How to develop key people
“You have to learn to share.” Coaxing from my mom didn’t convince me. Nor did seminary discussions on servant leadership.
Only when I decided to move our church to a team-based ministry did I begin to learn what shared ministry really meant. In the past I would have argued our church was team-friendly, but we weren’t. Teams, I discovered, are mostly about sharing—sharing goals and sharing life. It takes the first to act like a team and the second to feel like a team.
Sharing goals Team members, of course, need to accomplish something to feel productive. Like the players of any sports team, each needs to know that she or he has executed the play and seen some results. But drift and entropy are constant threats.
Each year every staff person develops a MAP—a Ministry Action Plan. These plans are distributed to the entire staff, and then each person discusses his MAP with his or her ministry team. When the tyranny of the urgent begins to crowd out someone’s stated goals, the team leader explores the reason behind it. One person was recently challenged to evaluate whether the changes in her activities were on purpose or simply covering for the lack of growth in another staff person.
The point is that to function effectively as a team requires process. The management maxim “Your system is perfectly designed to yield the result you’re getting” is true. In an effective system, the leader acts as a catalyst, ensuring there is an agenda for each meeting, that there are individual assignments with accountability, that progress is evaluated and measured. Systems allow a team to be process-oriented rather than people-dependent, freeing up people to do the work of the ministry.
Fun mitigates the effects of the inevitable frustrations of ministry.
Sharing life But I had to learn to balance the functional and the relational. For most of our two decades as a church, staff functioned as loosely connected ministry entrepreneurs. We had a bias against meetings, viewing them as time away from true ministry. I had espoused that culture-shaping value, which works against the “sharing life” value.
My team needs to sense that I care for its members beyond their accomplishment. That’s the relational. At our last staff retreat, each leader awarded “medals” (Peppermint Patty mints on red, white, and blue ribbons) to team members, affirming in each a personal quality. Every person had the chance to talk about his or her ministry passion as well as relate a personal struggle or desire for development. Team leaders followed up, assuring each that they were praying for the requests.
Another way I balance the function and relational is to monitor our fun together. Do we have enough of it? Fun mitigates the effects of the inevitable frustrations of ministry. At times fun happens spontaneously when we poke fun at each other and end up laughing until we cry. But I also structure unexpected trips to a restaurant or a day at the lakeshore. Our agenda may include prayer or discussing a book on leadership, but usually it’s the eating at a unique restaurant or the sand between our toes that makes the day.
—Wayne Schmidt Kentwood Community Church Kentwood, Michigan
HAND OUT AND DISCUSS
Everything to Some People Should a church try to please everyone?
Michael Barker, pastor of Eastside Church, could see Ted was uncomfortable with what he was about to say.
“I’m grateful for this church,” Ted finally said. “If you hadn’t targeted unchurched people like me and my family, we would never have come to Christ.”
Where’s the conversation headed? Michael wondered.
Since Ted and Sally started attending four years before and soon made a commitment to follow Christ, Ted had become an integral part of the church. He had grown quickly as a young believer and had just been appointed to serve on the church council.
“The problem is Sally and I have different needs now than we did when we started out as seekers. With our church’s strong focus on unbelievers, we’re just not getting fed any more. So we’re thinking of attending Springfield Bible Chapel.”
Michael’s first thought was to defend himself. He could not imagine how Eastside could abandon its central purpose, which was to bring God’s timeless truths to the culture in relevant, life-changing ways.
To discuss How can you determine whether Ted’s leaving signals a weakness (a lack in a certain area) or a strength (a focused and clear objective) in the church?
If you were Ted, what would you want to hear from Michael?
What happened Ted and Sally didn’t stay at Eastside; they had already made up their minds by the time Ted talked to Michael. Their comments and actions, however, combined with similar comments from other sources, sparked animated discussions among the staff and governing council of Eastside.
The ministry team began to reconsider the church’s purpose statement.
In the end the leaders decided to keep their purpose statement and, in fact, reinforce Eastside’s unique mission and call. They did, however, adjust church programming to include more sensitivity to believers’ needs. The staff expanded ministries to keep pace with the growth of new converts, offering more advanced discipleship courses over time. They adjusted Sunday messages to include applications for both believers and unbelievers.
To apply 1. How often should a church’s vision or purpose statement be re-evaluated?
2. How can a healthy balance be struck between opposing or divergent needs within a congregation? Is balance even the right word?
3. Which is healthier: to expect unsatisfied members to leave to attend another church, or to adapt to satisfy their needs? Is there another way?
—Richard Doebler Cloquet Gospel Tabernacle Cloquet, Minnesota
This was excerpted from the BUILDING CHURCH LEADERS Notebook. To purchase, call 1-800-806-7798, or go to http://store.yahoo.com/cti/builchruclea.html
Copyright © 1999 by the author or Christianity Today/Leadership Journal. Click here for reprint information on Leadership Journal.
