Is this asking too much?

[Ryan Scott]

I am A or AA compared to the Big Leagues of what you are describing.

Don't feel like you have to be better than that just yet. You haven't been doing this that long yet - the fact that you're trying to improve things is the right track.

Listening to some of what you're saying, it might be good to go back and review some of the Family-Systems stuff from Pastoral Care and Counseling; I found that material much more helpful with specific relationships in mind.

[Dave McClung]

Dave, I have to disagree as respectfully as I possibly can. Though I wholeheartedly agree that we pay professionals for results, I contract professionals routinely as part of my job. I am very explicit with my requirements. I consider professionals too "professional" to agree to requirements as not hireable. If it helps, try to consider it as
clearly defining expectations in a relationship. Of course I don't expect the pastor to answer the phone, I do expect the phone to be answered, re, you allusion to results. My angst with professionals is with what I perceive refusal to be held accountable by peers and/or people who are not their peers. It is an acute problem in the medical profession to the point that equals disrespect each other. I have observed the same attitudes both in the lawyer profession and among clergy.

I don't think you are going as far as much of what I have observed, however, I have seen the opinion you have just used as a bludgioning weapon by professionals, not only on each other but also against professionals from other professions who work with them (whom they could not succesfully practice without).

I view a covenant on a much higher order than I do contracts. In two cases, one an air ambulance involving, pilots, nurses, and EMTs, all professionals in their own right, refused to comply with our requirements. I did not make a big deal with them per se. After I hung up, I instructed the planners to give me the next air ambulance up.

Relevant parties met with that group here today, its my understanding that they now better understood the parts or our requirements that are not negotiable.

I expect professionals, above all others, to be held accountable to the lowliest person they serve, yea, verily, even unto the janitor (sanitation engineer if you prefer).

Dan, I don't really disagree about "professionals" generally, but I really do disgree with boards who attempt to control their pastor's activities on an hour by hour or day by day basis. To be successful, pastors have to have a high degree of freedom. That doesn't mean that I don't have discussions with my pastor about expectations. It simply means that I recognize that he is a professional and I trust him to manage his activities to accomplish the results.

I also hire a lot of professionals. I define my expectations clearly in terms of the results I expect (including deadlines), but I don't tell them step by step how they are to achive those results. If I have to do that, they are not professional.

[Dan Henderson]

Dan, I don't really disagree about "professionals" generally, but I really do disgree with boards who attempt to control their pastor's activities on an hour by hour or day by day basis. To be successful, pastors have to have a high degree of freedom. That doesn't mean that I don't have discussions with my pastor about expectations. It simply means that I recognize that he is a professional and I trust him to manage his activities to accomplish the results.

I also hire a lot of professionals. I define my expectations clearly in terms of the results I expect (including deadlines), but I don't tell them step by step how they are to achive those results. If I have to do that, they are not professional.

I' think I'm on the same page with you,perhaps I misunderstood.

[Dave McClung]

If you have another suggestion, I am all ears. I mean that in all sincerity with no sarcasm.

Perhaps it would be helpful if I explained how we do it at the Gig Harbor Church. In the first board meeting after the board is elected, the pastor presents a list of areas within the church that need supervision. We go around the table and each board member selects the area or areas where they are willing to take responsibility. Because of the attitude of cooperation, someone takes responsibility for every area.

At each board meeting, we simply go around the table and each board member reports on the areas under his or her responsibility. A key issue is -- if a board member doesn't do his or her job, it just doesn't get done.

The pastor's role is simply giving feedback. When someone does a really good job, the pastor expresses appreciation. If someone totally fails, the pastor gives constructive feedback and offers assistance.

There is no expectation that every board member will be involved in everything. It is expected that each board member will take a leadership role in the area of ministry where they believe the Lord is leading them. My skill is in finance, so I am chairman of the finance committee. Another board member is good at construction, he looks after the building issues. Another board member has a passion for missions, she is NMI President. Another board member loves feeding people, she looks after the dinners and socials.

When we started this, we identified several areas where no board member had a passion. One of those was youth ministry. We agreed to pray together that God would send us youth leadership. Within a few weeks, a new couple came to fill that responsibility. The youth group is now doing great.

So, my recommendation:
1) Rather than trying to get everyone to do everything, try to get each board member to do one thing very well.
2) If you have areas of ministry that are not covered, get the entire board to pray that God will send someone to cover that area. When the whole board prays together, positive things happen.
3) As pastor, you should seek to become an expert on "feed back." Many years ago, there was a book called "One Minute Manager." The techniques taught in that book still work well today. The most effective pastors I have known were the ones who consitently gave people feedback about their actions.
4) Instead of looking at areas where board members fall short, focus on the areas that they do well.

That is the end of my advice, but I do want to comment on one other thing you posted. One of your board members mentioned that he didn't want to have to attend Sunday School. I have attended adult Sunday School classes in dozens of different Nazarene churches. Most of them have been totally a waste of time. In my opinion, we shouldn't try to shame people into attending classes where they feel they are getting nothing. The answer is to make the classes interesting enough that people want to attend.

[Jim Chabot]

Thanks Jim. Let me chew on that one, because I like it. In some sense, you are sniffing out my heart. I have chosen some of the board to be invited to be part of the first wave of small group leaders. I chose those with time, and a heart for what we are trying to do. We meet regularly and are in not daily contact, but several times per week about how life is going. I am A or AA compared to the Big Leagues of what you are describing.

He was discipling, grooming, loving, encouraging and shepherding all at once. That is a great story.

I should add that this fellow managed to Pastor the same church for 58 years, he was truly an amazing individual.

I heard something the other night that might interest you, the focus of our revival this year was leadership. We had Evangelist Bob Flint from Ohio, you might want to contact him when you get ready to schedule a revival, he did a good job and he was very reasonable cost wise.

Anyways one of the keywords that he used stuck in my mind as possibly helpful in your situation. He outlined and rejected being passive and dictatorial, and settled in on something I like, The art of "Non Anxious Assertiveness." Things won't turn on a dime with this method, yet gradual change will occur with room to correct course as change occurs. To develop a Board that works together and supports and encourages one another takes time.

I'm wondering if one of the reasons that a Covenant works well for John Reilly is that he may already have a well functioning Board where new members are assimilated into the group, by the group.

Hopefully your Board is small, which will enable you the time needed to get and stay close to them.

[Roy Richardson]

That is the end of my advice, but I do want to comment on one other thing you posted. One of your board members mentioned that he didn't want to have to attend Sunday School. I have attended adult Sunday School classes in dozens of different Nazarene churches. Most of them have been totally a waste of time. In my opinion, we shouldn't try to shame people into attending classes where they feel they are getting nothing. The answer is to make the classes interesting enough that people want to attend.

He brought up some valid points about the SS class that I am going to have to deal with in one way or another. I am moving to a small group model since people have largely voted with their feet. I am in the process of training my first wave of small group leaders right now and have a discipleship speaker coming in this Sunday to talk about the need for discipleship.

[Dave McClung]

Dave M., as CEO of a company, is it outside of your responsibility to have certain up front agreements/expectations of those who work with you?

Never in all my years of managing companies did I present a list of expectations to anyone to sign.

I have, many times, discussed with employees what was expected of them. Let me share a real life story of how I did it. My company had a project in a chemical plant on the Gulf Coast. My project was "open shop" meaning that my workers didn't have to join a union to work. I had 17 employees. The unions decided to make an example of us and showed up with more than 2,000 people on the picket line.

I called all of my employees and asked them to meet me for breakfast before work. At breakfast, I went from table to table pouring the coffee and engaging the workers in conversation. After breakfast, I told them. "We have a challenge this morning. There are 18 of us and more than 2,000 of them, but our job is across that picket line. I won't ask you to do anything I won't do, so I will be the first to cross the picket line. I hope you will follow me. If you aren't going to cross, I ask you to resign now. One man asked to talk to me privately. He had tears in his eyes and said, "My brothers are on that picket line. If I cross, it will destroy our family." I replied, "I admire you for honoring your family, but our jobs are across that picket line. I accept your resignation." Sixteen of the workers followed me across the picket line. I didn't ask any of them to sign a piece of paper.

My point is that there is a difference between a leader letting people know what is expected of them and asking them to sign a contract. One is educational, the other implies a lack of trust.

Linda and I have no "prenup" agreement. I can only imagine what her reaction would have been if a few days before the wedding I had presented her with a list of things I expected her to do and demanded that she sign it. Even if everything on the list was something she planned to do anyway, she would have objected because of what the list implied -- "I don't trust you." Of course, I could have said, "My only intention is to make sure there is no misunderstanding. Tell me which items on the list you object to." She would have said, "It isn't the items on the list that are objectionable. By presenting the list, you are showing that you don't trust me." She would have been right.

Soon after we got married, I suggested to Linda that she should have a separate checking account. I thought it would make her feel less dependent. She looked at me in bewilderment. She replied, "Why would I want a separate bank account when I can write checks on yours?" My point is simply this. In a healthy church the pastor and the board have a relationship of mutual trust. It is fine to jointly develop a list of expectations, but asking someone to sign it communicates a lack of trust.

[Roy Richardson]

clearly we have a lot of ground to cover here, and this appears to be the wrong tool. thanks for the input everyone.

[Michael Flowers]

This may not be helpful, but perhaps some sort of a survey every quarter or six months to get a feel for how active your church board members are. This wouldn't have to be something that any other board member saw, but simply a way for the pastor to keep up with what is going on. Every year the pastor who has a staff is supposed to conduct a review, why not have some sort of similar procedure for board members? This is not something which I have implemented, just a thought I have had as I read the posts.

[Roy Richardson]

This may not be helpful, but perhaps some sort of a survey every quarter or six months to get a feel for how active your church board members are. This wouldn't have to be something that any other board member saw, but simply a way for the pastor to keep up with what is going on. Every year the pastor who has a staff is supposed to conduct a review, why not have some sort of similar procedure for board members? This is not something which I have implemented, just a thought I have had as I read the posts.

In theory that might work, but I don't see that happening either. Creating a culture of accountability where one does not exist is a difficult and relationally painful process.

[Michael Flowers]

In theory that might work, but I don't see that happening either. Creating a culture of accountability where one does not exist is a difficult and relationally painful process.

Very true, and that is why I hesitated to suggest it. I will be praying for you as you deal with this.

[Pete Vecchi]

To ask the church board to sign this leadership covenant? I have some who are balking at it.
Attachment 3871

I would love to hear your thoughts

Roy

First, I'm just seeing this thread for the first time, so let me simply state that I haven't read more than the first 3 or 4 respomses prior to my responding here. Therefore, if I repeat anything someone else has said, I apologize.

The title of the thread is, "Is This Asking Too Much?"

Short answer: Yes.

I read the paper. I admit it is well-intentioned, and follows the Church f the Nazarene teaching. However, it appears too strict to be doable. It appears inflexible. If someone reads it to literally, then there is no room for error. For instance, one slip of the tongue after accidentally hitting a thumb with a hammer, the person would have to resign.

No one could follow the Old Testament Law perfectly, and no one will be able to follow this "Leadership Covenant" perfectly. To the best of my knowledge, over the past 20+ years of experience I've had in the Church of the Nazarene (having been a layperson member and/or member of the clergy withing 3 different congregations during this time), had anyone serving on any of the boards in any of those years for any of those congregations had to agree to follow this "Leadership Covenant" 100%, it is likely nobody who served on any of those boards in any of those congregations during any of the years I was in each of those particular congregations would have been able to serve in leadership.

I tried to have something such as this signed during my first or second year as pastor in my current congregation--only much more general than the one for Hobart. You would have thought that, the way some people responded, I was asking them to sign their lives away.

In the end, I would think that the decision to have this type of agreement signed would be the decision of the Nominating Committee, which would have to make its nominations subject to the people agreeing to sign such an agreement.

[Roy Richardson]

First, I'm just seeing this thread for the first time, so let me simply state that I haven't read more than the first 3 or 4 respomses prior to my responding here. Therefore, if I repeat anything someone else has said, I apologize.

The title of the thread is, "Is This Asking Too Much?"

Short answer: Yes.

I read the paper. I admit it is well-intentioned, and follows the Church f the Nazarene teaching. However, it appears too strict to be doable. It appears inflexible. If someone reads it to literally, then there is no room for error. For instance, one slip of the tongue after accidentally hitting a thumb with a hammer, the person would have to resign.

No one could follow the Old Testament Law perfectly, and no one will be able to follow this "Leadership Covenant" perfectly. To the best of my knowledge, over the past 20+ years of experience I've had in the Church of the Nazarene (having been a layperson member and/or member of the clergy withing 3 different congregations during this time), had anyone serving on any of the boards in any of those years for any of those congregations had to agree to follow this "Leadership Covenant" 100%, it is likely nobody who served on any of those boards in any of those congregations during any of the years I was in each of those particular congregations would have been able to serve in leadership.

I tried to have something such as this signed during my first or second year as pastor in my current congregation--only much more general than the one for Hobart. You would have thought that, the way some people responded, I was asking them to sign their lives away.

In the end, I would think that the decision to have this type of agreement signed would be the decision of the Nominating Committee, which would have to make its nominations subject to the people agreeing to sign such an agreement.

you have hit the consensus opinion Pete. It's back to the drawing board on trying to figure out how to get leaders to act like leaders.