Case Study: The Entrenched and Ineffective Worker

It’s a Maalox Moment. You finally face the fact that a long-standing church volunteer is doing more harm than good-whether the organist, Christian education superintendent, head usher or …

But therein is the rub. This person’s years (or decades) of service indicates he or she is no average volunteer; this willing heart has become an institution. And institutions aren’t easy to move, much less remove.

An attempt at change could be costly, possibly fatal. What’s a pastor to do?

LEADERSHIP asked five pastors and one church consultant, representing a rainbow of denominational and geographical backgrounds, what they would do with a well-entrenched but ineffective worker. To spark their thoughts, they were given the following real-life case study:

In each of the churches I’ve pastored, I’ve inherited at least one volunteer who has “stalled out” on the job. Each clearly needed to be replaced. In their long period of service, however, they’d grown firmly entrenched.

The most troubling situation concerned a music director who had held the post for 38 years. Though he had no professional training in music, he had volunteered to lead the choir 38 years ago when no one else was willing to take the job.

At first the church kept him on out of necessity, then gratitude, and finally because he had become a fixture.

When I met with the out-going pastor, he didn’t hide the problem.

“The choir director will give you trouble,” he said. “His mind is made up, and his methods are set in concrete. He is unteachable and will resist every suggestion you make concerning music in the worship service. My advice is to just leave him alone. Plan your worship services as if he or the choir didn’t exist.”

The former pastor was right. When I suggested hymns to accompany the theme of a sermon, he would shake his head and say, “I’m sorry, Pastor. The choir doesn’t know those hymns. Trust me. I know which songs the people enjoy most.”

My efforts to introduce contemporary music drew a similar response. He insisted, “Gospel music is the only music fit for worship.” Worst of all, he frequently featured soloists who were long-time friends of his, who had no talent for public performance. I grimaced through many special numbers.

Something needed to be done. But I didn’t know what.

We asked our participants how they would respond to such a situation in a creative, people-sensitive manner. Their answers reflect ingenuity, pastoral instincts, and years of valuable experience.

A Personnel, Not Personality, Problem

by Norman Shawchuck, president of Shawchuck & Assoc. Ltd., a consulting firm for church leaders.

Sooner or later every pastor inherits a paid or volunteer staff person who has “retired” on the job and needs to be replaced.

I smelled trouble when a church officer introduced himself to me and said, “I will sign the checks, but don’t ask for any information regarding contributions or giving records. No one has been able to untangle that particular mess.”

New to the church, I was preoccupied with getting established, so I brushed off his comment without asking further questions.

Then the year-end financial and membership reports came due, which our denomination required. I asked the officer to fill out the reports, which he did. I also requested that he give me a copy of the records to document the numbers we were sending in.

He agreed but kept stalling. He said he was transferring the figures from his files to the church records. When I still didn’t receive the documents, I called him and said, “Joe, I just can’t wait any longer. You must bring me your records tomorrow without fail.”

The next day Joe walked in the door with grocery bags full of notes, envelopes, and stubs.

I asked the two church secretaries to collate the material. A few days later, they handed me the results: the membership rolls included people who had been dead for years, several membership classes had never been recorded, and I was handed a batch of envelopes containing money from an offering taken seven years ago. Arriving at an accurate membership count or verifying individual contributions was impossible.

I put the matter before several key church leaders. I was surprised to learn they weren’t surprised at all. They had known for years our records were a mess, but no one wanted to confront Joe.

Churches are often lax in matters of personnel management. It’s sticky, if not dangerous, business to move Sister Edna or Brother James out of a job. They have tight connections within the church. They know where the bodies are buried. Their power base is significant.

Here are some principles to prevent anyone, treasurer or choir director, from taking a job hostage for life.

Take responsibility. That the choir director is in the wrong position may not be his fault. He stepped forward to meet a need. He took the job when no one else was willing. Chances are the pastor and the congregation grew complacent and just left him there. The pastor and the board need to assume responsibility rather than laying blame at the feet of the volunteer.

It sounds as if several pastors in a row failed to accept their role as the church’s primary personnel manager. I would suggest that a lay personnel committee establish the personnel policies, and the pastor assume the duty of insuring they are carried out-for both paid and unpaid staff. While a minister can delegate a number of tasks in the church, he cannot surrender his personnel management duties.

Develop a job description. The choir director probably never received a list of job expectations or guidelines. How can he be faulted for not living up to expectations that were never explained?

Problems are always easier to manage when written guidelines are in place. Job descriptions and an annual review remove the appearance of arbitrary behavior on the part of a pastor and provide an objective basis for evaluation.

Having the choir director help develop his own performance goals would be helpful. People tend to support what they help create. Ask him what he needs from you to meet his performance targets.

If people are failing in their jobs, it’s important to ask yourself, “How have I failed them as a manager?” Ask them, “How can I help you to do your job even better?” Seek their candid feedback. It may dramatically increase their productivity.

Conduct regular evaluations. The choir director probably would have welcomed yearly evaluations. They would have signaled some interest and support in his work. Nothing is more threatening than unscheduled or surprise evaluations.

If you discover someone is digging pockets of control, the best alternative is to move that person into a new assignment. If evaluations are done on a yearly basis, you can spot the problem before it becomes serious. The roots won’t have grown so deep that you tear up the lawn to move the tree.

Value results over activity. Whether or not the choir director has worked hard is not the right question. Rather, has he accomplished anything? Peter Drucker once said, “Don’t measure the performance of your parish visitors by the number of visits they make, but by the quality of relationships they establish, and the results that come from their visit . . . (Tell them) ‘I don’t care whether you make only one visit a day for a while, so long as the one is a perfect visit.’ “

A good job description is results-oriented, not activity-oriented. People can be busy as can be while doing a terrible job.

Get the job done. When I faced a similar situation with an entrenched music director, I countered by forming ensembles that performed in addition to the choir. Since these groups weren’t a choir, I wasn’t infringing on his area of responsibility. The personnel committee agreed I was taking nothing away from him.

It took two years to develop a strong worship committee. After extensive communication with every age group, we outlined a plan to strengthen the music ministry. The director rejected it outright.

The worship committee then asked the personnel committee to adjudicate the matter. The result was a pledge on the part of the director to retire in one year. The announcement was made to the congregation of the impending retirement and “a year of music and celebration” was held in his honor.

Agree on a Common Vision

by David Chadwick, pastor of Forest Hill Presbyterian Church in Charlotte, North Carolina.

I, too, faced a similar situation and used a committee approach to address the problem rather than taking it on as a personal crusade.

When it became clear we needed to redirect our music ministry, I asked our governing board to appoint a task force to survey our current music program. I knew it would bring the issue to a head, but it was safer to have lay people pressing the matter than myself.

The process took approximately six months. A polling of the congregation revealed a strong desire for a fresh style of music. They also indicated they wanted to hire a music minister on at least a half-time basis.

We presented the survey results to the current music director. We asked, “Is this a position you could see yourself fitting into?” Deep in his heart, he knew he didn’t match the profile. The survey helped him to see that the church was moving in a different direction than he had been leading the music program. He eventually resigned.

I offer three suggestions when handling the dynamite of removing a permanent church fixture:

Define your mission statement. A mission statement offers an objective standard against which you can measure the direction of a particular ministry. If your mission statement spells out the goal of reaching the unbeliever or becoming “seeker-sensitive,” but your current music program relies on traditional hymns, you have a basis for seeking change.

We had a man who had recruited Sunday school teachers for years. The profile of our church began changing, however, and we shifted focus to reaching baby-boomers and the unchurched. Soon it became evident that this older volunteer was struggling. He was unfamiliar and uncomfortable with the new direction.

Sensing the problem, the leadership approached him and said, “You know, Ralph, we need to begin asking ourselves how we can recruit teachers that are effective in communicating with unbelievers. Could you help us think through how we might better accomplish that?” We also asked him to discuss his insights regarding the need for excellence and quality in attracting unbelievers.

Shortly thereafter Ralph returned to us saying, “I don’t think I fit what you’re trying to do. I love this church, and I’m not going to leave it, but I need to give this job to someone else.” We invited him to continue serving as a substitute from time to time, and as a result he continued to feel a part of the ministry.

Keep the pulpit free from poison. Don’t give in to the temptation to use the pulpit as a platform to deal with a problem individual. It will always backfire. I once heard a minister say, “We need to have more vibrant, expressive music. Music is the heartbeat of God. We need to learn what that means and become more joyful, making our morning service a true celebration.”

Everyone knew what was going on. He was presenting his own thinly veiled agenda for new music and attacking the current musicians. The people saw right through him. The result: it inflamed the passions of those already opposed to him. The congregation saw it as an abuse of his authority and position.

Unite around a common vision. Buildings, programs, my personality, a loving congregation-these don’t bring people together. A common vision of the future, however, does. When that’s in place, you can disagree, wrestle an issue to the mat, and even dismiss a popular but ineffective worker, but the leadership will leave holding hands because they share a common vision of what the church should be.

Honesty and Honor

by Alvin Jackson, pastor of Mississippi Boulevard Christian Church in Memphis, Tennessee.

I’d begin by calling the individual in and dealing with him in an up front and honest manner. It’s wrong to go behind his back.

If I thought this conversation would be well-received, I would have no qualms about doing this privately. If not, having a deacon or elder sitting in is advisable.

I would begin the conversation by discussing the man’s strengths. After all, he has been on the job 38 years. That’s a remarkable tenure by anyone’s standards.

I would say, “Your work with the choir has contributed to a memorable four decades. But we’re entering another season now, and we need to make changes. We’re looking to bring new leadership into our music ministry. We’d like you to consider a new area of the ministry. Perhaps you could still play on Wednesday evenings, or for special programs, or serve as a consultant to the music program.”

I would indicate the church plans to honor him in a variety of ways-a special banquet, naming something in the building after him, or establishing a music scholarship in his name. I would want the person to know and feel his contribution is esteemed by the congregation and the music department.

We err if we don’t separate issues from personalities. Even if a person is no longer effective, it’s wrong to remove him without due process. Good or bad, easy to get along with or just plain ornery, he or she deserves our love and affirmation.

I would be certain that other members of the music ministry had private conversations with him as well. I would want him to understand that the change wasn’t only my idea.

After meeting with the person, I would meet with the choir. I’d relay to them the changes being made. I’ve learned this principle the hard way: “People are down on what they’re not up on.” I would clearly explain the reasons behind the transition to avoid speculation and gossip.

I encountered a similar situation with our choir. A person had led the department for years but suffered from a lack of organizational and detail skills. The ministry had now grown beyond the leader.

I initiated the transition with a conversation. I met with the volunteer several months in advance. He agreed a change was needed. At that point, I thought the matter was settled. But then he had second thoughts. He confided his imminent departure with some of the choir members who, motivated by sympathy, persuaded him to change his mind.

The problem escalated. So I met with the choir and informed them of the change. I had a person in mind to replace him, so I acted quickly. Creating a vacuum is dangerous in times of change.

We then sponsored a testimonial dinner in the director’s honor, and this person received numerous gifts from the congregation. The transition went smoothly.

You need “money in the bank”-a reserve of people’s trust-when undertaking a major personnel change. I had been working with the choir leadership on a number of alternatives to the problems before making the change. So when the time came to act on it, they were ready to go.

I don’t make important decisions in isolation. Even if I have the clout to make a personnel change, I generally recruit others to walk with me in the process.

I was frustrated with a person whose work habits disappointed me. I reached the breaking point one day and called her into my office.

“You have two weeks left on the job,” I said. “I’m going to terminate our working relationship.” Few knew of my decision, and I offered little explanation. The congregation was surprised to look up one day and find that she was gone. I had moved too quickly. People were shaking their heads and asking, “What happened?”

Once I realized my mistake, I wrote the person and apologized for my abrupt handling of the situation. The relationship was eventually reconciled. After two years she returned to the church and reinstated her membership.

Regular feedback-both written and oral-is crucial to paid and unpaid staff. It aids in preventing a crisis before it occurs. Honesty is essential. If termination is required, the person should leave-if at all possible-with the congregation wrapping its arms around him or her.

Firm and Fair

by LeRoy Lawson, minister at Central Christian Church in Mesa, Arizona, and president of Pacific Christian College in Fullerton, California.

If confronted with an unbending choir director, I would follow several principles:

Inquire into your motives. In the case of the choir director, I would ask myself, Do I want him removed just because my predecessor warned me to watch out for him? Or is it because he threatens my leadership? Or my power base? I need to be certain I’m taking action for the right reasons-not to protect my ego.

Determine if you plan to stay or leave. I need to be certain I’m committed to the church over the long-haul if I’m going to disrupt the system and replace a choir director who’s been there forty years. After all, for better or worse, the system has been working (or at least operating) for almost four decades. My entering a power struggle with a person, removing him or her, and then my leaving the church would seriously damage the morale of the church.

Think in pastoral, not institutional terms. This isn’t a simple case of removing someone from a position. The Scriptures teach that each person has a place for ministry in the body. The choir director needs to be honored and given another opportunity to continue his service to the Lord. No believer should be deprived of this privilege unless extreme circumstances warrant.

Appoint a study team. I would form a worship-study team of perhaps six people that included the choir director. To the entire team, I would say, “I’m new here and need instruction on the styles of worship that have been acceptable in the past. At the same time, I’d like to have you work with me in examining other styles of worship that have found favor in different parts of the country. Perhaps some could be adapted for our use.”

Develop a group of dreamers. Besides a worship-study team, I would appoint a second group that would meet with me on a non-official basis. We would gather as an advisory body to pray, dream dreams, and thoughtfully consider the future God would have for us as a congregation.

Both groups protect me from becoming arbitrary in my judgments or actions toward the choir director. No person involved in leadership can trust their own judgment all the time. Ministers sometimes complain about the intransigence of their church leadership and the slow pace at which change occurs. What I fail to recognize is that I may be trying to do things the exact way I did in my last church. I may be the one who is intransigent, not the choir director!

If the two teams I’ve established have done their work, they will eventually move beyond the arena of principles to application. In time they will conclude that the music selection needs to be addressed. That’s why the process needs time. Immediate confrontations, while sometimes necessary, can short-circuit the process the groups are moving through.

Don’t micro-manage. Is it really necessary that I choose all the hymns? Is no one else competent in the church than I? The choir director may be incapable of selecting the right worship music. Then again, he might be able to rise to the occasion. If I attempt to micro-manage, I’ll never discover the truth.

Follow up with love. If I have to remove Charlie, and the hammer falls, I will immediately dispatch people to minister to him, reaffirming our love for him. I’ll personally do everything I can to maintain a relationship with him through personal calls, telephone conversations, and notes of appreciation. The action will still sting, but as little as possible.

Leave the light on. Anger is a common reaction to losing one’s job. I’ve seen people storm out the door and promise never to return. But in the fourteen years I’ve served my current church, I’ve watched a number of people who left in indignation eventually return.

This case study reminds me of a workshop I was asked to conduct several years ago. It was titled, “Building Harmony and Productivity in Leadership.” I realized quickly that the title was an oxymoron. The person who wants harmony at all costs can seldom elicit productivity. But the productivity-oriented person is going to create chaos. Leadership requires both a desire for harmony and a commitment to productivity, particularly when dealing with well-entrenched, but ineffective, workers.

Good Grief and Holy Cow

by Michelle Prentice, pastor of First Community Congregational United Church of Christ, Island Lake, Illinois.

I am a psychotherapist by training, so my first inclination would be to try to understand the choir director’s personality structure. That might provide clues to understanding his behavior.

Many if not most personality problems, I believe, are related to unresolved grief. The behavior of the choir director described in the case study suggests he’s experienced significant loss or deprivation. He’s processing that loss in an unhealthy fashion by turning his anger toward others, particularly the pastor. Unfortunately, he appears caught in that stage and unable to move beyond it.

People who have experienced a great loss in their lives may have difficulty letting go of the familiar, such as their role as choir director or trustee chair. The prospect of losing something else in their life that’s been meaningful to them is too overwhelming. The result is they fight tooth and nail to hang on (e.g., his insistence on using only gospel music).

I would share with the gentleman some of the losses that have occurred in my own life. I’d admit these setbacks have made it difficult for me to entertain the idea of trying new things. I would explain how his own unfinished grief work may be adversely impacting his area of service and hindering the work of the Holy Spirit.

I’d invite him to do a self-examination, asking questions such as, “What makes me tick? How do I make decisions? What’s important to me?”

I would also avoid the temptation to recruit allies. Rallying people against another is professionally dangerous. Loyalties can switch before I know it. Making an ally with someone who doesn’t share my level of authority is hazardous. It can be compared to a single parent who makes an ally out of a child. It robs the children of their right to be children. In the same way, recruiting allies among the congregation deprives them of their right to be parishioners.

If I choose to move ahead and remove the person, I need to recognize the cost. After all, he’s been in that position for nearly four decades. Most likely I’ll lose some people in the process. If the cost is the support of my entire leadership, I would be a fool to choose that course until I had received their support.

As a matter of principle, I don’t disparage sacred cows. They’ve become sacred for a reason. Congregations invest a great deal of themselves in their herd of holy bovines. The choir director may have his entire life and definition of who he is wrapped up in his music.

So rather than dishonor him, I’d work around his convictions rather than stampede over them. I would attempt to interest him and the congregation in alternatives that would allow fresh options. That way, I could eventually send the sacred cow out to pasture rather than to the meat-packing plant.

If a change needs to occur, I approach the problem patiently. My goal can’t simply be to remove a frustrating person from my life. My ordination charge was not to remove irritation from my life, but to improve the overall ministry of the church. So I prepare myself for a two-or three-year process.

I lay the groundwork for the transition long before any change takes place. I start by frequently affirming the person-using vehicles such as the church newsletter-for his or her years of service. Every time he or she does something well, I point it out.

After six months to a year of such affirmation, I would approach the choir director and say, “I’d like you to experiment with this song that I wish to use as part of my sermon. I don’t want to upset anything you already have planned, but would you consider using it?” Even if he refused my request, I’d return a few weeks later and say, “I think I’m going to go ahead with this.”

Then I’d go ahead and use the song I had chosen. Afterwards, I’d ask him what he thought of the selection. I would be quick to share with him any positive feedback I’d received from the congregation: “Harold said he really appreciated that number. He asked if we could do something like it again,” or “Several people commented on how much they enjoyed singing praise choruses this morning.”

After several more months of this approach, I would approach him again and press the issue. If there was still no progress, I would begin planning a huge celebration and farewell for him.

On one occasion we retired a gentleman who had led singing for nearly forty years by having a magnificent public celebration. We gave him a key to the church, to the organ, and bestowed on him the title, “Worship Leader Emeritus.” While he later complained, “I was pushed out,” he eventually accepted the transition and remained in the church.

It’s vital to remember the investment the choir director has made in his work. I need to express appreciation for him as a person even if his efforts have been disappointing. I need to gently challenge him to evaluate his ministry in terms of its service to the larger church community. Finally, I must stand alongside him once the change has been made.

Overall, I must focus on the right issues and not the individual’s irritating personality. If I can do that, I’ll stay much healthier and so will the church.

Time for Team Building

by Howard Clark pastor of Northwest Bible Church in Dallas, Texas.

Let me begin by describing a wrong way to deal with this type of problem.

It was “wedding season” and the pressure was on! The facilities were taxed and the staff overworked, but in the midst of the chaos was the steady constant, our prenuptial drill sergeant, the wedding hostess.

She was always in command, never at a loss as to proper decorum, and had held the job since the Reformation. With three weddings on some Saturdays, we had to be efficient, and “Sarge” kept us running by the book. She had a reputation for being heavy-handed with people, but because she had held the job for years, no one challenged her.

On a particularly hot and muggy Saturday, a large wedding was about to begin-the marriage of a pastoral staff member. The residents of a local nursing home where he had ministered decided to make the wedding their outing for the month.

Just as the procession was about to begin, Sarge discovered one of the nursing home residents slumped over in her wheelchair. Assuming the person was seriously ill, she ordered her removed from the sanctuary at once.

The woman in the wheelchair, however, had just fallen asleep. All the commotion attracted the attention of the senior associate pastor. When he found out what had happened, he fired Sarge on the spot.

This was not the first time she had angered or reprimanded visitors. During a large musical performance she had scolded a woman saving a seat for her husband while he parked the car.

“Can’t you read?” she said. “The ticket says no reserved seating.” Of course, the ticket merely served to remind everyone that our policy was open seating; it didn’t preclude saving a seat for a relative or friend. But to Sarge, what was written was law! And her interpretation was the final word.

Sarge’s firing was done in haste and without consultation, but the deacons stood by the decision. They knew it should have come long before this. While surgically quick and clean, her termination left gaping wounds in her life.

Word quickly spread that a dear and faithful servant had been wronged. The congregation saw the leaders as culprits and her as a victim. While the decision may have been right, it was done in the wrong way.

We ended up having to retreat. Several deacons and I went to her home and spent three hours listening to her recount her years of service to the church. It turned out this role was the one place in her life where she had significance. She lived for wedding rehearsals and ceremonies and the opportunity to direct traffic in the sanctuary.

She justified her inflexible behavior by reminding us that in God’s house, things should be done with decency and order. Underneath it all, however, was an obvious need for power, recognition, and significance, though it’s doubtful she could have ever recognized that.

We asked her forgiveness. We had erred in stripping her of her position in such an abrupt manner. Hindsight is always so much more focused.

Instead of firing her immediately, we should have said, “I think the pressures of this job are more than you’re able to handle. Let’s find another way to use your skills.” We did eventually find another position for her at the visitors’ center. It helped restore her sense of position in the church.

Several important lessons emerged from this episode that apply in dealing with the contentious choir director.

Move quickly but carefully. If you have to make a tough call, take action quickly but not so suddenly that you precipitate a crisis. If the pastor waits too long to remove the choir director, the price will continue to climb until taking action will be too expensive and he’ll leave it to the next pastor to deal with. People seem to be able to adjust to and get over what happens in the first year of a pastor’s ministry. “He’s new and doesn’t understand. He’ll learn!” they say in a condescending way. Later on they’ll make no excuses for the pastor who should have known better. Making hard calls early during that grace period is best.

Take along a church father. I would take an elder or other respected lay leader with me to talk with the choir director. They have what I don’t-history and stature. A second person helps me keep my perspective in the middle of a difficult conversation. He can also serve as a witness if the event goes sour. It is helpful to have someone the congregation respects to say, “No, the pastor didn’t mean that. He acted graciously and with love, but it was hard for Harry to hear.”

Offer legitimate options. If you say to the choir director, “Why don’t you do special music twice a month,” be sure you can live with that. If he accepts, you’re stuck with his music for a long, long time. Give him options that you can both appreciate and live with.

Build allies. I’m a firm believer in building allies, particularly with the official church board. But I also like to establish an executive committee that operates without portfolio. The group has no authority to take action but meets on a regular, informal basis for discussion and information-sharing.

I invite the chairman and the vice-chairman of each board to join the group. I figure if something is going to blow up in the church, sooner or later it will reach these four individuals. Working through potentially difficult issues in private is better than going public before we’ve worked through the details.

I would discuss the choir director problem with this executive committee, explaining the role of music in worship. I would want to know if anyone else in the group was aware of the problems I saw. If no one else sees a problem, then the church may not have a problem. Perhaps it is just my problem and I need the wise and objective counsel of my “partners in ministry” to adjust my attitude.

If, however, they agree we have a problem, I would proceed cautiously, trying to avoid becoming a villain who is attacking this saintly old man who has given his life to the church. These partners enable me to understand the history and complexities of the situation.

An important caveat: this guy has forty years of experience on you. He is a survivor who has figured out how to get through all the previous pastors who wanted to make changes. So if you are going to keep this from becoming a defining moment in your ministry to that church, he must come to see you as partner rather than adversary.

I would ask him about his own sense of mission: What is it that he’s wanted to accomplish? The point would be to increase pressure on him little by little. Offer to pay for continuing education to help him expand his abilities. I would look for positive alternatives before taking the final action of having him removed.

Viva la video. A strategy that’s worked well for us is a weekly worship planning session. We videotape our worship service and review it with the worship team on Tuesday morning. The technology is so common and affordable that virtually any church can do the same.

We include all the key participants-organist, choir director, staff members, and pastor. I’m always amazed at what happens in this setting. I don’t have to point out everyone’s errors; they see them before anyone else because we are each looking at ourselves! The one you may want to critique will usually speak first-that way at least they can control how the goof is portrayed, and they are usually harder on themselves than I would have been. We laugh at what went wrong, compliment one another for what worked well, and leave with a commitment to do better next week. We are a team!

If the choir director could be brought into a team setting and allowed to participate in honest feedback, it could open him up to critiques from others. He would feel significant being a functioning, leading member of the team. In that climate, saying, “We sang the same hymn two weeks in a row,” or “That song took us to the right when the mood of the service was taking us left,” would be less threatening.

Finally, I would hope I could be mature enough to see the choir director not as a problem to be done away with, but rather as a person to be loved, affirmed, and given a place of significance in the body of Christ. (But that does not mean he needs a place on the platform.) I need to remember that ministries exist to serve people, not the other way around. If I can find a place in the church’s life that meets his need for significance and belonging, the problem will essentially have been solved.

64 SUMMER/93