Moving to a New Position
November 30, 2009
The following is an excerpt from my new book,
The Painful Side of Leadership
As we come to the end of the year, some of you are probably considering significant changes for next year. Are you considering moving to a new ministry position? If so, then consider this counsel about how to leave well and make a good beginning in a new place.
Ministry leaders usually accept a position with a commitment to stay in place for a long time, even for a lifetime. My dream, at 21, was to become a pastor and stay with one church for 40 years. That hasn’t turned out to be God’s plan. Yet, each time I have changed leadership roles, I have still thought, “This is it. This will be my final job.” Most pastors and other Christian leaders have similar desires for permanence. We are pursuing a calling, not building a career. We accept an assignment from God and plant ourselves to pursue it passionately. We aren’t trying to move up a spiritual corporate ladder. Most leaders aren’t looking for a perpetual greener pasture. We are more focused on improving the one we have.
Yet, leaders do change ministry positions, roles, and locations. Leaders, just like their followers, are always growing, maturing, and changing. Ministry settings are also in flux. This combination of personal growth and shifting ministry contexts can result in the need for a change to a new assignment. God has a remarkable way of bringing along a new opportunity at just the right time when it’s best for all concerned – for you, your family, the place you are leaving, and the place you are going. This chapter is about
leaving well – about managing the painful process of transition caused by your departure.
This chapter is narrowly focused on leaving well as part of a healthy resignation or retirement. It assumes you have made a God-directed decision to leave and it’s the right decision at the right time. This chapter isn’t about making that decision, enduring a forced termination, leaving a ministry for the wrong reasons, leaving without God’s clear direction, or leaving for a new setting to satisfy your ego. It’s about leaving well when you have made the right decision, at the right time, for the right reason. Even when all these “rights” are in place, it’s still possible to leave in wrong ways that harm your ministry organization and hamper your future leadership effectiveness. Good leaders minimize those results.
Several years ago, I was discussing an effective pastor with a mentor who had known the other man for many years. We celebrated his success in his current church, as well as the health of the church he had formerly led in another part of the state. My friend said, “One of the things I most admire about him is he has a great ‘after I left story’ in his former church. His leaving was a blessing to two churches – the one he left and the one he now leads.” Having a good “after I left story” was a new concept to me. Over the years, watching some leaders leave well, and others not so well, has revealed common practices among those who left well. You can leave well, and have a good “after you left story” as you implement the following best practices. Doing so will minimize the painful aspects of transition for you, your followers, and the people you will lead in your new assignment.
<< Return to Archive
Conflict on your leadership team
November 23, 2009
Even the most committed Christians and most prominent leaders will occasionally have conflict. Two biblical examples demonstrate how old this problem is. Paul and Barnabas were the dynamic duo of the early church and early missionary movement. They first worked together in Antioch (Acts 11:19-30) and were sent by that church on the first missionary journey (Acts 13:3). They worked well together and God blessed their efforts. When they started their work, Barnabas was the team leader (based on his early leadership in Antioch). Barnabas is mentioned first in Acts when he and Paul began their missionary work. Soon, however, Paul became the more prominent team member and was recognized as the spokesman and leader.
In Acts 15:36-41, after partnering for years from the founding of the church at Antioch through the Jerusalem Council, Paul and Barnabas were preparing for their second missionary journey. While doing so, they had a major conflict. John Mark, Barnabas’ nephew, had previously “deserted them in Pamphylia and had not gone on with them to the work” (Acts 15:38). Barnabas wanted to give Mark another chance. Paul adamantly refused. These two godly, spiritually dynamic leaders had “such a sharp disagreement that they parted company” (Acts 15:39). They argued vehemently and decided they could no longer work together in the ministry. Another team member, Silas, was drawn into the conflict. Paul chose him as his new partner, leaving Barnabas and Mark to form another missionary team and go their separate ways (Acts 15:39-40). The Antioch church was also drawn into the conflict. Paul and Silas “departed, after being commended to the grace of the Lord by the brothers” (Acts 15:40). No blessing by the Antioch church on the Barnabas/Mark team is recorded. That’s a pointed omission. The church apparently made a judgment on the conflict’s results by extending their blessing exclusively to Paul and Silas. Given Barnabas’ storied history as the pastoral leader in Antioch, this is a stunning omission and conclusion.
Paul was also part of a serious conflict with another leadership peer. Peter made a wrong decision regarding fellowship with Gentiles in the face of Jewish pressure to limit his contact with uncircumcised believers, thus compromising the nature of the gospel (Gal. 2:12-14). Paul “opposed him to his face” (Gal. 2:11) and told Peter “in front of everyone, ‘If you, who are a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel Gentiles to live like Jews?’” (Gal. 2:11, 14). Sorting out the theological issues and implications addressed in this conflict is not germane for our purposes. This key point in the story is important: Christian leaders, even the most committed, gifted, and highest placed leaders sometimes have significant conflict. These conflicts can be serious (about issues like the nature of the gospel), personal (involving direct confrontation), and public (in front of the church, including the Church at large these days through the media).
Ministry leadership teams have conflict. Team members – like Paul, Barnabas, Mark, and Silas – had conflict with and among each other. Paul and Peter, the two heavyweights of the first century church, had an open, intense conflict. These examples demonstrate the reality of conflict among leaders. No matter how spiritual and committed your leadership team members, they are still susceptible to conflict.
My experience parallels these biblical examples. Over the years, I have worked with outstanding team members in church, denominational, and seminary leadership. They have honored me with their loyalty, commitment to a shared vision, and willingness to sacrifice together to advance our mission. Yet, in spite of sterling character and unquestioned commitment, conflict has occasionally happened among them. Team members have divided over personalities, strategies, doctrine, and personnel choices. Sometimes, those conflicts were part of making good decisions as we wrestled with options. But other times, the conflicts have been more divisive and revealed serious rifts in relationships. In those cases, intervention has been required and sometimes team members have had to be replaced.
Conflict among your leadership team is inevitable. Denying this reality isn’t healthy and will only exacerbate the problem when it happens. Developing intentional strategies to manage these conflicts is a better option. You can’t prevent all conflict, but you can develop strategies for managing your response to conflict when it happens among your members, followers, or leadership team. Doing this well will minimize the pain of making hard decisions about your closest associates.
<< Return to Archive
Respond, don’t react, to your critics
November 16, 2009
When David as attacked by Shimei (2 Sam. 16), he had a soldier with him named Abishai. He was one of David’s “mighty men” who closely guarded the king and was often with David in various battles and other conflict situations. While Shimei was cursing and throwing rocks and dirt, Abishai became livid at the insult David was enduring. He had committed his life to defending David and now a nobody from nowhere was verbally and physically assaulting his king.
His rage erupted when he said to David, “Why should this dead dog curse my lord the king? Let me go over and cut his head off” (2 Sam. 16:9). Now,
that is the way to handle a critic! Abishai is one of my favorite biblical characters. Every time he is mentioned in the Bible, he is either organizing for battle, killing someone, or asking for permission to kill someone (1 Sam. 26:6-9; 2 Sam. 2:17-24, 3:30, 10:10-14, 16:5-9, 18:2, 19:18-21, 20:6-10, 21:17, 23:18; 1 Chron. 11:20, 18:12, 19:11-15). He was a warrior with one mission – defend the king’s honor.
Oh, how I have sometimes wished for an Abishai on my team! I have fantasized about an Abishai taking care of my critics. I don’t mean every critic has to
die – a maiming or mauling would be sufficient. But it would be great to retaliate, to just once make life as painful for my critics as they have made life for me.
The problems with retaliation, however, are manifold. First, retaliation is never a clean process. When you attack a critic, you lower yourself to their level. When you slap a pig, you get muddy. When you attack a critic, you can be bloodied. Second, retaliation violates Jesus’ command to love your enemies and pray for people who abuse you (Matt. 5:43-45). Not returning an attack is one way to demonstrate love. And third, retaliation just doesn’t work. Efforts to retaliate against a critic leave you emotionally deflated, spiritually discouraged, and usually with a bigger mess than before your efforts to even the score.
A few years ago, a person sent me a critical email – accusing me of doctrinal error and criticizing me for associating with a prominent pastor who was (in his opinion) leading people away from biblical Christianity. Both accusations were far off base, almost ludicrous. In a fit of anger and bad judgment, I took up the battle and reacted to the attack. Bad decision! The writer took my email answer, edited it to suit his purposes, and created a blog site to defame me and the pastor he opposed. What started as a simple written response turned into additional ammunition for the attacker to post an “I told you so” entry on his attack-blog website.
Reacting to critics usually involves three aspects – trying to explain your actions, trying to justify your motives, and/or trying to argue the issues to your advantage. None of this works. Why not? Because most critics have their mind made up when they attack you. They are judge, jury, and executioner. They aren’t attempting dialogue with you. Their purpose is to take their shots, do their damage, and move on to other prey. So, reacting to critics is never helpful.
Abishai reacted to Shimei. David did not. He made a
response – a carefully reasoned, spiritually seasoned
response. His response involved four aspects – focus, reflection, an appropriate reply, and developing a long-term strategy for managing a difficult person. Consider these steps as you develop a strategy for responding to critics.
<< Return to Archive
The Confused Presbytery
November 16, 2009
Last week, the San Francisco Presbytery voted to endorse the first ordination of a lesbian woman to pastoral ministry in their region. The news report indicated a lengthy, contentious meeting preceded the close vote. It probably was a tough meeting. It should have been when allegiance to Scripture was being jettisoned. That is a momentous decision!
News accounts reported the vote was on the ordination of a lesbian woman. But that was only the presenting issue. The more significant issue was deciding if church practice will be determined by Scripture (as ultimate authority) or by modern convention. In this case, Scripture lost.
Some would say, “No, the Bible didn’t lose. Only your narrow interpretation of it lost.” That’s ignoring the obvious. The Bible has one clear message throughout about homosexuality. Reading it any other way is chasing fantasies. The message is simple: homosexual behavior is a sinful choice that must be resisted and overcome. To counter this, some say, “But homosexuals are genetically born that way. They can’t help it. Just like their race, their sexual choices are predetermined.” Therefore, the Bible is wrong and our modern perspective trumps thousands of years of revealed instruction.
It is hard to believe any rational person agrees with that logic. Just suppose for a moment that sexual practices are genetically predetermined. Why stop with homosexuality? What if a serial adulterer tells his wife, “I can’t help myself. I was born with a strong sex drive that requires multiple partners.” Any person with a moral compass would say, “Hogwash. Man, control yourself!!
The Bible’s message about all sexual behavior is “control yourself.” All of us have some kind of temptations, desires, fantasies, and urges contrary to God’s plan. All of us are responsible to resist those temptations and express our sexuality appropriately. Those of us people trust with ministerial leadership carry an extra burden on this issue. We are responsible to be role models for God’s best – not mankind’s worst.
I am sad for the Presbyterians. They were once a denomination solidly committed to the Bible as the Word of God. Many of them still are, as well as many of their churches. But this vote is an indication another major, mainline denomination is moving away from determining its policies and practices based on the Bible. My hope is they will turn around before it is too late.
As Southern Baptists, we often struggle with each other to discover the best interpretation of the Bible. But we are unified on the high place of Scripture in our lives – individually and collectively. May God give us grace to continue on this path while so many drift aimlessly in other directions.
<< Return to Archive
Understanding Criticism
November 5, 2009
The following is an excerpt from my new book, The Painful Side of Leadership
Leaders have critics - as surely as dogs have fleas and usually about as helpful! Since having critics is inevitable, learning to handle criticism is an essential skill for leaders to develop. And, make no mistake; it’s a skill to develop – not an inherent ability. Our natural tendency, our inborn bent, is to defend ourselves, return the fire, and as a result lose focus on our mission. Resisting these natural impulses requires spiritual discipline and commitment to a better approach. Developing these skills comes from understanding how biblical leaders handled their critics and learning practical ways to implement those principles.
With technology making mass communication easier, critics now have the option of broadcasting their negativity worldwide. In the past, a critic would stop by your office to complain or perhaps write a mean-spirited letter. Now, critics have text messaging, email, blogs, websites, and other electronic means of mass communication available as immediate distribution networks. They also have cheap printers to mass produce flyers, newsletters, and other forms of hate mail. Despite this proliferation of methods, personal insults are still the most painful. Learning to handle criticism, particularly personal attack, is an essential leadership skill you must develop.
One biblical leader who endured a personal attack from a persistent critic was David. His nemesis was a man named Shimei. Their story begins in 2 Samuel 16 and is foundational for developing the strategies outlined in this chapter and the next. Shimei’s attack is described this way: “When King David got to Bahurim, a man belonging to the family of the house of Saul was just coming out. His name was Shimei son of Gera, and he was yelling curses as he approached. He threw stones at David and at all the royal servants, the people and the warriors on David’s right and left. Shimei said as he cursed: ‘Get out, get out, you worthless murderer! The Lord has paid you back for all the blood of the house of Saul in whose place you rule, and the Lord has handed the kingdom over to your son Absalom. Look, you are in trouble because you’re a murderer’” (2 Sam. 16:5-8). The attack continued as “David and his men proceeded along the road as Shimei was going along the ridge of the hill opposite him. As Shimei went, he cursed David and threw stones and dirt at him” (2 Sam. 16:13-14).
Can you imagine this scene? David, while leading his most loyal followers and family in a hasty retreat, was accosted by Shimei. He was cursed (cussed out), falsely accused (more about that later), and physically assaulted (stones and dirt hurled down on him). He was attacked publicly, without provocation, in front of both his family and staff (military officers). David’s bedraggled party stumbled along – heads down, donkeys (2 Sam. 16:2) dragging with fatigue – while Shimei angrily (and it seems, gleefully) shouted curses and hurled stones at them. What a depressing and pathetic picture of a critical attack on a once potent monarch.
While the names and places have changed, the vitriolic methods of modern critics closely resemble those of their ancient ancestors. In this case, the more things change – the more they stay the same.
<< Return to Archive
Don't Play to the Crowd
November 2, 2009
The following is an excerpt from my new book,
The Painful Side of Leadership
The temptation, since leaders have an inescapable audience, is to play to the crowd – performing to please people, thus minimizing your follower’s negative impressions and comments. Succumbing to that temptation, however, has devastating, long-range consequences because it ignores “the doctrine of the crowd.” The doctrine of the crowd can be summarized this way: Crowds are fickle, can’t be trusted, and often believe the last voice they hear. Consider what happened to Paul and Barnabas on their mission trip to Lystra.
The missionary team had a rough time in Iconium (Acts 14:1-7) prior to arriving in Lystra. Their work in the Iconian synagogue was initially fruitful, but ultimately resulted in both Jews and Gentiles opposing them. When Paul and Barnabas learned of a plot to stone them, they fled to Lystra. Their ministry there opened with a remarkable healing of a man lame from birth. Upon a Paul’s command, he jumped up and started to walk around. It was a dramatic example of the power of God confirming Paul’s preaching (Acts 14:8-10).
The story continues, “When the crowds saw what Paul had done, they raised their voices, saying in the Lycaonian language, ‘The gods have come down to us in the form of men!’ And they started to call Barnabas, Zeus, and Paul, Hermes, because he was the main speaker. Then the priest of Zeus, whose temple was just outside the town, brought oxen and garlands to the gates. He, with the crowds, intended to offer sacrifice” (Acts 14:11-13).
Now that’s more like it! Paul and Barnabas were called gods and received accolades for their ability to work miracles and preach truth. Who wouldn’t prefer that kind of reception rather than being stoned? Be honest. Wouldn’t you like, just once, for your followers to erupt in riotous, tumultuous applause celebrating your spiritual power and wisdom? While “oxen and garlands” would be a bit much, a generous bonus or a special gift would be a welcome expression of support. Leaders are human and something deep within us longs for the approval of others. We want the crowd to like us. We want our followers to appreciate us.
Paul and Barnabas had both the spiritual sense and personal discipline to resist being worshipped (Acts 14:14-18). They “tore their robes” both to signify their grief and reveal their human bodies as they shouted, “We are men also.” With significant effort, “they barely stopped the crowds from sacrificing to them” (Acts 14:18).
Would you have had the discernment and discipline to short-circuit that celebration? Keep in mind, even though it was early in their missionary careers, Paul and Barnabas had already been subjected to intense opposition (Acts 13:44-45, 50; 14:4-6). Finally, they had arrived in a city that welcomed them and their message. More than welcoming them, the Lystrans added Paul and Barnabas to the pantheon of gods they worshipped. And even more, they were willing to worship them as preeminent members of the pantheon – Zeus and Hermes. If you had recently been rebuked and assaulted, the prospect of being worshipped (even just a little) would be a powerful temptation. But what happened next in the story is a sobering reminder not to believe what the crowds say about you.
Within a few days, “some Jews came from Antioch and Iconium, and when they had won over the crowds and stoned Paul, they dragged him out of the city, thinking he was dead” (Acts 14:19). The same crowds that had worshipped Paul and Barnabas were now whipped into a destructive frenzy. They stoned Paul, dragged him out of the city, and left him for dead. This exemplifies the doctrine of the crowd – fickle people easily influenced to impulsive action. While Paul had been praised for his preaching accompanied by miracles, some latter day influencers “won over the crowds” and convinced them to attack the men they had formerly revered. Like many crowds, the last voice they heard carried the day and instigated their negative behavior.
While you lead in public, be careful not to trust the opinion of the crowd – good or bad, positive or negative – nor allow it to control your behavior. Since followers will voice opinions about everything from your wardrobe to your parenting style to your car choice to your speaking ability, it’s easy to be influenced by what they say. It’s easy to be overly discouraged by the critics or made overly confident by your supporters. Either way, you are giving in to crowd mentality. Resist the temptation to go along with the crowd and its opinion of you. Resist the temptation to develop your security, your inner sense of well-being and acceptance, from the opinion of others. Look to a far better source of security than the fickle whim of your followers. Look to Jesus.
<< Return to Archive