He who cannot obey, cannot command.
Benjamin Franklin
If the church itself is not healthy, the place to start is by building a healthy board. Cohesiveness among the spiritual leaders of the congregation is a healthy core for healing the rest of the body and for fighting the infectious attitudes that spring up from time to time.
Some pastors go too far and “stack” the board with friends who can be trusted never to disagree.
“Every member of my board is someone I’ve personally led to Christ, and I’ve never had trouble with them,” boasted one prominent Southern pastor to a group of seminarians. “I held one man in my arms as he went through delirium tremens. Now he’s on my board, and I can count on his vote. He owes me.”
Such crass political maneuvering is not only repugnant but, in the long run, runs against the pastor’s best interest. The best board is not one where everyone plays follow-the-leader. A board that always votes unanimously the pastor’s way will only be as strong as the pastor’s personality. When the pastor is overwhelmed, run down, and needing guidance, a collection of clones won’t be adequate.
The most effective boards can see issues from different sides and examine them fully, even when it means disagreeing with the pastor.
At the same time, healthy boards are united in purpose and plan, respecting one another’s differences. The strongest board is a team of coworkers willing to honor God not only with their decisions but the decision-making process. Their relationships are as important as their righteousness, and the relationship between pastor and board is cemented with trust; without that, the pastor’s ministry will inevitably come unglued.
Cultivating Personal Trust
No pastor would consciously take the relationship with the board for granted, but one pastor, Mack Sawyer, made the mistake of thinking that a trust relationship with three or four individual board members was good enough. It wasn’t.
For several years, Mack had sensed some resistance from a couple of elders but didn’t think it serious. Don Albert, a member of the executive committee, particularly seemed distant. Each year he would question Mack’s proposed budget and second-guess his equipment expenditures. But since Mack had a good relationship with the church chairman and most of the other board members, he didn’t worry too much about Don. That’s just Don, he figured, a tightwad.
After six years at the church, Mack was invited to candidate as a minister of discipleship at a large church in California. He’d been thinking about his future, wondering what God wanted him to do for the rest of his life, and while he was happy pastoring a smaller church, he was willing to be led elsewhere.
Wanting to be up-front but discreet, Mack told the executive committee where he would be that weekend. The visit to California, however, only confirmed his desire to continue pastoring a smaller church.
But unknown to Mack, it made Don even more suspicious.
Matters suddenly came to a head six months later when Mack was invited to speak at Spiritual Emphasis Week at his denomination’s college. His job description allowed eighteen days a year for outside speaking. For a whole week at once, however, Mack thought he should mention it to the executive committee, though he expected their support and blessing.
As the five — church chairman Harry Anderson, Don Albert, Mack, and two other board members — sat in the pastor’s office, they chatted pleasantly for several minutes, took care of several agenda items, and finally Mack told about his opportunity to speak at the college. He was totally unprepared for the reaction.
Don Albert immediately challenged the request. “I don’t think the pastor should leave for a week when the ministry here is in a shambles. Why should we let you go elsewhere when there are such terrible deficiencies here?”
Mack didn’t want to defend his ministry, though he could have pointed to a gradually rising attendance, several new volunteers working with the church youth, and four or five home Bible studies, including one in Don’s home. After all, these men knew the situation as well as he did.
Mack looked at the other board members, who remained silent. Was this “just Don”? Or was there something Mack was missing?
Mack tried to joke. “Well, if there are deficiencies, I doubt if five days without me would move them to the crisis stage. My being away just might be what the church needs.” Then turning to the church chairman, Mack asked, “Harry, what do you think?”
“Excuse me, you all,” Harry said. “It’s late, and I’ve got to pick up my daughter from her gymnastics class. I’m sure you four can work this out.” Mack sagged as his closest friend on the board walked out.
Finally one of the other board members spoke. “Mack, where do you see your career going in the days ahead?”
“I honestly don’t know,” Mack said. “I’m happy here, but you all know I’d like to get my D.Min. someday.”
“Maybe it would be better to use your eighteen days to start working on your degree.”
It was a good idea, but a bit off the subject, Mack thought. But he began to realize maybe the committee members saw him as disloyal for candidating elsewhere. Perhaps they saw this request as an indication he was still looking around for greener pasture, though he honestly wasn’t.
“The question was not whether I would represent the church well at the college or whether I would be able to minister there,” Mack says in retrospect. “It wasn’t even a question of having the bases covered back at the church. They were. To this day, I don’t know what the real question was.”
Looking back on the rest of that meeting, Mack recalls, “I don’t remember the rest of what happened, but I walked out of there a crushed person. The entire validity of my ministry had been called into question, and no one said a word in my defense. My best friend had walked out, unwilling to take a stand. I went home and cried. I asked God, Am I of any value in this church? Does everyone feel like Don Albert? These were my church leaders, the ones I report to. What were they trying to tell me?
“At that point, I knew I was leaving the church. It was only a question of when.” Nine months later, Mack resigned to accept a teaching position in a Christian high school.
What was Mack’s mistake? “I’d built a marvelous relationship with a few board members but not all. I’d never even had coffee with Don Albert. We’d never had a warm conversation about his family, his goals in life, or his dreams for the church. I knew him only as an irascible tightwad to be avoided or worked around. I knew we didn’t get along, but I figured you can’t be close to everyone. In the end, he held the balance for my integrity and credibility in ministry.”
If pastors and their boards don’t trust each other, the church will be unhealthy, and chances are, the pastor’s tenure will be brief and unpleasant. Some boards don’t allow a pastor to win their trust; they see it as their job to “keep the pastor in line.” Unless the relationship changes, that ministry is doomed. A relationship of trust must be attempted, even when it doesn’t come naturally.
Sometimes this relationship takes time — several years, perhaps, as certain members move off the board and new blood takes their place. Always, however, the initiative for trying to develop trust lies with the pastor.
“The best thing we’ve done,” says a Mennonite pastor in Pennsylvania, “is to set aside four evenings a year where the seven elders and I have dinner together, spend an hour with each person sharing what’s happening in his life, pray for personal needs, and then talk about the ministry — not specific business items, but our vision for the church, our goals. We’ve dreamed what our congregation can become, and that’s helped put things in perspective and built our respect for one another.
“It’s helped build the feeling among us that when disagreements come, we know we can at least trust one another’s intentions.”
Many pastors have mentioned that a breakthrough came when they began revealing some of their genuine spiritual struggles and their fears for the church. Often board members won’t open up until the pastor gives permission by letting his own humanness and vulnerability show.
Sometimes experienced pastors and lay leaders from other churches can help that process begin.
One young pastor of a struggling rural church was in perpetual conflict with the board until he invited a pastor and key layman from another church in the district to guide the annual leadership retreat. Among other questions, the visitors asked, “What fears do you have for this church?” Slowly, what everyone had been thinking but never articulated before began to come out: “I guess I’m not sure our church will be able to survive another ten years of dwindling population in our community.”
As the young pastor and board were able to admit the uncertainties of the future and the possibility that the church might have to close its doors eventually, they began to better understand one another. Their strained relationship began to heal.
Personal relationships, mutual respect, and trust are the foundation of a strong working relationship between pastor and board. But there are other important elements to keep dragons from emerging within the board. Churches that emphasize these elements not only develop strong, ministering boards but find attacks by outside dragons are easier to handle.
Chosen for Character, Not Clout
To paraphrase Peter DeVries, we’re attracted to individuals because of a personality, but after that we have to live with a character. Healthy boards are built with members selected for their spiritual qualifications, not their money, longevity in the congregation, or strong personality.
Thousands of congregations have horror stories about the “good ol’ boy” approach to selecting church leaders: someone is well liked and willing to serve and thus is considered qualified, but within three years, the church regrets the decision because of the elder’s (choose any of the following) adultery, arrest, divorce, shady business practices, or argumentative style.
1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 list the spiritual qualities to look for in potential church leaders — such things as being temperate, controlled, hospitable, and free from greed — which is certainly a better list than well-liked, willing to serve, and able to tithe $5,000 a year.
Even with this list of spiritual qualities, though, how do you gauge spiritual maturity without becoming judgmental? While no objective criteria are specified in Scripture, several of the qualities do suggest a basis for selecting elders and deacons.
They must have proven their ability to minister, demonstrating an ability to give spiritual encouragement. They must be “apt to teach,” that is, able to explain the faith and help others grow. They must have a reputation in their community and among their coworkers as being consistently Christian. And they must not be new believers — they must be known well enough and long enough to have been observed living out their faith.
“It takes time to see someone demonstrating Christian maturity, wisdom, and compassion,” says an Assembly of God pastor. “So our congregation has a rule that a person has to be a member for at least a year before being considered for office. And because we don’t hurry people into membership, most of our new members have been in the fellowship two or three years. That means candidates for the board have all served in other areas of the church’s life and have demonstrated their gifts, abilities, and commitment.”
Common Learning Experiences
“Each month our deacons read a book on church renewal, church government, or some other aspect of church life,” says a suburban Minneapolis pastor. At each month’s board meeting, at least half an hour is spent discussing the concepts in the book. The ideas also become the basis of informal conversations over coffee or lunch.
Periodically, a major portion of the board meeting is spent discussing a case study or a written assignment one of the deacons has completed. At least once a year, each deacon attends a seminar with two or three other deacons and reports back to the board.
“For the first time, those who had been the biggest pains in the church understood where we’re going. We’re using the same vocabulary, and we have a common base of understanding,” says the pastor.
That’s not stacking the board; that’s strengthening it.
Regular Performance Reviews
“If my board isn’t happy with my performance, I don’t want to be the second one to know about it,” says a Bible church pastor. “If they aren’t behind me, I’ll leave. I wouldn’t want to be in a church where the recognized spiritual leadership cannot support my ministry. But with their support, I’m free to minister without feeling threatened.”
Evaluations, preferably written, not only help pastors synchronize their ministries with the priorities of the board, but they become an excellent defense when the pastor is criticized. Critics can be told, “I’m doing what I’ve been commissioned to do,” and complaints can be referred to the board.
Reviews also help prevent surprise attacks by individual board members, and even if they occur, the evaluation provides a forum for those criticisms to be fully discussed and defused.
Accepting the Defense Contract
Members of healthy boards understand that sometimes their job includes defense.
They are decision-making diplomats. They may debate issues, but when decisions are made, they become ambassadors to defend those decisions even if they didn’t vote for them. Many pastors let their board members know from the beginning that though they may differ sharply in their meetings, in public they do not dissent but represent the will of the board.
Defending the ministry also means defending the church from attack. Some pastors brief new board members that part of their task is to help shepherd the flock, and sometimes that means protection. If ministry calls for a private confrontation, and the pastor feels he shouldn’t go alone, elders should be willing to go along. If there are emergencies, elders should know they may be called in the middle of the night.
The clear guidance and support of elders keeps a pastor effective, and pastors minister most effectively when they are not defensive. At times, the board can deflect criticism aimed at the pastor and confront the church dragons. Occasionally this means taking a gossiping member aside and saying, “We don’t belittle our pastor in this church; if he’s doing something wrong, please come to us before spreading this kind of talk.” Other times it means facing critics openly.
When an Evangelical Free church in Washington decided to add a bell tower to its building, several members voiced strong opposition in the business meeting. After the vote, 94-8 in favor of the construction, the elders invited one member, the loudest dissident, to their next meeting. They wanted to prevent any continuing guerrilla warfare.
After saying, “We want to be sensitive to the points you made in the congregational meeting,” and listening to his current feelings about the bell tower, the board chairman said, “We want you to know we respect your position. It does have merit, but we’ve decided to go another direction. We want you to know how we arrived at our decision, and we’d like you to try to see the full picture.” After going through the reasons for the bell tower, he said, “Now we want to know if you’ll be able to support the decision of the church.” They asked what he would be saying to others about the issue.
“The spirit of the meeting defused his anger,” says the pastor. “He felt like he’d been heard. It dispelled his action of going to other people in the congregation and mouthing off, which could have done a lot of harm.”
The board has done this on three or four potentially volatile issues in the last two years. “It helps people to know the board is willing to listen even though they disagree,” says the pastor. “Often the elder board is seen as a powerful group that sits behind a table and makes big decisions regardless of what anyone says. We’ve tried to break that down and let people see that our board members love the Lord, they love people, and they love this ministry.”
A side benefit has been that by kindly confronting dissenters, the board has not only prevented serious dragons but has become more unified in the process.
Meetings a Ministry, Not a Misery
The atmosphere of the board meeting itself is an excellent gauge of the church’s health. Do board members pray for one another? Do they take time to find out one another’s worries and joys? Time spent in personal ministry at the beginning of a board meeting is time well spent. An unwritten agenda item at every healthy board meeting is “Encouraging each other.”
One Baptist pastor, however, discovered this didn’t happen in his board meetings until he changed the time and place. Meeting on Sunday afternoons in a church classroom seemed to produce sparks. He always found himself pressured, feeling backed into a corner.
In the process of building a new wing, one Sunday afternoon the deacon board reviewed the plans of six architects, and each of the six board members supported a different architect’s plans. The temperature of the discussion rose, and the pastor found himself in the middle, trying to keep peace, and sensing hostility all around. Finally he’d had enough.
“Let’s cool it,” he said testily. “I don’t want to talk anymore about this. I’ve got to go preach.” And he dismissed the meeting.
A few minutes later, stomach still churning, “I had to go talk about the sweet love of Jesus, and the board members all went home and watched TV. They didn’t even come to the evening service,” the pastor remembers.
The next day, the pastor wrote a letter to all boards, committees, and councils: “Sometimes we’re in danger of developing Christians who are all legs and no heart. And I don’t want to be guilty of that by overloading the schedule on Sunday, which should be set aside for worship and rest. From now on, there will be no more Sunday afternoon business meetings.”
“The deacons had been the key infringers,” says the pastor. “I didn’t know — maybe they’d blast me for making this decision unilaterally — but sometimes you can do something like this through the War Powers Act and get away with it.”
Instead of blasting him, the deacons blessed him, with three of them sending letters saying, “This is a good decision. We wanted to be home with our families anyway, not spending all day running to church. Thanks.”
Now the deacons meet in the pastor’s family room on Monday night, and while it wouldn’t be accurate to say that arguments have disappeared and the pastor’s stomach never churns, it is true that the climate is improved. As the pastor says, “It’s harder to be angry with someone after you’ve prayed for him, when you’re sitting on the same couch, and you have a glass of tea in your hand.”
Developing a healthy board doesn’t guarantee a healthy church, nor does a healthy church guarantee a dragon-free existence, but certainly the healthier the church the less damage dragons can inflict.
When dragons do emerge, even in healthy churches with healthy boards, some specific skills are needed, which we must deal with separately. Sometimes the dragons will have legitimate criticisms, and they need to be recognized, addressed, and applauded. Other times, when the dragons are on a rampage, they will need to be confronted. And still other times, churches must simply learn to cope with unresolved situations.
Copyright © 1985 by Christianity Today
