fellowship free from sin. Third, discipline is to serve as a deterrent to others not to follow down the same path (1 Timothy 5:19-20). When a leader has failed, there is a public account given for what has happened so that there is no question in the mind of others what happened and why action was needed. Transparency brings an end to rumors, gossip and prevents failed leaders from simply walking away with a quiet letter of resignation.

It is important to discern what actually classifies as seriously requiring an investigation and disciplinary action. All too often, personal complaints against others and hearsay is brought to the level of leadership intervention when in fact it should never involve leadership. For example, a sending church’s missions’ pastor calls a field leader and reports that a missionary on home service has made some complaints about a team leader not being supportive. The pastor states, “This sounds serious and we felt you should know. We don’t want to loose this missionary if they are unhappy on the field.” The field leader now has an impossible task in front of him. If he investigates this hearsay that the missionary has alleged to an uninvolved third party, he is giving credibility to something that may in fact not be credible at all. If he does not investigate the complaint, the sending church may view him as not addressing team problems. Knowing what is serious enough to warrant investigation and discipline is critical.

The New Testament suggests three specific areas that require the attention of leadership and fellow believers alike. When doctrinal deviations surface, the person with the false teaching is to be silenced (Titus 1:9-11). Paul’s public confrontation of Peter provides a good example of this (Galatians 2:11-14). Moral deviations are equally serious. In 2 Corinthians 5:11-13 we find a list of sins that Paul outlines as being major transgressions including greed, sexual immorality, idolatry, stealing, drunkenness and swindling. Finally, the sin of divisiveness is identified (Titus 3:10-11 and Romans 16:17-19). A divisive person left unchallenged will cause barriers and divisions within any fellowship. These people are to be warned and if they do not stop, they are to be removed from fellowship.

Compare the above list to the reality of what can at times rise to the level of field leadership intervention: not feeling understood, not feeling supported, one person’s ideas and contribution not being seriously considered, roommate problems between singles and feeling excluded. Every team at some point will experience these issues, but rather than helping teams address the personal conflicts themselves, the leadership takes on the responsibility of hearing everyone out and trying to mediate a compromise. Not only does this take a tremendous amount of energy, it often leads to a compromise that no one is satisfied with. Without deviating from the task of discussing Biblical discipline, let me just mention an effective parenting principle which can best be applied in these situations. Unhappy missionaries should be encouraged to talk directly with the person or people who made them unhappy. As in parenting, when two children cannot agree to play inside or outside, the two parties should be encouraged to work out the problem on their own. If the leader takes the lead in trying to settle the conflict, the unhappy parties will give the leader all the responsibility, and in the end all the blame, for how it is resolved. It is also helpful to remind discouraged missionaries the importance of compromise, commitments they have made to have a servant’s attitude, living with individual differences and the truth that we learn hard but helpful life lessons when we wrestle with disappointment and unmet expectations. Leaders can give hurting people the message that they can get through their difficult times and with God’s help overcome.

Knowing who should confront
Given the available training and specialized services in conflict mediation it may seem to some field leaders that they personally are not qualified to investigate and carry out discipline of personnel. We indeed live in an age of specialists who claim great skills in areas most people have little experience in. While this is true, the mission leader needs to realize that the guidance he needs is available in the Bible (and from other experienced mission leaders who have walked down the same road). The Bible makes it clear that anyone aware of sin is responsible to address it. This was a principle in the Old Testament, repeated again in the New Testament (James 5:19). Paul specifically adds that when a person is caught in sin, “you who are spiritual should restore him gently” (Galatians 6:1). Besides those who are aware of the sin and the mature leaders, the main person responsible to address the sinning brother is the person who has been sinned against (Matthew 18:5). This is an essential step that needs to be taken before all others.

Knowing how to confront
The attitude of the leader who is confronting a serious sin issue is critical. How the leader sounds, how he communicates his concerns and the intent behind the communication is a critical ground laying process in disciplinary action. Compare these two scenarios. When made aware of a problem a leader either: A) starts off by writing a carefully worded email to the person involved, or B) he travels to or immediately calls the person involved. What is the difference between these two actions? An email cannot communicate concern or warmth and is unable to respond to the immediate emotions or questions of the reader. If the leader is able to see the face of the person he is talking with, then he can read from the responses what is making sense, what is misunderstood and what is really heard by the listener. Do not address conflict issues by email—talk to people and meet with them personally.

Having the right attitude at the very onset of dealing with a personnel problem is probably the most critical step within the entire confrontation and restoration process. Paul states that when a brother sins, we should be filled with grief over the sin (1 Corinthians 5:1-2). Secondly, we ourselves should be spiritually mature (Galatians 6:1). We should also be merciful to those who are trapped in sin and yet hate the sin they are trapped in (Jude 22-23). If it is at all possible, our desire should be to work toward complete restoration and to cover over the sin (Colossians 3:13-14). Our forgiveness for a repentant brother should be immediate and full of grace. We should also have the seriousness required knowing we are doing God’s work to warn and save the life of others by warning them of the dangerous path they are on (Hebrews 3:13 and James 5:19).

With these attitudes in place, the first task when the leader is certain that a mission member has failed, is to personally address the issue in private. This step is not meant in any way to take responsibility away from the person or people who have been sinned against. The individual who has been sinned against should be the first to address this issue in private, but this is not always possible. For example, a missionary may be misusing mission funds, involved in prostitution or verbally abusing children in an orphanage. When there is no clear victim of the sin committed or the victim is not able to respond for some reason, the person aware of the sin issue must step forward to start the process of addressing the problem. If this initial confrontation does not lead to acknowledgment and repentance, the leader needs to gather evidence that sin has been committed. There needs to be witnesses, emails, recordings or other information to corroborate what has occurred. An important principle to keep in mind at this point is that gathering evidence is not going to establish exactly what happened. In the end, the mission leader many never know exactly what happened. Over the many years of doing marriage therapy, I have always gathered evidence to establish what facts I can about the history of the marriage problems. Yet, I have never found that the husband and wife have ever agreed about past events. Memory of events is highly suggestive and influenced by the passage of time and emotions. What is useful and important in this information gathering process is to establish patterns of behavior. If a person has a problem in some area of his life, as you look at the history of his life and the history of relationships with people in various settings, you will see the problem patterns emerge again and again. For example, a person who is controlling and insensitive will be shown to be controlling with how information is handled, how decisions are made, how the home is run and how friendships are managed. The problems we have and the sins we commit in one area of our life eventually show up in many other areas of our life.

Once the leader is certain there is indeed evidence to support the fact that the fellow missionary has sinned and not turned away from the sin, a process of up to four steps based on Matthew 18 can be followed. The first step is to confidentially go and confront the fellow missionary. If that encounter does not lead to acknowledgment and real change, then there is a need for further investigation. During the second step, or investigation, the gathered evidence and witnesses, are presented by the leader to the offending missionary. If that process does not bring about acknowledgment of the problem, the missionary is then brought before the leadership of his/her field or mission. If that process again does not bring acknowledgment and genuine repentance, then the person is removed from his position as a part of the mission team. If the missionary is a leader, then the mission team he is leading is publicly informed about the details of why he was removed. If the judgment against the offending missionary is true, then the leadership can rest assured that they are carrying out a judgment that has already been made in heaven against the sinning brother (Matthew 18:18).

Carrying out discipline in this manner is the most loving thing we can do. It saves lives, marriages, family and ministries. To not carry out discipline is to act in an unloving manner. For example, a missionary who is running at full speed in four different ministries, but at home has a depressed wife and emotionally disturbed children, needs to be confronted and stopped. To not work toward this end is to further undermine that entire family and the work of God. The Bible reminds us of two very important principles regarding discipline that should serve as warnings lest we avoid our responsibility as leaders. If we do not bring judgment where judgment is needed, God will do it Himself (1 Corinthians 11:30-32). When we do not take sin in our midst seriously, the sin that remains unaddressed will in the end work its way into the entire group. We can be thankful God loves His church and the work of bringing the gospel to the ends of the earth and that He has given us the tools we need to ensure the work is carried out effectively.

/Journal of Religious Leadership,/ Vol. 1, No. 2 (Fall 2002), pp. 105 – 119.

I have been asked to reflect on my five years in the presidency at Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary, and to do so honestly, I need to begin with a confession.  I was wrong.  That is the most accurate statement I could make in summing up my experience in this position.  Mind you, I was not wrong about everything.  In fact, I believe we were quite right and accurate about a lot of things we attempted and accomplished during my tenure.  I could make the usual list of ‘legacy’ items that we former presidents do in justifying our term in office. There is much to be thankful for, many moments to treasure and certainly a legacy that I trust will make a difference to generations of students and faculty at our seminary.

Yet at the very heart of my reflection on my service lies this one major conclusion… I was wrong.  I was wrong in my understanding and preconceived notions of leadership in Christian ministry.

I was wrong in my expectations of others and myself.  And I was wrong in my motivations, which may be the hardest thing to admit.

I look back and wonder why I was so wrong.  My career path had certainly prepared me for leadership in an educational setting: twelve years of fundraising experience, a Ph.D. from a leading school in Great Britain, work in educational administration and a knack for strategic planning and vision casting.  I had good experience in managing effective teams and working with not-for-profit boards.  And my four years at the seminary as VP for Advancement had introduced me to the idiosyncrasies of theological higher education, which I felt I had negotiated quite well.  There was no lack of preparation for the task.

Nor was there a lack of motivation.  I had long believed that God had gifted me for leadership.  I rose naturally and quickly into key leadership positions wherever I had gone.  It felt right, seemed natural and was usually satisfying and challenging.  So it was a logical move to take a top spot in theological education.

My problem was not with preparation, motivation, or even with a sense of true calling and a sincere desire to serve God with the best of my skills and abilities.  The problem lay solely with my pre-determined understanding of what Christian leadership is really all about.

Five years ago, if you had asked me for a Scripture that epitomized the leadership ideal, I would likely have pointed you to Nathan’s directive to King David, “Whatever you have in mind, go ahead and do it, for the Lord is with you.” (2 Samuel 7:3)  I could identify with David as ‘God’s man at God’s time’ and I believed that God would pour out his wisdom and favor if I could be such a man.  After all, there were kingdoms to conquer and people to be led.  There were great things to be done for the Lord and no vision was too limited and no goal too small.

Now, five years later, I would point to a different verse.  In speaking of Jesus’ incarnation, Paul tells us, “he made himself a man of no reputation, taking on the very nature of a servant.” (Phil 2:7)  The verse does not say that Jesus became a man of bad reputation, or questionable reputation, but simply of ‘no’ reputation.  That is, reputation, image, prestige, prominence, power, and other trappings of leadership were not only devalued, they were purposefully dismissed.  Jesus /became/ such a man.  Not by default or accident, but by intention and design.  And it was only in this form that he could serve, love, give, teach, and yes, lead.

In reflecting on these past five years, I have come to believe that true Christian leadership is an ongoing, disciplined practice of becoming a person of no reputation, and thus, becoming more like Christ in this unique way.  In his reflections on Christian leadership, Henri Nouwen refers to this as resisting the temptation to be relevant.  He says, “I am deeply convinced that the Christian leader of the future is called to be completely irrelevant and to stand in this world with nothing to offer but his or her own vulnerable self.”[1]   Five years ago I rejected this idea outright.  In doing so, I was wrong.  Today I see and affirm this important notion that lies at the heart of godly leadership.

I will speak here to five areas where I have begun to learn what it is to be this sort of Christian leader.  In each area I found that I began with a misunderstanding of what true Christian leadership looked like, and I have been on a journey of transformation, introducing me to a new way to serve as Christ taught us to serve.

Anointed vs. Appointed

I know of few Christian leaders today who were anointed before they were appointed.  We have employed the business model of doing careful searches looking for Christian leaders whom we can appoint to office.  We check their credentials, put them through rigorous interviews, and even give them psychological tests before we make the critical appointment.  Once in place, we then anoint them and ask God to bless their work.

The Biblical evidence seems to indicate that God selects leaders in the opposite order.  Samuel anointed David before appointing him King.  The selection criterion for leadership was not based on who would most likely get the appointment, but whom God had anointed for this task.  And appointment without anointment always led to disaster.

In 1997, I was satisfied that I had met the criteria for the job and was pleased to be appointed for the position of president.  And while our board said a lovely prayer and laid hands on me, in retrospect I think the process was backward.  No one asked me if I sensed God’s anointing for this position.  I don’t know what I would have answered, but the issues and criteria to consider in forming an answer to this question were ones that I never considered in my response to my appointment.

The reason that anointing is so critical to the task of Christian leadership lies in its nature as the most unique form of leadership on earth.  Christian leadership requires nothing less than a complete, wholesale sell-out of your life in service to God and God only.  It is the ‘losing of your life’ to the work God will do in you to benefit your institution, school, church or organization.  And the stakes are high.  Nowhere else in the Christian life will the price for divided loyalties be so costly for so many for so long.  Ineffective and fallen leaders compromise kingdom work, and the effects are eternal.  Therefore, it is a field that must be entered with the utmost seriousness, and only when one has clearly been anointed for the task.

With God’s anointing comes God’s power and presence.  There is a special blessing bestowed on God’s anointed.  It is the blessing of God’s power manifest in ways only seen through the work of God’s chosen.  God’s anointed shout and walls fall.  They lift their feeble staff and seas part.  They speak God’s word boldly and movements are begun that free men’s souls.  God’s anointed do the miraculous because they are the servant of the Almighty.  There is a unique presence of God in the lives of those God anoints and calls to leadership through that anointing.  Without it, we are continually thrown back upon ourselves to make things work.  With it, we have the resources of heaven at our disposal if we will be the faithful servant.

For this reason, God’s anointed are incredibly unique people.  God’s anointed will do anything God asks… anything.  God’s anointed will seek God’s will with a passion.  They will not move without it and they will not be diverted from their course once they have it.  God’s anointed will love what God loves and hate what God hates.  That means loving God’s people, God’s church, God’s environment, God’s resources, and God’s plan.  It also means hating sin in every form and coming against anything that stands between God’s loving plan and its accomplishment.  God’s anointed are people of keen discernment, they are branches who are solidly engrafted into the true vine.  God’s anointed are servants first, last and always.  And God’s anointed have only one passion, to know and do God’s will that He might have the glory.  In this way, God’s anointed are people of no reputation.

I did not come into my leadership position with a clear sense of anointing but in these past five years I have come to better understand and value the distinction between appointment and anointment.

Fighting the Need to Increase

When John the Baptist saw Jesus walking in his presence, he made the declaration, “He must increase, but I must decrease.”  Most Christian leaders would say that in their hearts they would wish that Jesus would increase and they would decrease.  But it is hard to decrease in a leadership position.  There are natural trappings that distinguish those in leadership such as salary, title, prestige, priority, power, influence, honor and advancement.  And in each area there are tempting opportunities for increase.  There are also pressures to increase and motivations to build a kingdom in which we house our growing collection of leadership trappings.  This desire for the fame and fortune of leadership must be met not only by resistance, but, according to John Adams, we must have “a habitual contempt of them.”[2]

Nouwen is even more direct, “The way of the Christian leader is not the way of upward mobility in which our world has invested so much, but the way of downward mobility ending on the cross… Here we touch the most important quality of Christian leadership in the future.  It is not a leadership of power and control, but a leadership of powerlessness and humility in which the suffering servant of God, Jesus Christ, is made manifest.” [3]

Perhaps the hardest place to decrease is in the influence and the power we hold over people and decisions.  For this reason we find Christian leaders who are overly directive at best, and autocratic at worst.  And as a result we produce churches and ministries that are rife with ‘learned helplessness’.  By overestimating our own worth, we help our people depend on us for everything.  And that dependence feeds into our need to be needed, to be the “idea person” and visionary, and to be in control.  We tell ourselves that the more we lead in this way, the more our leadership is valued and our presence desired.

Of course, this is not real leadership, but a counterfeit that gives us /our /increase and expands /our/ kingdom.  It also, however, does a terrible disservice to our people, leaving them uninvolved and under-developed.  It wastes resources and limits our ministry, all under the guise of strong leadership and the use of our God-given talents for ‘getting things done.’  Robert Greenleaf reminds us that the difference between a true servant-leader who is servant first, and the leader-servant who seeks leadership first, lies in the growth of the people who serve under them.  The test question is, “do those served grow as persons; do they, /while being served/, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants?”[4]

For this reason, leadership bent on increasing the leader lacks integrity.  Integrity is the attribute of honesty, moral behavior and a value-centered life.  Integrity witnesses externally all that we are internally.  And for that reason, godly integrity begins with our inner life in God.  Stephen Covey sees integrity as, “the value we place on ourselves.”[5]  By that he means that we first must keep faith with ourselves if we are to be trusted and trustworthy to those around us.  We must keep promises we make to our own value system.  For the Christian leader this means that our self-confidence must be founded in our faith in Christ and our desire to be like Him in every way.  We must seek to be Christ-like in our inner being and be confident that “He who began a good work in you will be faithful to complete it.” (Philippians 1:6) If Christ is truly living in us, as Paul reminds us, then we can in turn live for others in our work.  We will have no need to seek for increase in our positions of power.  We will have no desire to build our own kingdoms and advance our own reputations.  Our lives are hidden with Christ in God (Colossians 3:3) and therefore it is no longer we who live, but Christ who lives in us (Galatians 2:20).  It is only with this kind of godly integrity that we can seek to decrease as Christ increases in and through our work as leaders.

Truly godly leaders empower their people, give away authority, value and involve others, seek the best in and from their people, and constantly seek to lift others up, push others into the limelight, and reward those they lead.  All so that God’s will might be done in a more powerful way.  They seek no glory for themselves, but find great joy in seeing others prosper.  They take no account of their reputation, but seek that Jesus’ face be seen in all they do.  Max DePree’s famous definition is worth repeating, “The first responsibility of the leader is to define reality.  The last is to say thank you.  In between the leader is a servant.”[6]

I have come to understand that godly leadership is a call to a lifestyle of an ever-decreasing thirst for authority, power and influence, where the quest for reputation is replaced by the power of God’s anointing.

Being and Doing

I am a doer.  I have the reputation of going 100+mph always focused on accomplishing objectives, meeting time-lines and crossing things off my infamous ‘to-do’ lists.  I like results over process, action over deliberation, the tangible over the theoretical.  And I like to lead people to accomplish goals and realize vision.  What gets in my way are processes, people with ‘issues’, using time inefficiently, and undertaking work that seems irrelevant.  I am committed to transformation, as long as it can get done on schedule and show some real results.

The problem with this style of leadership is that is denies the truth of the gospel and our creation in the image of God.  If we are truly made in the /imago Dei,/ then our perception of God will significantly influence our own self-understanding.  If we view God as a solitary Monad, an individual being known for his power and transcendence, then we will be leaders who reflect those characteristics.  We will be lone rangers, seeking power and focusing on /doing/.  We will see people as means to an end and value the product over the process.  We will see relationships as tools for our productivity and community as an asset only when it contributes to the bottom line.  This productivity model of leadership is the result of a conception of God as the sovereign, detached monarch.  In that image, we lead as monarchs.

If, however, we are true to our Trinitarian historical commitments, we see instead a God who in his very nature is defined by relationship.  We see Father, Son and Holy Spirit as distinct persons yet also interdependent in their /perichoretic/ relationship.  The mutual indwelling of the three persons of the Godhead gives us a different understanding of what God values in us and desires from us.  Here we learn that relationship is what defines us.  We learn that to be God’s people we must focus on who we are as people in relationship.  We learn that leadership must be concerned with the whole person, and that God’s intent is for us to /do/ the work of the kingdom within and through the community of believers.

All of this we come to know from only one place, namely, in the person of Jesus Christ.  If our epistemological starting point is solely in the incarnation, life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, then our focus as leaders must change drastically. For Jesus was concerned about people over product, relationship over output, and transformation over transaction.  And from beginning to end, Jesus was a servant.

We learn from a proper understanding of our creation in the /imago Dei/ that what is most important to God is not what we do but who we are.  Secular leadership experts are waking to the fact that the key to leadership effectiveness is self-awareness.[7]  In Christian terms this means that the leader is transformed first!

Greenleaf recalls the story of a king who asked Confucius what to do about the large number of thieves.  Confucius replied, “If you, sir, were not covetous, although you should reward them to do it, they would not steal.”  Greenleaf goes on to say, “This advice places an enormous burden on those who are favored by the rules, and it established how old is the notion that the servant views any problem in the world as /in here/, inside himself, and not /out there/.  And if a flaw in the world is to be remedied, to the servant the process of change starts /in here/, in the servant, and not /out there/.”[8]

Before God can do a great work in an organization, that work must be done first in the heart of the leader.  And again this is especially true in Christian leadership.  Unless God has taken our hearts captive, all of our good ‘doing’ will lack spiritual integrity and authority.  Our work will expose the absence of God’s anointing.  And it is at the exact moment that we think we ‘have it all together’ that we cease to be useable in the work of the kingdom.

If I could put one Bible verse on the desk of every pastor and every Christian leader in the world it would be this, “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.” (1 John 1:8)  As Christian leaders we must be engaged in a constant process of self-evaluation and repentance.  It is so easy for us to be tempted in a variety of directions, and when we stray, we impact our entire ministry.  Godly leaders undertake their work with a deep humility and a keen awareness of their own weaknesses and shortcomings.  They know themselves well, seek accountability, pray fervently and watch carefully for red flags and warning signals.

Nouwen challenges us to seek this central and defining characteristic of Christian leadership, “The central question [of the heart of Christian leadership] is, are the leaders of the future truly men and women of God, people with an ardent desire to dwell in God’s presence, to listen to God’s voice, to look at God’s beauty, to touch God’s incarnate Word, and to taste fully God’s infinite goodness?”[9]  For this reason, the greatest tool for effective Christian leadership may be a mirror, and a group of friends to be sure you are looking into it with clarity and focus.

Becoming a leader of no reputation means not being afraid to stare down your weaknesses and uncover the messy stuff in your private world.  It means letting God transform you.  And more importantly, it means knowing how much you need that transformation, far more than anyone else in your organization.  I have come to understand the development of self-awareness and personal transformation as a critical aspect of Christian leadership.  When this ongoing transformation is added to the desire to decrease while Christ increases, all under the anointing power of the Spirit, the Christian leader begins to emerge.

Leadership is a Miracle

One of the greatest gifts I received during my term as president came from my colleague Ron Sider in the form of a book entitled, “Leadership Prayers” by Richard Kriegbaum.  The honesty and humility in these prayers bear witness to the heart of a godly leader.  In his prayer for trust, Kriegbaum offers these words, I love you, God.  You know I do.  How natural it is to love you.  You are perfect.  You are beautiful, pure, powerful, absolutely truthful, and kind.  You have been so generous to me that just saying thank you seems pitiful sometimes.  But far more powerful in my life is knowing and feeling that you love me.  You know exactly and completely who I am – all my ugly thoughts, my mangled motivations, my pretending, my irrational fears, my pride, and my unfaithfulness – and you still love me.  /I know you love me.  You know me, and yet, because you love me, you let me lead others.  I do not understand it, but I am grateful. [10]

In reading these words back through the lenses of my experience I have come to the conclusion that when God uses any of us to lead effectively, it is nothing short of a miracle.  When we place the complex and demanding role of a godly leader next to an honest self-awareness of our own sinfulness and incompetence, we are thrown wholly upon the grace of God and his faithfulness if we are ever to lead anyone anywhere.

There is a corollary here to the miracle that occurs in both the efficacy of Scripture and in the effectiveness of our preaching.  In both, human words are taken up by the power of the Holy Spirit to become the words of God.  In both its inspiration and its interpretation, the words of Scripture are completely reliant on the activity of the Spirit of God.  When the Spirit illumines the human word, hearts are changed, people are transformed and God’s work is done.  The same is true in our preaching.  We study and prepare as we are trained to do, but in the end, our preaching only becomes effective when the Spirit of God takes up our feeble human words and uses them to touch hearts and change lives.  When it happens it is a miracle!

Conversely, when we seek to have the written words of Scripture or the spoken words of the preacher stand alone apart from the work of the Spirit, our ministry loses its power.  It becomes /our/ words, /our/interpretation, /our/ exegesis and /our/ proclamation.  And slowly and naturally into these words of ours will seep the ugly thoughts, mangled motivations, pretending, irrational fears, pride and unfaithfulness of Kriegbaum’s prayer.

I have come to learn that we must approach leadership in dependent humility.  Throughout history God looked to the least, the weakest, the outcast, the untalented, the sinful and the rejected to give great leadership at historic times.  And He hasn’t changed that approach today.  If we are honest as leaders, we know that we are not capable of leading as the size and complexity of our call demands.  We know that there are others more talented, more prepared, more spiritual and more courageous than are we.  But great godly leaders have always worked at that miraculous intersection where humility and faith meet the awesome presence and power of God’s Spirit.  And the miracle of leadership happens.  It doesn’t mean that we don’t prepare ourselves, hone our skills and seek to be the best we can be for the kingdom.  What it does mean is that in the end, all that we bring will fall woefully short of what is required, and we will be ever thrown again into the grace and faithfulness of God to work the miracle of leadership in and through and even in spite of our small pile of skills and talents.

When God uses us to lead, and lead effectively, we should fall on our knees in wonder and thanksgiving that we have seen again this miracle worked in our midst.  However, it is far too easy for us to take ownership of this miracle and to believe that these results are due to our own wonderful abilities and leadership qualities.  If and when we make this subtle yet devastating shift, the efficacy of our leadership for the kingdom is over.  We are on our own, cut off from the power and preservation of the Spirit.  Every leader finds himself or herself there at some point in their work, and it is a terrifying place to be!

Godly leadership is the miracle of God’s use of our earthen vessels for the glorious work of His kingdom.  To miss this miraculous aspect of leadership will threaten everything we do as leaders, and our office or study will be the most lonely place on earth.  I have come to understand the miracle of godly leadership, and its connection with self-awareness, the need to decrease and the power of God’s anointing.

Seeking the Right Applause

A bookmark of mine carries a thought that stayed with me throughout my term as president of Eastern Seminary.  It reads, “It doesn’t matter if the world knows, or sees or understands, the only applause we are meant to seek is that of nail-scarred hands.”   Leaders are exposed to opportunities to generate applause.  It can come in the form of commendation from the board, approval of our decisions by employees, recognition of our institution’s work by constituencies, admiration of our leadership abilities by co-workers, and words of appreciation from students.

As public figures, we receive both the undue criticism for the failures of our institutions, and the unmerited praise for their successes.  The true calling of leadership requires us to accept the former and deflect the latter.  That is, our job is to take the blame for mistakes made by those under our leadership and to deflect the praise and re-direct it to those most responsible for our success.  In this way we keep ourselves in balance, never taking the criticism too personally and not accepting the praise too easily.  But this balance is often very difficult to maintain.

One axiom of leadership I have come to appreciate reads, ‘leaders do not inflict pain, they bear it’.  In the same manner, leaders to not absorb praise, they re-direct it. The success of any Christian leader lies significantly in their ability to keep this two-fold movement of leadership in balance.  Leaders who inflict pain lose trust and dishearten their people.  Leaders who absorb praise produce resentment and sacrifice motivation.

Returning to where we began, this is why God’s anointing is so important to the Christian leader.  Only with God’s anointing can the leader listen intently for that one source of applause that really matters.  Only anointed leaders truly “seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness.”  If we seek our affirmation elsewhere, the distracting noises that vie for our attention and tug at our hearts for allegiance will drown out all else.  And if we seek for this other applause, we will never hear the one from the Master’s hands.

Two significant temptations come to play here.  The first is the fear of rejection that causes us to run from confrontation.  The second is the desire to make everyone happy and to measure our performance, our effectiveness and our ‘leadership’ on that scale.  The two are very closely related.  The first temptation is motivated by the idea that good leaders will not generate conflict, and that rejection of our performance in our role as leader is a rejection of our personhood and character.  These are significant pitfalls for a leader.  They are generated from that deep-seated desire to hear the applause of all with whom we work.

The second temptation is to lead by reacting. We see which way the wind is blowing and steer that direction, regardless of the situation.  We do not want our people to be anxious, to question our decisions or disagree with our reasoning.  We want harmony and unity, which is commendable.  But left unchecked, this desire will cause us to sacrifice courage, vision and risk-taking.  It will bring us momentary applause, but will ruin us in the end.  To use a variation on a quote from Ralph Waldo Emerson, “Some leaders worry themselves into nameless graves, while here and there some forget themselves into immortality.”

So we must ask ourselves just what kind of applause are we seeking?  If it is human applause that validates, that affirms and that encourages us, we will also find that same applause binds us, boxes us in and ultimately strangles the life out of us.  When our daily self-worth and the measure of our effectiveness come primarily from the reaction of those with whom we work, then we are finished as Christian leaders.

I was always amazed at how many decisions I was called upon to make in any given day; some in private, some in meetings and some in the public arena.  Every day there were multiple opportunities to make ‘applause-generating’ decisions.  And sometimes the temptations to make them were enormous, especially when considering the price that would be paid if other alternatives were chosen.  However, I was equally amazed at how often God’s will and following His word took me down a different path.  It is at that intersection between doing what God was telling us to do vs. doing the expedient and popular that true leadership takes place.  It is there that we know to whom we are looking for our affirmation.

The goal of the Christian leader must be to go to bed every night with a clear conscience and a right heart with God.  God only asks one thing of leaders, that we seek with all our heart to know and do His will.

Before taking on my leadership position I spent a couple of hours with a man whom I respect for his wisdom and leadership abilities.  He gave me encouragement and good advice, and before I left he told me something that both inspires and haunts me to this day.  He said, “Scott, in whatever you do, always strive to be a man that God can trust.”   I now believe that a man or woman that God can trust is one who seeks only the applause of nail-scarred hands.  It is also one for whom the cultivation of reputation carries no value.

I did not have a clear understanding of this need for balance in the life of a Christian leader, and I have come to see it as an essential component for leadership in the kingdom of God.

Leadership in Transformation

My five years in the presidency is a study in transformation.  I came in with a wrong set of expectations, values and ideas about Christian leadership.  I was not thirsty for power or obsessed with the trappings of leadership, but I also was not seeking to be leader of no reputation, nor was I responding to the call because I was a servant /first/.  And it was here that I was wrong.

I used to reject the notion that good Christian leaders were only those who were brought kicking and screaming into the position.  Or that anyone who ‘wanted’ to be a president should be automatically disqualified.  I still believe that God prepares people for His work, and some aspects of this approach are not in keeping with our giftedness.  However, the truth in this view is that servant leaders are servants first, and only as true servants are they called to lead.  For those who see themselves as leaders first, these temptations to stray in leadership are enormous.  “The long painful history of the Church is the history of people ever and again tempted to choose power over love, control over the cross, being a leader over being led.  Those who resisted this temptation to the end and thereby give us hope are the true saints.” [11]

I have left my years in the presidency with a dramatically transformed understanding of godly leadership, and one that continues to be transformed today.  In the end, our work as leaders is all about lordship.  Before it is about vision-casting or risk-taking or motivating others or building teams or communicating or strategic planning or public speaking, it is about lordship.  Where Jesus is singularly and absolutely lord of our life, we will seek to be like him and him only.  That will be our sole calling.  We will be called to our work and that work will carry God’s anointing.  We will be called to decrease that Christ may increase.  We will be called to /be/ people of God before and as we /do/ the work of God.  We will be called to pray and look for the miracle of leadership that God may work in our midst.  And we will be called to strain our ears for that one sweet sound of two nail-scarred hands affirming all that we do in his name.

In these ways, in responding faithfully to this calling and striving after these ideals at the cost of everything else that may tempt us, we become leaders.  And as we do, we will be transformed into the likeness of Christ, becoming leaders of no reputation.

————————————————————————

R. Scott Rodin is the former //president of Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  He now serves as president of Rodin Consulting of Spokane, Washington and part of the John R. Frank Consulting Group of Seattle, Washington.

[1]  Henri Nouwen, /In the Name of Jesus/ (Crossroads:  New York, 1996), 17.

[2]  John Adams, in David McCullough, /John Adams/ (Simon and Schuster:  New York, 2001), 19.

[3]  Nouwen, 62-63.

[4]  Robert K. Greenleaf, /The Servant as Leader/ (Greenleaf Center:  Newton Center, 1970), 7.

[5]  Stephen R. Covey, /Principle-Centered Leadership/ (Fireside:  New York, 1990), 61.

[6]  James O’Toole, /Leading Change/ (Ballantine Books:  New York, 1995), 44.

[7]  Among the many authors who are championing the cause of careful self-awareness are James O’Toole, Stephen Covey, Noel Tichy, John Kotter, Peter Block, Warren Bennis, Max DePree, and Peter Drucker.

[8]  Greenleaf, 34.

[9]  Nouwen, 29-30.

[10]  Richard Kriegbaum, /Leadership Prayers/ (Tyndale House: Wheaton, 1998), 22 (italics mine).

[11]  Nouwen, 60.

The grass withers, the flower fades; but the Word of our God will stand forever. Isaiah 40:8

Fads, helpful as they may be, will come and go [1].  Effective leaders will recognize and use fads which are appropriate to the times and situations in which they lead. But there is more. My personal conviction about lasting effective ministry flows from the following two verses.

2 Timothy 3:16, 17 The Guarantee
Every Scripture inspired of God is profitable for teaching, for setting things right, for confronting, for inspiring righteous living, in order that God’s leader be thoroughly equipped to lead God’s people.

2 Timothy 2:15 The Proper Response to the Guarantee
Make every effort to be pleasing to God, a Bible Centered leader who is completely confident in using God’s Word with impact in lives.

In my opinion we have only one guarantee for an effective life time experience as a leader. We must be people of the Word. Seminaries are good. But a seminary degree does not guarantee an equipped leader. Short term training in leadership institutes are good and helpful. But institutes that offer various leadership emphases can not guarantee equipping. Retreats, workshops, seminars, and conferences, all good in themselves and helpful in our development, can not guarantee equipping. But God does guarantees it. He insures us that this unfading Word which will stand forever can equip us. If we center our lives and ministry in the Word we have a guarantee from God that it will equip us to lead. Our job is to respond and make every effort to please God in our mastery and use of this Word for our own lives and for those we serve. Let me suggest then, that,

Effective leaders should have an appropriate, unique, lifelong plan for mastering the Word in order to use it with impact in their ministries.

I want to share with you 4 discoveries I have personally learned in my own thirty-two year pilgrimage of mastering the Word and using it with impact in my ministry.

1. A Guiding Paradigm Helps

Few leaders master the Word without a proactive, deliberate approach which plans to do so. I was challenged early on, shortly after my Lordship committal in 1964, to begin a lifelong mastery of the Word of God—an overwhelming task I thought at that time. Pastor L. Thompson, the challenger, had been in the Word almost 30 years at that time. He was my model that it could be done. My Navigator trained friend, Harold Dollar, gave me my first paradigm for doing that. The Navigators were using an illustration called The Hand to challenge people to study and use God’s Word. The little finger represented listening to God’s Word. The ring finger stood for reading God’s Word. The middle finger indicated studying God’s Word. The index finger reminded of memorizing God’s Word. The thumb represented Meditating on God’s Word. I immediately set out to use this paradigm. I learned to listen well (using Sermon Listening Sheets). I started to get tapes from Bible teachers. I started my yearly read through the Bible program. I began to memorize three verses per week. I set a goal to study one book thoroughly each year (if a long book or more if shorter books). I learned techniques for analyzing verses and doing word studies which helped me learn how to meditate. In short, I made this paradigm really work for me. I used this paradigm for 15 years with one or more of the components having more prominence from time-to-time.

During the next 10 years I found that not all the components were important to me. By this time I was well into my leadership research and was not actively teaching the Bible in a local church context. I did continue to use several of The Hand components as guidelines. Essentially I was struggling for a better paradigm that both fit me and my ministry.

During the last 7 years I have been working from my new paradigm. And that is what I want to share with you. It has given me new life. Everywhere I go I try to share it—one on one, in groups, in seminars, and in classes. I find that people really respond to it. They react with a fresh new excitement about studying the Bible. I know that some of my readers have really plateaued in their mastery of the Word. I know that some of you are not seeing the Word impacting your leadership. Some of you are probably seeing impact, but are looking for more. Maybe what I have found may help you.

But even if my new paradigm may not work for you, I still contend that you need some plan to move toward lifelong mastery.

2. The Breakthrough Insight—The Notion of Core

I stumbled on to this new paradigm as I studied giftedness of leaders [2]. In my research of leaders developing over a lifetime, I found that:

(1) all leaders have at least one word gift; most have a set of word gifts. Word gifts include teaching, exhortation, prophecy, pastoring, evangelism, apostleship, and ruling (leadership). Sometimes either word of knowledge, word of wisdom, discernings of spirits or word of faith functions as a word gift.

(2) there are differing levels of word gifts: foundational (teaching, exhortation, prophecy); superstructural (pastoring, evangelism, apostleship and ruling); and remote (word of knowledge, word of wisdom, discernings of spirits and word of faith).

(3) the differing levels require a different kind of mastery of the Word— Foundational being much demanding than superstructural or remote.

(4) all leaders have core items in the Bible which are important to them.

It was this last item that was the breakthrough insight. This observation can prove extremely valuable to one who (1) has a desire to establish a life long habit of mastering the Word and (2) wants to use it impactfully in ministry. The observation, expanded a bit:

Leaders usually have favorite Bible books, or special passages, which God has used mightily in their own lives to spur their growth or solve their problems or otherwise meet them. It is these books or special passages which form the basis for much of what they share with others in their ministry.

And they usually do so with added impact since these core items have meant something to them personally. This interest in and repetitive use of core items suggests a selection criterion. We can limit what should be mastered in-depth over a life time to our core items. These core items provide a definite starting place for mastery of the Bible. From this observation I have drawn two important definitions.

Definition:  A Core Set is a collection of very important Bible books, usually from 5-20, which are or have been extremely meaningful to you in your own life and for which you feel a burden from God to use with great power over and over in your ministry in the years to come.

Definition:  A Core Selection refers to important passages, important biographical characters, special psalms, special values or key topics which are or have been extremely meaningful to you in your own life and for which you feel a burden from God to use with great power over and over in your ministry in the years to come.

I call these two, core sets and core selections, by the general category of core items [3].

It is this breakthrough insight which makes mastery of the Bible a realizable potential for word gifted leaders. The Equipping formula suggests one paradigm a leader can use to focus his/her mastery of the Bible.

3. The Equipping Formula—four components

My new paradigm, which I call the Life Long Bible Mastery Paradigm, has four components.

Component 1. Mastery [4] of one’s Core Books
Component 2. Devotional Input (from Core Books and other Bible portions as well)
Component 3. When needed, Familiarity Reading of weak Bible Portions.
Component 4. Situational Study

The first two components are obligatory and should be going on all the time. The next two are contingent upon need.

All leaders need to be working on mastering core items continually. All leaders need to have God speak to them personally through the Word. All leaders need to have some minimum familiarity with the whole Word, even though they are moving toward mastery of a limited number of core items in the Bible [5]. From time to time leaders will have situations in their leadership setting which demand a searching study of the Bible for special findings. These will come and go as prompted by situations. The equipping formula takes in to account these various needs. Its four components form the basis for planning, short term and long term.

This four component paradigm builds on strength but takes into account weaknesses. It is an individualized paradigm. The paradigm allows fit with a given leader’s uniqueness. And most importantly the paradigm is doable. It uses a Building concept—a base plus advance concept—conserving what you have done in the past and adding to it. It is a reproducible paradigm that you can use with others. It focuses on using the Bible with impact, that is, you study not just to learn but to impact others. It is this last notion that is my final point.

4. Impact Communication—Studying for Ideas that Change Lives

Core items are important to a leader. They have already impacted that leader personally. Because of this, a leader can usually use the core items in ministry to impact others. I teach those who want to use this Life Long Bible Mastery Paradigm to identify the key ideas in a core book, a core Psalm, a core passage, a core topic, core biographical characters or core values. Then as part of the plan of mastering that core item, I teach them to design communication events to present this idea in 4 kinds of communication settings.

Effective leaders should have an appropriate, unique, lifelong plan for mastering the Word in order to use it with impact in their ministries. We need Bible centered leaders. The Life Long Bible Mastery Paradigm is simply one of many that can be used. The real questions are, “Do you have a Bible centered ministry? Are you a Bible Centered leader.”

Footnotes
[1] I consider a fad as a fashion that is taken up with great enthusiasm for a brief period of time; a craze. Frequently, behind a fad is some dynamic principle. If we can identify the dynamic underlying principle we can re-engineer other fads which will work later after the original fad dies out (e.g. seeker sensitive churches, various church growth fads, etc.) But the Word of God will always be eternally fresh for any time if its dynamic principles are unlocked.

[2] These first three observations which follow came as a result of 10 years research in giftedness among contemporary leaders at the School of World Mission. See Unlocking Your Giftedness from Barnabas Publishers which gives the results of studies of giftedness among leaders.

[3] A foundationally word gifted leader will have a range of 10-20 core books in a core set as well as other core items. A superstructurally word gifted leader will have a lesser range, say 5-10 books, but many core passages and topics or core biographical characters. See my upcoming book Ministry That Lasts—A Bible Centered Ministry for You available through my own publishing company, Barnabas Publishers.

[4] I define mastery along a continuum (minimum, medium, and maximum) with the idea that you are continuing to master your core items over a lifetime and will return to them from time to time and move your mastery further toward maximum. See Ministry That Lasts for detailed explanations of How To Identify One’s Core Items, an approach to working on Core Items and the notion of Mastery.

[5] I judge familiarity to be a score of 80% or better on the Bible Mastery Proficiency Instrument (BMPI). This instrument is available in Equipped By the Word, Barnabas Publishers. A leader who has read the whole Bible 7-10 times will probably score 80% or more on this testing instrument. Scores below 80% will indicate needs for familiarity reading. Scores of 90% or better probably indicate core books.

© 1996 Dr. J. Robert Clinton

Dr. J. Robert Clinton
2175 North Holiston Avenue
Altadena, California 91001

16 November 1996

Introduction

The likelihood is great that almost everyone, at some point during the span of a thirty or forty year career, will work in an organisation dominated by a toxic leader and also will work in a toxic organisation.  Neither the organisation nor the leader will wear a warning label but most people instinctively know they have been in an unhealthy organisation because they felt inhibited, constrained and unable to thrive even if they survived.  In this new area of scholarship: toxicity of organisations, we see a complex interplay of factors and an array of symptoms of toxicity but the toxic organisation in very simple terms is one where healthy functioning, normal growth and the ability of an individual to thrive and flourish are all inhibited.

As Michael Herman¹ says “The notion of toxic organisations isn’t new, everyone has a story about one.”

Does it exist?

It is worthwhile looking at a diversity of organisations to explore whether and where toxicity has been identified.  Many areas have been studied by this new scholarship and it is by no means just restricted to the business world.

Many organisations are saying that no one stays very long.  Whether it is the corporate world that has resigned itself to a continuous round of recruitment, two years of work and then departure to a competitor, the numerous books on church leavers, or the mission agencies who can no longer find their career missionary candidates, many are observing that people leave more quickly.  Some of those have drawn the conclusion from this that loyalty is dead.

McGraw Hill² say that the organisations that draw that conclusion are toxic organisations.  Their research indicates that not all companies suffer from this high turnover and they say that where there is high turnover the companies destroyed the loyalty themselves by sending the message that employer-employee relationships are based on contracts rather than trust and viewing their employees as expenses rather than assets.

Bacal, the originator of the term ‘toxic organisation’ describes them thus:

We can think of organisations as falling on a continuum. One end is anchored by organisations that function well. In the middle we find the average organisation that is effective but could be better. Finally, we have the toxic organisation, an organisation that is largely ineffective, but is also destructive to its employees and leaders³.

It is that combination, of a largely ineffective organisation and one that is destructive to its workers, that this summary of toxic organisations will focus on because MacGregor Burns’⁴ work showed that the middle group, what he called transitional or what Bacal calls ‘average’, has many of the characteristics of the toxic group but without the malevolence.

Corporate

As in most fields of study the greatest volume and quality of work is in the well funded business world.

According to Jeffrey Pfeffer⁵, Professor of Organisational Behaviour at Stanford and the author of The Human Equation: Building Profits by Putting People First, when it comes to the link between people and profits, companies get exactly what they deserve.  Companies that treat their people well get enormous dividends: high rates of productivity, low rates of turnover. Companies that treat their people poorly experience the opposite and end up complaining about the death of loyalty and the dearth of talent. These are “toxic workplaces“.  “Loyalty isn’t dead”, he insists, “but toxic companies are driving people away. There isn’t a scarcity of talent, but there is a growing unwillingness to work for toxic organisations.”

What seems evident from current work is that there is a strong correlation between the health of an organisation and its effectiveness.  Effectiveness is usually seen in the commercial world by the effect on the bottom line: profit. A report by Towers Perrin⁶ concludes “…the study tracked a statistically significant correlation between positive emotions and companies’ five-year shareholder return. The more positive workers’ emotions, the higher company profits.”

Community situations

Schools

Talking about the prevailing culture of a school Deal and Peterson⁷ say “In positive cultures, one finds an underlying set of norms and values, history and stories, hopes and dreams that are productive, encouraging, and optimistic.  Positive relationships abound around a strong sense of connection to the core mission.”

Like others in corporate organisations, Peterson has shown in his research on effective schools that “if it [the school] doesn’t have a positive, collegial, professional community and strong culture, productivity is just going to flounder.” Talking of the unhealthy schools he’s visited he says

I’ve had the opportunity – kind of a sad opportunity to visit schools with truly toxic cultures. These are cultures where productivity is damaged by a negative approach to teaching, learning and relationships. If you don’t have a positive, professional culture, you are not going to have a productive school.

In such an environment individual characteristics of toxicity are worn like badges of honour.  He gave the example of professional development saying “…in some schools it is sort of like ‘I haven’t been to a workshop in 15 years, and I don’t plan to start now’.”

In toxic cultures, they blame the victim. In schools they believe that it is the students’ fault for not learning.  In toxic cultures, also, you find little celebration of success.

Church & faith communities

Toxic faith is a broad area but Arterburn and Felton in their book Toxic Faith, describe an unhealthy faith as being rule based and see the following ten rules⁸:

1. The leader must be in control of every aspect at all times.

2. When problems arise, find a guilty party to blame immediately

3. Don’t make mistakes

4. Never point out the reality of the situation.

5. Never express your feelings unless they are positive.

6. Don’t ask questions, especially if they are tough ones.

7. Don’t do anything outside of your role.

8. Don’t trust anyone.

9. Nothing is more important than giving money to the organisation.

10. At all costs, keep up the image of the organisation or family.

Clearly a number of these characteristics are purely faith related but we will see that a significant number are characteristics of toxic organisations too.

Families

Cleese and Skynner in their groundbreaking books Families and How to Survive Them⁹ and Life and How to Survive It¹⁰ discuss ‘healthy’ and ‘unhealthy families’.  The following characteristics are drawn from these:

Healthy families are positive in their attitude to life and other people.  In general they give the impression of enjoying themselves, enjoying each other, and especially of reaching out and being friendly to the people around them. (p5)  They see the world as it is, without distorting it to suit their own imaginations, and members of healthy families are very realistic. (p7)  In unhealthy families, the whole family turns out to have a very high level of negative emotions, both towards each other and outsiders. (p8)  Love in healthy families is different.  In unhealthy families love is often just about closeness, indeed sometimes to the point of what Skynner calls “clinging dependence”.  Healthy families’ love involves both closeness and distance.  They are capable of great intimacy and affection; but they also feel self-sufficient, confident and free, so they do not need each other desperately. (p10)

These are some of the healthy characteristics that Cleese and Skynner summarise with the phrase “the ability to be yourself and be able to express your innermost feelings”.

How is it characterised?

Identifiable/Key Characteristics

The study of toxic organisations is still young and there is no definitive list of characteristics.  These are included on the basis of widespread agreement between scholars:

1. Lack of good leadership and management

2. Lacking focus of mission, boundaries of limitation, values and history

3. Lack of satisfaction and optimism

4. Closed communication

5. Punitive in nature and not even-handed

6. Unassailable knowledge, Intolerant of Questioning

7. Authoritarianism, Legalism, Rigidity, Control

8. Emotional, physical, sexual abuse

9. Treat individuals as interchangeable/replaceable cogs

10. Delusional and dissonant

11. Lack of Work/Life Balance

12. Low self esteem

13. Lack of development and learning

Here we do not have space to explore all thirteen characteristics and will just focus on four of them.  For each I will share the findings of my work and then pose some questions that I believe need addressing within the missions context and open these up for debate.

Lack of good leadership and management

In every toxic organisation you will find a toxic leader, who, by virtue of his or her own problems, creates an environment that frustrates their subordinates and colleagues. Toxic leaders, like poor parents, exhibit certain behaviour patterns that confuse and paralyse others who depend on them.

[Some toxic bosses] create organisational pain through insensitivity or vindictive behaviour. Other toxic bosses cause pain because they are unwilling to take on the responsibilities of leadership, leaving subordinates hanging, confused, or paralysed – or all three. Still others are toxic because of their extraordinarily high need for control, looking over the shoulders of people who have a job to do. Finally, some toxic bosses are unethical, creating conditions that compromise their colleagues and subordinates¹¹.

Emotionally, toxic managers appear cold and distant, or explosively excitable and emotional. Whichever it is they behave this way due to a lack of emotional maturity which would allow them to deal with others in a constructive, supportive way.  He or she is also inconsistent. Saying one thing and doing another. Decisions and direction can change suddenly and without apparent rationale. Of greatest difficulty in the behaviour of the toxic manager is the sending of mixed messages so that employees never know what is expected, what will be praised and what will be punished.

The toxic manager avoids. He or she avoids emotionally charged situations such as conflict, or discipline, and reacts poorly to being challenged.  They also frequently avoid making a decision until a crisis develops.  In short, the toxic manager confuses subordinates, uses very subtle ways of punishment for real or imagined transgressions, creates a high degree of dependence, and is internally conflicted.

That good leadership and management is a characteristic of a healthy organisation does not seem surprising but Chandra¹² says that over 80% of people who leave jobs do so because of a toxic boss.  The role of leadership and management is inherent in all of the other characteristics we will examine and to ignore that bad leadership, toxic leadership, can be a major factor spinning an organisation into decline, is to ignore reality.

Some questions for consideration:

1. Mission is full of specialists and empty of trained, skilled and experienced leaders and yet up to 80% of people who go into mission not expecting to lead end up in some kind of leadership position.

a. How much effort, finance etc. do we spend on leadership training?  Is this proportional to its importance or should we change it?

b. Should we actively screen for suitability for leadership in all of our positions, given how many end up in leadership?

2. These issues are highlighted in business as a major problem – is it likely to be more or less of an issue in mission?

Lacking focus of mission, boundaries of limitation, values and history

Toxic organisations are often described as floundering and it is usually because they have lost or perverted their original sense of direction.  Deal and Peterson, talking of schools contrast “A lack of shared purpose or splintered mission based on self-interest” rather than “A mission focused on student and teacher learning”.

They highlight the role that rituals and ceremonies play in reinforcing core cultural values that tell the individuals within an organisation who they are and what they are about.  Toxic organisations in contrast to healthy organisations have few positive traditions or ceremonies to develop a sense of community.  They do not have stories that celebrate successes and recognise heroines and heroes. Rather than hopes, dreams, and a clear vision, a sense of hopelessness, discouragement, and despair is present.  In contrast healthy organisations have a rich sense of history and purpose, a strong, clearly communicated sense of history and strong, clearly expressed shared goals.

In a school context a healthy culture would have: “a shared sense of responsibility” rather than “norms of radical individualism”.  It is a clear focus or mission, well defined boundaries, owned values and an understanding of where the organisation has come from, that can create that sense of shared responsibility.

Some questions for consideration:

1. Have we meaningful rituals and ceremonies for our identity?

2. Have we lost the traditional “family” identity of missions but not successfully found a replacement?

3. Is our leadership disproportionately task focused?

4. How shared are our goals?  Are we a collection of individual pioneers using a common support structure or something more?

Lack of satisfaction and optimism

Satisfaction may seem highly subjective and perhaps slightly utopian but it is important.  New research from ISR Surveys¹³ suggests that there is a link between employee satisfaction and a company’s financial performance. Companies, which compared with the industry in which they operate, achieve above average net profit margins and have higher levels of employee satisfaction and commitment.

Contrast that to Deal and Peterson’s description of schools devoid of optimism:

You find almost a sense of depression and frustration in the school. There’s no shared sense of purpose. The school is fragmented. There are negative norms around improvement and learning. They really don’t believe that they can improve what they do.

Optimism is closely related to satisfaction.  If you are not satisfied in your work you can be optimistic that it will improve but optimism can be killed off by repeatedly bad experiences and prolonged dissatisfaction.

Some questions for consideration:

1. Is satisfaction of interest to Christians – especially missionaries?

2. Can we afford not to be interested given the effects on organisational success?

Unassailable Knowledge and Intolerant of Questioning

A healthy organisation, values the input of all of its members.  There is still a decision-making structure (often a very well developed one) but there is also an acceptance that a great idea can just as easily come from a cleaner as a CEO and each needs to be heard for the good of the organisation.  Even where an idea has to be rejected by the decision-makers, the value of the suggestion is recognised and the person not just tolerated but praised.

Stanley Morris¹⁴ says a characteristic of purveyors of toxic faith is that “they do not tolerate any other opinion or expressions other than their own”.  McLauchlin¹⁵ makes a similar point:

The members of the toxic faith system make claims about their character, abilities, or knowledge that make them ‘special’ in some way. Challenging the authority or correctness of the leader is equated with challenging the very Word of God. Who would want to be pitted against the Word of God?

Compare this to the approach of Harvard University:

At Harvard we consider it an extremely important accomplishment when a 25-year-old graduate student who has been here a mere 18 months makes a discovery that disproves the pet theory of a 55-year-old professor who has been here 30 years.  Indeed, the professor whose theory has been disproved might be the first to congratulate that graduate student.  The notion that one of the community’s most junior members would be applauded for upending the life’s work of one of its most senior would seem exceedingly strange in many organisations and countries¹⁶.

Harvard’s approach has a feeling of good health about it.  It values all people, fosters creativity and innovation and recognises the achievements of all.

Some questions for consideration:

1. Think of the best 3 innovative ideas in your organisation:

a. Who did they come from?

b. If you cannot think of any you have a big problem!

2. Bearing in mind for every 1 good idea there are 9 bad ones, how would/do you value all ideas contributed?

3. What does the Harvard story illustrate for us in mission?  How does it compare to your organisation?  E.g. “newcomer” in orientation or short-termer with idea to challenge “old-timer”?

Authoritarianism, Legalism, Rigidity and Control

In the past decade there has been a shift in the location of the centre of control.  The authoritarian command and control approach of the old style business has given way to self-managing teams, flexi-time and greater general autonomy.  This has been shown to be much more effective.  However there are still many organisations that have not adapted their approach and a significant number who have misinterpreted it to their cost.  To allow greater freedom the organisation has to have a very strong and well developed operating framework that allows people to operate autonomously because there is a strong framework (perhaps of values and goals) that allows those individuals and teams to know exactly what they should be doing albeit that they have a great deal of freedom in how they do it.

Cleese and Skynner say that individuals feel good about themselves if they feel in control of themselves.  Lack of control, Herman says, is a sign of toxicity.  Control along with a sense of confidence and community, are far greater motivators that salary.  Having too many layers of management contributes to the feeling of loss of control by the individual as well as hindering many of the other functions like communication and focus.

Just like communication is growing in its importance for effective operating in the global context in which we now all operate, so to is the ability to innovate.  Many organisations now are what Leadbeater¹⁷ calls knowledge organisations; the workers have value because of what they contribute in thinking, knowledge and innovation.  To foster innovation the culture must encourage openness and Cook¹⁸ goes as far as suggesting that a characteristic of truly healthy organisations in the present age is playfulness.

Talking about who holds the power, McNamara says that organisations need to be organic in nature. The authority within the organisation must be based not on a given title but on capability. The overall shape will be flatter and the structure decentralised.

Some questions for consideration:

1. Do you have a clear framework of accountability and objective setting within which autonomy can be usefully used/offered?

2. Skynner and Cleese say “feeling in control” is important.  What might this mean for our orientation programs and application processes in particular?  How might we improve this?

3. Is ‘playfulness’ as a source of innovation present, possible or appropriate in missions?

4. Is MacNamara’s idea of organic leadership feasible?  How does it fit with existing structures and ideas of democracy in many of our organisations? Treat Individuals as Interchangeable Replaceable Cogs

Pfeffer says that businesses make their biggest mistake when they show people as an expense on the balance sheet and not an asset.  Webber¹⁹ says “Another sign of a toxic workplace is that the company treats its people as if they were a factor of production.”  In effect they are saying that when people are treated as an expendable resource they will soon function as one, losing the flexibility, creativity and energy they would otherwise be able to offer.  Seneviratna²⁰ says that organisations must go further: “The whole process is based on the psychological contract between employer and employee,” he says “people need to feel they are being valued.”

In reality in organisations that place little emphasis on seeing their staff as a valuable resource, they use them up and spit them out.   A management consultant was asked by a large law firm, to help them develop leaders.  After some discussions he turned them down saying that they did not see an issue with the toxicity of the firm despite in excess of 60% of new lawyers quitting straight after completing their training.  The firm replied that they just recruited enough each year to replace the quitters.   Kjellerup²¹ says firms that show “…disregard for the potential of staff” and where “burnout is accepted as an inevitable cost of a tough job” are some of the most toxic he has found.

Even at the less extreme level of insufficient employee engagement the figures show the impact: “Only 17 percent of leavers feel management shows a genuine interest in the well-being of employees.21” This means they lose their fundamental trust in senior management. Katcher²² says that “Once lost, for whatever reason, an employee’s lack of trust in management is very difficult to restore.”

Some believe employees are only concerned with what is best for themselves.  But “evidence shows that most people will accept outcomes not wholly in their favour if they believe the process for arriving at those outcomes was fair”.

In very simple terms a measure of toxicity is whether or not contribution is recognised.

Some questions for consideration:

1. Are people in your organisation an expense or an asset?  (perhaps not an expense because in our “faith missions” they cost us nothing)

2. Do we value people?  (Perhaps not as much if we don’t have to pay for them!)

3. What is our psychological contract?  How does God/local church fit in?

4. How do we differentiate between sacrifice and burnout?

Conclusion

I believe my study indicates that toxicity is being recognised for the first time as a real issue in a wide range of organisations and organisational types.  Whilst many would acknowledge that some individual characteristics have been seen as “bad” before, only in recent work have there been attempts to collect these together using the common criteria of factors that are inhibiting an individual or organisation’s ability to function, grow and thrive.  Viewed thus it is clear that the incidence of toxicity is widespread. Of course, many organisations are not deliberately destructive and so fall into the transitional rather than toxic category, but few are self-actualising. Further, scholars have demonstrated the usefulness of this work to organisations generally and some, Deal and Peterson in particular, have shown that its applicability is not limited to commercial business but can be applied usefully and constructively on a much wider basis to anything that constitutes an organisation. My question to you is “What does it have to say to us in world mission?”

¹ Herman, M. (2003) Corporate Compassion   http://www.globalchicago.net/wiki/wiki.cgi?action=browse&id=CorporateCompassion&revision=5

² Hill, M. (2003) Introduction to Management  Chapter 8 – Supplemental Materials http://basrv.mgt.ncu.edu.tw/teacher/teacher_15/Chap008S.ppt

³ Bacal, R. (2000) Toxic Organizations – Welcome To The Fire Of An Unhealthy Workplace http://www.work911.com/articles/toxicorgs.htm

⁴ McGregor Burns, J. (1982) Leadership. Perennial

⁵ Pfeffer, J. (1998) The Human Equation: Building Profits by Putting People First. Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation

⁶ Towers Perrin. (2003) Working Today: Exploring Employees’ Emotional Connections to Their Jobs.

⁷ Deal, T. & Peterson, K. (1998) Shaping School Culture: The Heart of Leadership. Indianapolis: Jossey Bass Wiley

⁸ Arterburn, S. & Felton, J. (1998) Toxic Faith: Understanding the Fine Life Between Healthy Faith and Spiritual Abuse. Thomas Nelson, p263

⁹ Cleese, J. & Skynner, R. (1984) Families and How to Survive Them.

¹⁰ Cleese, J. & Skynner, R. (1993) Life and How to Survive It.

¹¹ Frost, P. & Robinson, S. (1999) “The Toxic Handler: Organizational Hero – and Casualty”, Harvard Business Review, July-August 1999 97-106.

¹² Chandra, L. The Top 10 Ways to Avoid Working for a Toxic Boss

¹³ Maitland, R. (2002a) Bottom Line is Better by Engaging Employees, ISR Surveys. http://www.isrsurveys.com

¹⁴ Morris, S. Toxic Faith www.theexaminer.org/volume8/number5/toxic.htm

¹⁵ McLaughlin, C. (2001) An Unhealthy Faith System http://www.txbc.org/2001Journals/JanFeb2001/Jan01anunhealthyfaithsystem.htm

¹⁶ Summers, L. (2004) “The Authority of Ideas”, In: . Harvard Business Review on Leadership in a Changed World Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation 189-91

¹⁷ Leadbeater, C. (1999) Living on Thin Air. London: Penguin Group

¹⁸ Cook, R. The nine common characteristics of innovative organizations http://www.aspirenow.com/leader_0802_common_characteristics_of_innovative_organizations.htm

¹⁹ Webber, A. (1998) “Danger: Toxic Company”, Fast Company, 19 November 1998 (19)152.

²⁰ Seneviratna, C. (2001) “Dependants’ Day”, People Management, 06 December 2001.

²¹ Kjellerup, N. (1999) The Toxic Call Centre http://www.callcentres.com.au/toxic_call_center.htm

²² Katcher, B. (2004) Understanding Why Employees Leave Is Essential http://www.discoverysurveys.com

If you would like to respond to this article, please use the ‘Voice your comments’ form on the Encounters website (www.redcliffe.org/mission).  Alternatively, you may prefer to email your response to mission@redcliffe.org, in which case please remember to include your full name, your organisation/role and whether you would like your comments posted on the Encounters discussion board.

One can almost hear the tongues of the neighborhood gossips wagging.  “That man must not have a lick of sense.  Anyone with an ounce of common sense would have known not to give that boy money.  And to think that he gave that son his inheritance!  It would have been far better if that man had just told his son that he was not dead yet and put him in his place.”  One of the first principles of prodigality found in Jesus’ story in Luke 15 is that sometimes prodigals’ parents must make decisions that do not seem right to others who do not have full insight into the situation.  They are sometimes judged for making a decision that they themselves did not want to make, perhaps seeking the lesser of two evils.

When our children were born, we wanted first and foremost to be good, loving parents; and to raise our children to love and follow the Lord Jesus.  Having done our best, acknowledging our own mistakes and circumstances beyond our control; our hearts ache with a depth of pain that others cannot comprehend as we watch our children walk away from the Lord they loved in childhood.  They are living lives that we warned them would lead to a broken relationship with God and the consequences of sin that we had wanted them to avoid.  Jesus’ story of the Prodigal Son in Luke 15 is rich with understanding and comfort for those of us who have prodigals.

It seems strange to us that the prodigal’s father gave his younger son his inheritance.  However, a discerning parent can see into the heart of a child.  The father must have known that it would be far worth the cost, not only monetarily but also spiritually and emotionally, for the son to venture into the far country. If the son had stayed at home, in his heart he would have remained in his prodigal state.  This father was willing to go to great expense and risk to release his son for a greater good.  Undoubtedly, the father was not surprised when his son took off with the money.

The next principle of prodigality is that the father let his son go.  He did not follow after him to bring him home.  The father very likely knew what would happen in the far country, but he loved his son enough to let him go so that his heart condition would be revealed.   The son needed to see that he would have many friends as long as his money lasted.  The son needed to learn that sin is pleasurable for a time but that when the pleasure ends, as it must, the consequences are steep and painful.

The money ran out and the famine hit the land.  The father must have heard of the famine and could easily have guessed the predicament of his son.  It must have been exceptionally hard for the father not to run after him.  However, the famine was being used by God.  If the father had run to the son’s rescue, the prodigal would have remained in his hard-hearted state. Therefore, it is a principle of prodigality to let the consequences come and not too quickly come to the rescue.  As Amy Carmichael wrote in her little book IF, “If I cannot bear to be like the father who did not soften the rigors of the far country; if, in this sense, I refuse to allow the law of God (the way of the transgressors is hard) to take effect, because of the distress it causes me to see that law in operation, then I know nothing of Calvary’s love.”  In fact, a wise parent will ask the Lord to bring forth the famine of His choosing.

It is interesting that when the famine hit hard and the son was in want, when he came to his senses, his first thought was of his father’s house.  When the son was at home with his prodigal’s heart in full bloom, the father must have still shown great love and grace to his son.  A principle of prodigality is that we must love and extend grace, even while not softening the “transgressor’s way.”  The father had lived before the son in such a way that the thought of returning to his father’s house seemed inviting.  There was no fear in returning to the father, just guilt for his heart’s attitude toward the one who loved him so deeply.

When the son said to himself “how many of my father’s hired men have more than enough bread,” another principle is unveiled.   Parents of prodigals often have ministries where they are providing spiritual food for others, often even for those of the same age as their prodigals.  It can be bitter-sweet to see young people seeking after the Lord and finding spiritual nourishment through your ministry while a deeply loved prodigal is spiritually starving.  We can trust, however, that what we sow, we will also reap.  As we pour your lives into others, we can trust that others will pour their lives into our prodigals.

The father saw the son while he was still a far distance.  One wonders have often, how man times a day, the father looked toward the horizon in hopes of seeing his son return.  Seeing him, he ran and embraced him.  The father had waited in active hope for the return of his son.  Grace was extended.  There was no condemnation or guilt trip placed on the son—just a welcome home party quickly planned–a very extravagant party!  The son was not even allowed to finish his confession that he seemed to have been rehearsing along the road home.    So another principle of prodigality is to wait patiently but with active hope.  We must have promises given by our Father to which we hold with confidence as we wait for the awakening of our own prodigals.   The son was immediately restored to his place in the father’s house.  The father quickly claimed the prodigal as his own!  Jesus also willingly numbered Himself with the transgressors.  So also must we not give way to shame and guilt but willingly number ourselves with our wayward children.  (Isaiah 53:12)

This wise father undoubtedly knew that he actually had two prodigals—one prodigal in action but another just as far in his heart from the father.  The reaction of the older brother reveals that he also had no true understanding of the love of his father.  Another principle of prodigality is that our churches are filled with people with prodigal hearts.  Our prodigals might actually be walking in greater integrity. Some who are prodigal in heart may just think that the price is too high to pay to openly travel in the far country.  They travel there in covert ways in hope of not getting caught.  The older brother’s judgment and criticism rose not only against the brother but also the father.  His true heart was revealed.  Another principle of prodigality is that we must each guard and test our own hearts.  First of all, that we have no hidden prodigality in our own lives.  Furthermore, we must take care to remain in a posture of grace toward those who are yet wandering and toward those who are slowly making their way back to the Father’s house.

I have learned a number of insights through walking this road with a prodigal child.  Perhaps I have gained some understanding of the “whys” of prodigality.

• Some of the deepest intercessors I know are parents of prodigals.  Is there any prayer as passionate as the heart cry of a parent to the throne of God for the restoration of a prodigal son or daughter?
• Returned prodigals often have a greater love for the Father. All my life, even when I was single, the Lord impressed upon my heart that I must tuck away every insight I heard from the lips of a prodigal’s parent.  I have often had the opportunity to ask parents if their prodigals have returned.  Many times I hear joy in their voices as they recount that the returned prodigal has a greater love and passion for God than their children who never strayed.  It is true—he who is forgiven much loves much!
• J. Edwin Orr said that when God wants to bring revival He sets His children praying.  If God wants prayer for the outpouring of His Holy Spirit upon our children and our offspring, allowing prodigality definitely would bring it forth.  Most prodigal’s parents awake in the night and cry out to God with a passion that only a parent could understand.
• I have a greater burden for the lost than I would have if I had not had a prodigal.  Sometimes we resent the prodigal’s friends because we want to blame them for our prodigal’s wandering.  However, we need to extend love and grace not only to our prodigals but also to their friends—building a bridge from our hearts to theirs so that Jesus might walk across.  Our prayer focus must have a continual rippling effect.  The scope of our intercession should continually be fanning out to include more and more of those who are wandering.  Our prodigals have people who love them so much that they are willing to persistently go to our heavenly Father asking for their return.  But how many people, even some friends of our prodigals, have no one to represent them before the throne?
• I have a greater understanding of the heart of the heavenly Father for those He would have in His family but they are still wandering away from Him.
• Walking by faith and not by sight is more intense as we are holding on to the promises and the sovereignty of God to bring our prodigals home.  Spiritual backbone is built as we pray and wait.  The tried and tested faith is then able to be applied to other areas of life to see God’s purposes and kingdom come forth. (Isaiah 44:3; 49:24, 25; 54:13)
• There is a clinging to the promises of God that pleases His heart.

God has His purposes for prodigality, many of which we will never understand.  Philip Yancey says that God loves rascals like Jacob.  Many prodigals are “rascals.”  Many prodigals carry wounds that were inflicted by Christians who have been less than Christ-like.  Only the Father sees into the heart of each prodigal.  Therefore, only He is able to bring forth His purposes and plans that He has for their lives.  Often there is greater fruitfulness in the later life of one who has traveled in the far country and a greater understanding of the heart of God in the lives of prodigals’ parents.

So we will trust and wait patiently.  Ps. 40 begins with “I waited patiently for the Lord, and He inclined to me and heard my cry.”  There are times when I have waited patiently.  However, I love the last verse because it is where I often find my heart—“Make haste, O Lord, make haste!”

God’s promise to bless all the “families of the earth,” first given to Abraham 4,000 years ago, is becoming a reality at a pace “you would not believe.” Although some may dispute some of the details, the overall trend is indisputable. Biblical faith is growing and spreading to the ends of the earth as never before in history.

The Amazing Progress of the Gospel

One of every eight people on the planet is a practicing Christian who is active in his/her faith. The number of believers in what used to be “mission fields” now surpasses the number of believers in the countries from which missionaries were originally sent. In fact, more missionaries are now sent from non-Western churches than from the traditional mission-sending bases in the West. The Protestant growth rate in Latin America is well over three times the biological growth rate. Protestants in China grew from about one million to over 80 million believers in less than 50 years, with most of that growth occurring in just the last few decades. In the 1980s, Nepal was still a staunch Hindu kingdom with only a small persecuted church. Today there are hundreds of thousands of believers, and churches have been started within each of its more than 100 distinct people groups.

Tragic Reality: Two Billion Still Cut Off

While this amazing progress of the gospel gives much cause for rejoicing, it obscures a tragic reality. How could that be? The fact is that the gospel often expands within a community but does not normally “jump” across cultural boundaries between peoples, especially those created by hate or prejudice. Believers can readily influence their “near neighbors” whose language and culture they understand, but religion is often bound up with cultural identity. Therefore, religious beliefs do not easily transfer from one group to another. When believers reach out to their friends, relatives or others within their own culture it is referred to E1 evangelism.

This is the most effective type of evangelism. But, even if all the members of every church in the world were to bring every one of their friends and relatives within their own culture to obedient faith in Christ, and they in turn were able to bring all their friends and relatives to Christ and so on, no matter how much time you allow, there would still be billions cut off from the gospel. They would be sealed off by boundaries of prejudice and culture.

The church cannot grow within peoples where relevant churches do not exist. Forty percent of the individuals in the world live within peoples with no church. They are no more spiritually “lost” than your cousin who has never gone to church, but unlike your cousin, there is no church made up of people like themselves with whom they can fellowship. Such people live in groups that we refer to as being “unreached.” Their entire people has not yet been effectively reached with the gospel.

Thus, while there are still tens of millions who have never heard the name “Jesus” at all, there are hundreds of millions more who may have heard of Jesus and may even have high regard for Him, but who cannot see a way to become His disciples and still remain within their natural community. Standing before them are barriers ranging from the relatively trivial to the seemingly insurmountable, many of them beyond the demands of the gospel. Cornelius in Acts 10 would have had to cross the barrier of circumcision as an adult—a painful price to pay to be fully accepted into fellowship with the Jewish believers of his day. A Muslim Turk today faces similar obstacles if he were to desire to become a “Christian.” All his life he has been told, “To be a Turk is to be a Muslim.” To him, Christianity is the religion of the barbarian “infidel” Crusaders who brutally ravaged the land and peoples of Turkey, both Muslim and Christian alike. To become a Christian is to become a traitor, turning his back on his family, community and country.

A Witness to All the Nations

Jesus said, “This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world for a witness to all the nations, and then the end shall come” (Matthew 24:14). A close look at the end of this verse says a lot about what we should watch for and work toward in this age. Jesus says that before the end comes, there will be “a witness to all the nations.”  The “nations” Jesus was referring to are not countries or nation-states. The wording He chose (the Greek word ethne) points to the ethnicities, the languages and the extended families which constitute the peoples of the earth. Who are these peoples? Jesus did not provide a list of the peoples. He did not define the idea of peoples with precise detail. What matters most is not that the peoples can be definitively identified and counted, but that God has given us a task that can be completed. By “witness” Jesus meant that the “gospel of the kingdom” will be proclaimed in open view throughout entire communities. The gospel of the kingdom is Christ prevailing over evil, liberating people so that they can live obediently and freely under His lordship and blessing. God wants a persuasive display of that kingdom victory exhibited in every people. What better exhibit of God’s kingdom than a community of people who are living under Christ’s authority? That’s why we should aim at obedient disciplemaking fellowships of believers within every people. While not the only way to glorify God, nothing puts Christ’s lordship on display like a community of people dedicated to following Him and effectively pushing back against the dominion of darkness.