It started with a simple request: “Will you come and moderate a special business meeting at our church?” As presbyter for 30 churches in the San Francisco area, I agreed to assist. At the time I did not realize this would plunge me into a conflict that would nearly destroy a congregation.
A year after Bill was called to pastor this church, he wanted to change the by-laws to eliminate the periodic vote of confidence and establish an indefinite term of office for the pastor. He aggressively campaigned for a special congregational meeting to approve the idea.
Some in the congregation felt Bill’s campaigning signified a shift from pastoral leadership to personal agenda. This polarized the congregation. By the date of the meeting, many members had already left the church.
Bill had called me because he thought that a neutral party would restrain the hostility. After a bitter debate, Bill’s proposal received a slight majority. I left the meeting saddened by the divisive spirit. Those who opposed the decision soon left the church. The remainder—bruised and demoralized—continued to dwindle. Within a year, this “pastor for life” resigned. This once vibrant congregation still struggles to survive.
My experience at Bill’s church painfully reminded me of the times that I, too, had bungled the decision-making process. I look back at the strained relationships and frigid atmospheres to which I contributed, and I question whether winning the decision merited the cost. It doesn’t have to be that way.
In recent years I’ve discovered that the process of making a major decision can actually be unifying and energizing. I’ve found several principles helpful in building that kind of unity.
Teammates wear the same color.
The way we make a decision often proves as important as the result achieved, for it affects morale and commitment. Our culture accustoms us to the model of parliamentary debate. Unfortunately, this method usually entrenches individuals in their view as they seek to defend it, to disparage opposing views, and to persuade a majority to join their side.
A quantum shift occurred in my thinking when I realized that the discussion of issues does not have to be adversarial. Instead, it can be a team effort to find the right solution. A few years ago I came across Edward de Bono’s “six thinking hats” approach to making decisions, and I taught it to the leaders in our church. Rather than taking sides during discussion, everyone works together at a given time on the same task. The colors of the imaginary hats represent different tasks. These include exploring advantages (yellow), problems (black), feelings (red), and alternatives (green). Because everyone wears the same color hat at the same time, the prevailing mood is cooperation.
Try another stance.
Sometimes, no matter how hard I try to keep everyone on the same team, I find one person who persists in antagonism. At times, I’ve caught myself communicating intimidating messages to the dissenters:
“Where’s your faith, anyway?”
“You’re opposing God’s will! Shame on you.”
I wouldn’t actually say these things, but my attitude was apparent. Threatened by their disagreement, my natural inclination was to silence them. I have learned to temper this ungodly inclination by putting myself in the place of those who disagree. Will they feel alienated and demoralized?
Paul tells us to “outdo one another in showing honor” (Rom. 12:10). This does not simply refer to those who are spiritually strong or who agree with us. Publicly and privately, I now seek to affirm those who disagree. When people feel valued, they will more likely identify with the church, support the decisions made, and be energized to serve.
Wait for your pitch.
A good proposal at the wrong time is a bad idea, but a good proposal at the right time becomes a great idea. Five years ago our board recommended building an addition that would cost nearly two million dollars. Many members questioned the wisdom, since we still had a large mortgage on our existing facility.
While strongly favoring it, I realized that the proposal was premature and did not push for it. It was tabled. Three years later, when we revisited the idea, many still opposed it. Again we tabled the matter.
We have now finished paying off the mortgage. The church has experienced growth and the beginning of revival. Recently the proposal passed overwhelmingly. More importantly, members are united and excited about the future.
Finding the right moment to prompt a decision can be frustrating. How do we discern when the timing is right? I’ve learned to look for several factors in timing a decision:
- Are the opinion leaders, to whom people look for direction, in favor? If a significant number are opposed, we proceed at our own folly. We act wisely in first gaining their support.
- Do substantial obstacles still exist, or have the issues been adequately addressed? Satisfactory answers to nagging questions and solutions to past problems gave the proposal credibility and defused opposition. I had challenged the church to move forward, but I hadn’t considered the people’s readiness to engage in making a major decision.
- 3. Does a climate of mutual trust, appreciation, and caring exist? If not, I need to work at building this spirit. Otherwise, the process of deciding deteriorates into mistrust, antagonism, and division.
- 4. Do the people have an attitude of faith and expectancy that God is at work? If so, they will be more willing to stretch and sacrifice. Building this spiritual environment often involves small steps of faith, steps that build spiritual momentum toward a larger vision.
- 5. Are the members growing toward spiritual maturity? Spiritual immaturity includes a weak commitment to biblical values, the priority of personal interests, and the lack of a close relationship with God.
My Type A personality groans at waiting. I want things to happen now, if not sooner, but building mutual trust and love, faith, and spiritual maturity does not happen overnight. Every good decision needs a solid foundation of proper attitudes and faith.
Stephen Lim is associate professor of leadership at the Assembly of God Theological Seminary in Springfield, Missouri.
To respond to this newsletter, write to Newsletter@LeadershipJournal.net.
Copyright © 2006 by the author or Christianity Today/Leadership Journal.Click here for reprint information on Leadership Journal.
