Is this asking too much?

[Roy Richardson]

To ask the church board to sign this leadership covenant? I have some who are balking at it.
Leadership Covenant of hobart cotn.pdf

I would love to hear your thoughts

Roy

[Dan Henderson]

At first I wanted to ask to what they were objecting, but after I read it, I saw nothing to which a Nazarene leader could legitimately object to. So my inital gut question is moot.

It looks solid to me. Not to much to ask a leader to agree to a common covenant.

[Jon Twitchell]

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

I once balked when handed a similar sort of document and asked to sign it. I had not had a chance to peruse the document ahead of time, and there was a line that I felt was not an appropriate requirement. However, there was really no opening to dialogue or have input into the document... it was simply handed to us and we were asked to sign. I refused (as graciously as possible). It upset some of the people on the board that I was on... but in all honestly, I would refuse to sign it again today. I am still in relationship with some of those people today, and while I'm still not sure they understand my hesitation, I don't think it has harmed our relationship.

I'm reminded that Moses went up and down the mountain 5 times in the process of receiving the Covenant from God. It appears that in the process, the people were asked whether or not they agreed with part(s) of the covenant before the covenant was inscribed in stone and handed down to them. In other words... I contend that even the Decalogue was a product of relationship... and not simply rules written on tablets handed down out of the sky.

All of that to say... while I don't happen to see any red flags on your covenant, I would question the value of the covenant if the people weren't engaged in helping to craft it along the way. If I were a board member and this was simply handed to me without any context or input, I might be hesitant to sign on the dotted line.

Hope that helps!

[Roy Richardson]

I once balked when handed a similar sort of document and asked to sign it. I had not had a chance to peruse the document ahead of time, and there was a line that I felt was not an appropriate requirement. However, there was really no opening to dialogue or have input into the document... it was simply handed to us and we were asked to sign. I refused (as graciously as possible). It upset some of the people on the board that I was on... but in all honestly, I would refuse to sign it again today. I am still in relationship with some of those people today, and while I'm still not sure they understand my hesitation, I don't think it has harmed our relationship.

I'm reminded that Moses went up and down the mountain 5 times in the process of receiving the Covenant from God. It appears that in the process, the people were asked whether or not they agreed with part(s) of the covenant before the covenant was inscribed in stone and handed down to them. In other words... I contend that even the Decalogue was a product of relationship... and not simply rules written on tablets handed down out of the sky.

All of that to say... while I don't happen to see any red flags on your covenant, I would question the value of the covenant if the people weren't engaged in helping to craft it along the way. If I were a board member and this was simply handed to me without any context or input, I might be hesitant to sign on the dotted line.

Hope that helps!

That does help. I also gave them the option of checking the things they did agree to, and not checking those to which they disagreed.

So far, the only member who has spoken to me about it objects to the SS attendance requirement.

[Dan Henderson]

That does help. I also gave them the option of checking the things they did agree to, and not checking those to which they disagreed.

So far, the only member who has spoken to me about it objects to the SS attendance requirement.

My daughter's youth ministry contract requires adult SS attendance (she is not allowed to teach the youth SS, her teaching times are primarily Wed and Sun Night). She and I are in agreement that this is one of the best contract provisions we have ever encoutered. Rationale, she is required to pay attention to her own spiritual development as well as to oveversee the spiritual development of the youth to which she is charged to lead.

[Cam Pence]

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

Personally I don't think that is asking too much from the leaders in your church. I would be curious why the gentleman has a problem with S.S.

[Roy Richardson]

My daughter's youth ministry contract requires adult SS attendance (she is not allowed to teach the youth SS, her teaching times are primarily Wed and Sun Night). She and I are in agreement that this is one of the best contract provisions we have ever encoutered. Rationale, she is required to pay attention to her own spiritual development as well as to oveversee the spiritual development of the youth to which she is charged to lead.

I agree. If the only time you show up is when you are in charge and leading, there is something wrong.

[Ryan Scott]

I think it's a fine contract. I wonder if shaping it to be more in line with the leadership requirements in the Manual (with maybe some further detail from you or the board added in) would give you more ground to stand on?

To me, someone in leadership balking at the SS requirement is a great avenue to have a discussion about discipleship in the congregation. Usually when people don't want to go to SS it's because they find it boring or unhelpful - it might be a good jumping off point for your leadership to explore ways to make it neither.

[Roy Richardson]

I think it's a fine contract. I wonder if shaping it to be more in line with the leadership requirements in the Manual (with maybe some further detail from you or the board added in) would give you more ground to stand on?

To me, someone in leadership balking at the SS requirement is a great avenue to have a discussion about discipleship in the congregation. Usually when people don't want to go to SS it's because they find it boring or unhelpful - it might be a good jumping off point for your leadership to explore ways to make it neither.

Agreed. We have had that conversation. There are some things about SS that need to be addressed.

[John Reilly]

Hi Roy, I like your covenant. I use a simple covenant that is half the size. I adapted a covenant used by the Lowell First Church between 1990 and 2002 designed by now retired Rev. W. John White. (I like to give credit where credit is due.) Anyway the covenant I used has five simple statements (paraphrase) I will give a full tithe, I will faithfully attend all services unless providentially hindered, I will live a holy life with the help of the Holy Spirit, I testify to the experience of entire sanctification, and I will faithfully witness to the special rules of the church of the Nazarene. I ask people to sign this covenant as their acceptance to nomination to serve on church boards or in leadership positions. I have had a few who told me they could not sign it specifically because they did not tithe. They did not serve.

[Dave McClung]

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

Roy, a "covenant" is normally two sided. What is in it for the person who signs? The ability to donate time and money to the church? Many of us would welcome an excuse to escape those responsibilities anyway. I probably wouldn't sign just out of principle. What gives you, as pastor, authority to request anyone to sign such a covenant? Nothing in the Manual requires such a "covenant."

How would you react if a committee of board members came to you and handed you a long list:

1. You will be on time to all church meetings.
2. You will dismiss all church services on time.
3. You will send a minimum of 4 hours in preparation for each sermon.
4. You will not gossip, even to other clergy.
5. You will faithfully tithe.
etc.

Would you sign? I expect not. You would feel insulted because they were asking you to do what you would do anyway because it is the right thing to do, not because of a "covenant." That is why I wouldn't sign your suggested covenant.

[David Graham]

Roy, a "covenant" is normally two sided. What is in it for the person who signs? The ability to donate time and money to the church? Many of us would welcome an excuse to escape those responsibilities anyway. I probably wouldn't sign just out of principle. What gives you, as pastor, authority to request anyone to sign such a covenant? Nothing in the Manual requires such a "covenant."

Exactly! Thanks Dave.

Also, I would have difficulty signing it because such "legal" documents are too often subject to "interpretation", and if someone had an axe to grind such words as e.g. "fooling around physically" might mean to them donning a clowns outfit and performing at children's events. I know I've used an extreme example here, but having grown up in the CotN in Australia where the wearing of outward adornments was interpreted to mean for women: "The wearing of a broach on a dress is okay, but a necklace is definately out"!..... I understand that anything that silly is possible in regards to interpretation.

So no, I think it's a bad idea!

[Peggy Gray]

My immediate reaction was, "Didn't I already agree to all this stuff when I joined the church?"

[Jim Chabot]

I like your covenant Roy, the things listed are things that every Board member should be doing. My worry is the approach, I believe that the impetus should come from Board members to Board members, with your nurturing guidance of course.

One of the finest Pastor's to have ever served on our district, equated his Board to be his personal seven day a week congregation. He kept in constant contact with his board members, he expected every one of them to be ministry minded. Not that he required them to be, rather he "expected" them to be. Just like the manual says "we expect" his conversations with Board members would always be with expectation. He would call his Board members in the morning before they left for work to pray with them briefly and offer them encouragement. He would ask what discipleship opportunities they were perusing, he kept very close to his Board. Toward the end of his career he had the maximum 25 Board members and each one had special care, consideration and expectation from their Pastor.

I heard him describe this relationship during a sermon once, as he finished up, he lowered his glasses, smiled and said "you want to be on my Board?" "We aren't playing church here, our Board members are ministers, each and every one of them!"

I sense that you seek to partner with your Board in vision for your church. I'm thinking that your drawing close to them with great expectation will bring greater results than having them sign a pledge. Some folks will sign and ignore, while others you have already noticed will balk at it. Yet they are defenseless against a caring and eager Pastor who seems to show up at every turn.

[Benjamin Burch]

My daughter's youth ministry contract requires adult SS attendance (she is not allowed to teach the youth SS, her teaching times are primarily Wed and Sun Night). She and I are in agreement that this is one of the best contract provisions we have ever encoutered. Rationale, she is required to pay attention to her own spiritual development as well as to oveversee the spiritual development of the youth to which she is charged to lead.

I couldn't agree more. I believe this same logic should apply to those on the church Board (as I'm assuming by this post, you do, too).

[Susan Unger]

I like your covenant Roy, the things listed are things that every Board member should be doing. My worry is the approach, I believe that the impetus should come from Board members to Board members, with your nurturing guidance of course.

One of the finest Pastor's to have ever served on our district, equated his Board to be his personal seven day a week congregation. He kept in constant contact with his board members, he expected every one of them to be ministry minded. Not that he required them to be, rather he "expected" them to be. Just like the manual says "we expect" his conversations with Board members would always be with expectation. He would call his Board members in the morning before they left for work to pray with them briefly and offer them encouragement. He would ask what discipleship opportunities they were perusing, he kept very close to his Board. Toward the end of his career he had the maximum 25 Board members and each one had special care, consideration and expectation from their Pastor.

I heard him describe this relationship during a sermon once, as he finished up, he lowered his glasses, smiled and said "you want to be on my Board?" "We aren't playing church here, our Board members are ministers, each and every one of them!"

I sense that you seek to partner with your Board in vision for your church. I'm thinking that your drawing close to them with great expectation will bring greater results than having them sign a pledge. Some folks will sign and ignore, while others you have already noticed will balk at it. Yet they are defenseless against a caring and eager Pastor who seems to show up at every turn.

I think this is one of the better posts I have read on Naznet.

[Dan Henderson]

I couldn't agree more. I believe this same logic should apply to those on the church Board (as I'm assuming by this post, you do, too).

I do. I got the opportunity to be a SS Supt once. I implemented a rotation policy as best I could. I was not always able but the teachers understood what I was trying to do and went with it. It was a blessing, though not at the beginning. I had absolutely know clue how to run a SS. Thanks to my access to people like Stan Toler, Elmer Townes, Jan Forman and especially my direct access to Millard Reed (my second dad), I was able to muddle through. Initially, I had difficulty with two competing Church Bosses. I told one of them to take his toys and play elsewhere, the other one had a change of heart and started supporting the yourng rookie. The SS ballooned from less than 50 to over 200 in short order. I think it had a lot more to with me being clueless and seeking help from anywhere I could find it than me being some kind of Church growth guru. SS out ran Sunday Morning Worship for a while which caused other problems.

Serious, this in not false modesty, I really had no clue.

How does this apply to the current conversation besides me waxing elloquent: I made the SS Board write and sign and agree to be accountable to a covenant. I have since used covenents for my Teen Bible Quzzing Teens. In both cases, the overarching theme was agreeing to something and agreeing to be accountable to each other for that agreement.

[Gene Tatsch]

As with much of the rest of life, I see the document as one minor component of a relationship.
To have this abruptly thrust into my hands to sign would be a shocker & turnoff.
Especially if I received after the election.
However, if it came with suitable discussion (e.g., in a small group, or, for that matter, in a sermon) that would allow me to understand the rationale behind each statement, and "own" it as my own, it probably wouldn't be offensive.

[Jim Franklin]

If this is a joint document of pastor and involved board members then I believe this to be the kind of leadership that is expected in Timothy and Titus.

[Roy Richardson]

As with much of the rest of life, I see the document as one minor component of a relationship.
To have this abruptly thrust into my hands to sign would be a shocker & turnoff.
Especially if I received after the election.
However, if it came with suitable discussion (e.g., in a small group, or, for that matter, in a sermon) that would allow me to understand the rationale behind each statement, and "own" it as my own, it probably wouldn't be offensive.

It is not new. It was developed with board input the previous year. This church year it was introduced in a board meeting and each item on the page was discussed in the meeting. The previous board had made alterations to the wording, and there is only one person on the board who was not part of the group that developed it. And that person is not a holdout.

I understand Dave's point, which is why I asked the question. One of the issues in my local tribe is the low expectations of leaders and members. There seems to be a culture of "let the pastor do it" and people in leadership positions not taking responsibility for their position. This was my attempt to at least clarify the expectations of each other. When my salary was cut nearly 40% last year, we - board and pastor - had a lengthy discussion of what they wanted me to spend my time on with the understanding that the lay leadership would have to step up. This is part of that process in my mind

[Roy Richardson]

I like your covenant Roy, the things listed are things that every Board member should be doing. My worry is the approach, I believe that the impetus should come from Board members to Board members, with your nurturing guidance of course.

One of the finest Pastor's to have ever served on our district, equated his Board to be his personal seven day a week congregation. He kept in constant contact with his board members, he expected every one of them to be ministry minded. Not that he required them to be, rather he "expected" them to be. Just like the manual says "we expect" his conversations with Board members would always be with expectation. He would call his Board members in the morning before they left for work to pray with them briefly and offer them encouragement. He would ask what discipleship opportunities they were perusing, he kept very close to his Board. Toward the end of his career he had the maximum 25 Board members and each one had special care, consideration and expectation from their Pastor.

I heard him describe this relationship during a sermon once, as he finished up, he lowered his glasses, smiled and said "you want to be on my Board?" "We aren't playing church here, our Board members are ministers, each and every one of them!"

I sense that you seek to partner with your Board in vision for your church. I'm thinking that your drawing close to them with great expectation will bring greater results than having them sign a pledge. Some folks will sign and ignore, while others you have already noticed will balk at it. Yet they are defenseless against a caring and eager Pastor who seems to show up at every turn.

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.

[Marsha Lynn]

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

I wouldn't sign it. I take the commitments I make far too seriously to routinely make promises I can't keep, and I couldn't keep these promises. From first to last, I would struggle with it. I'm not nearly enamored enough with being part of the official church structure to take on that struggle. After all, the pay is the same whether a person serves on the church board or finds their ministry opportunities outside the official structure.

I dug around in the archives on my hard drive and found my response to the closest I have seen to this type of thing. Signing it was a requirement for being on the ballot one year. I declined all nominations and filed my response under "election fits". Among other things, I pointed out that all the commitment was on the part of the volunteer layleaders -- e.g., showing up to all meetings -- with not a single corresponding commitment on the part of the organization -- e.g., scheduling and announcing meetings in a timely fashion with consideration for the participants' personal schedules.

To be honest, I had some huge issues with the way the elections at the time consistently resulted in an all-male board other than the NMI prez, so finding additional reasons for declining all nominations didn't exactly break my heart. The "covenant agreement" served well as a deal-breaker for a deal I didn't want to make anyway. But even without all that, I wouldn't sign the much-more-involved agreement you have offered here. I would realize the moment I saw it that my ministry would be outside the official church structure for as long (and as far) as the covenant agreement was a requirement for working within the structure.

Marsha

[Dan Henderson]

I wrote this part last: Marsha, I understand your perspective, please understand that my perspective is radically different and is not intended to discount your opinions or feelings.

Marsha, I almost agree with you. My problem is that I hold the volunteer at least as accountable as the paid staff, if not more. I try to hold both equally accountable, but tend to be more harsh on volunteers. I may have been the only person I know to have "fired" a volunteer. I kind of relate it to salaried worker versus wage earner. The salary worker (volunteer), in my little world is committed to whatever it takes (or else I don't need their services, I have no use for I'll only do xxx volunteers. I'd rather do without), while the wage earner (the paid staff, to include the pastor) is committed to their contract. Anything they do above that, I caount as a bonus not to be counted on in the future.

It should be an equal partnership, not a pastor/layity 50/50 partnership, but a pastor=1 of however many attend the church partnership. Again, this is just Dan's little fantasy world, but in this world, if there is any slack to be taken up is is to be taken up by the laity (the volunteer).

I believe we have gotten too comfortable in paying people to do the ministry that belongs to us. We abdicate our responsibilities because we can afford to do so. "That's the pastor's job" has been our battle cry for far too long.

My take on this is rooted largely in my studies on the organizational life cycle, mostly as it applies to volunteer organizations. There are many models available for free brousing on the internet. All I have found agree on the major points.

[Dave McClung]

It is not new. It was developed with board input the previous year. This church year it was introduced in a board meeting and each item on the page was discussed in the meeting. The previous board had made alterations to the wording, and there is only one person on the board who was not part of the group that developed it. And that person is not a holdout.

I understand Dave's point, which is why I asked the question. One of the issues in my local tribe is the low expectations of leaders and members. There seems to be a culture of "let the pastor do it" and people in leadership positions not taking responsibility for their position. This was my attempt to at least clarify the expectations of each other. When my salary was cut nearly 40% last year, we - board and pastor - had a lengthy discussion of what they wanted me to spend my time on with the understanding that the lay leadership would have to step up. This is part of that process in my mind

Roy, I accept that your motives are honorable, but the list you posted didn't have the list of expectations for the pastor. If such a list were presented to me, I would decline to sign it even though I have not trouble with any of the substance. If a pastor presented a similar document with the top section being a list of expectations for the pastor, I might accept it. My basic problem is that I think of my pastor as a professional and I expect him to think of me the same way.

Our church board had a very out spoken member who wanted to make up a list of expectations for our pastor. His list included the minunimin number of hours in the office, a requirement to keep and report time working, etc. I argued on behalf of the pastor that a pastor is a professional person. When you employ a professional, you aren't concerned about the hours and details of the work. You are concerned only with the results.

I serve on a number of boards, both corporate and nonprofit. Not one of them has provided a list of expectations beyond attendance at meetings. If they did, I would resign because I consider a board position to be a professional position.

[Roy Richardson]

Roy, I accept that your motives are honorable, but the list you posted didn't have the list of expectations for the pastor. If such a list were presented to me, I would decline to sign it even though I have not trouble with any of the substance. If a pastor presented a similar document with the top section being a list of expectations for the pastor, I might accept it. My basic problem is that I think of my pastor as a professional and I expect him to think of me the same way.

Our church board had a very out spoken member who wanted to make up a list of expectations for our pastor. His list included the minunimin number of hours in the office, a requirement to keep and report time working, etc. I argued on behalf of the pastor that a pastor is a professional person. When you employ a professional, you aren't concerned about the hours and details of the work. You are concerned only with the results.

I serve on a number of boards, both corporate and nonprofit. Not one of them has provided a list of expectations beyond attendance at meetings. If they did, I would resign because I consider a board position to be a professional position.

I appreciate that Dave, I really do.

The board members may choose not to sign it, and one has spoken with me about the objection to SS attendance. Maybe it is a well-intentioned but misguided attempt to get the board to honor their commitments on my part. We in essence deliberated how my time would be spent given the reduced pay and hours. I wanted their input because someone was going to have to take up the slack.

In a perfect world, we would have time for leadership development and being able to bring people along. In the next year, we could be facing some very unpleasant decisions regarding our existence. And with me already bi-vocational, I can't just have stuff not happen because the leaders don't view their commitments as valuable.

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

[John Reilly]

Based on Dave's input and on Marsha's input I am rethinking using a covenant.

[Roy Richardson]

Based on Dave's input and on Marsha's input I am rethinking using a covenant.

Same here. But I don't have a better idea.

[Dan Henderson]

Roy, I accept that your motives are honorable, but the list you posted didn't have the list of expectations for the pastor. If such a list were presented to me, I would decline to sign it even though I have not trouble with any of the substance. If a pastor presented a similar document with the top section being a list of expectations for the pastor, I might accept it. My basic problem is that I think of my pastor as a professional and I expect him to think of me the same way.

Our church board had a very out spoken member who wanted to make up a list of expectations for our pastor. His list included the minunimin number of hours in the office, a requirement to keep and report time working, etc. I argued on behalf of the pastor that a pastor is a professional person. When you employ a professional, you aren't concerned about the hours and details of the work. You are concerned only with the results.

I serve on a number of boards, both corporate and nonprofit. Not one of them has provided a list of expectations beyond attendance at meetings. If they did, I would resign because I consider a board position to be a professional position.

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).

[Marsha Lynn]

I wrote this part last: Marsha, I understand your perspective, please understand that my perspective is radically different and is not intended to discount your opinions or feelings.

Thanks, Dan. I appreciate the clarification.

I believe we have gotten too comfortable in paying people to do the ministry that belongs to us. We abdicate our responsibilities because we can afford to do so. "That's the pastor's job" has been our battle cry for far too long.

So... have you found that volunteers who sign covenant agreements are more dependable than those who don't?

[Dan Henderson]

So... have you found that volunteers who sign covenant agreements are more dependable than those who don't?

Not neccessarily. Rather I have found it a good teaching tool to emphasise accountability. I think it can bring out the true nature of the volunteer. It will remind and energize the ones who are trustworthy but have become lax, and expose those who won't agree to anything except on their own terms. I've used it in the context of my rookiness and my attempt at leading a group in to areas they were not quite comfortable. And I have found it useful with my teen bible quizzer's as a teaching tool for accountability and goal setting (staying on an agreed task)

YES, I outlined my own responsibilities in the covenants in both cases, and signed right along with the board in the one case and the students in the other.

[Hans Deventer]

Roy, I would never sign a piece that required of me to avoid the appearance of evil. It is not Biblical and would in fact even make Jesus unqualified. http://www.crivoice.org/appearance.html.

I'm not too hot on the last part either:

"At any time that I cannot fulfill these requirements and/or any time leadership determines I am unable to fulfill these responsibilities or my life becomes out of order, I will discontinue my leadership responsibilities. I will be willing to meet with a leadership team that will help me to be restored to leadership. This does not mean I am not welcome at Hobart Church of the Nazarene and that I should not be involved with church activities; this is to protect me & allow me to mature in Christ and to protect the integrity of the ministry and the ones to whom we are ministering."

What if something happened, out of the control of the person in question, that caused this? This reads like it's some kind of moral failure, but it may be something as simple as spouse or child getting ill and needing care. Taking care of my household FIRST is already a sign of spiritual maturity.

[Alisa Stoll]

We use 4 ships: Worship, Fellowship, Stewardship, and Discipleship. When the nomination form goes out, those are defined and if you can't check them off, don't run. And yes - stewardship/tithing does create some issues but how can you determine how the church money is spent if you aren't part of the process.

Alisa

[Marsha Lynn]

Not neccessarily. Rather I have found it a good teaching tool to emphasise accountability. I think it can bring out the true nature of the volunteer.

Yes, I think you are correct in that assessment.

It will remind and energize the ones who are trustworthy but have become lax, and expose those who won't agree to anything except on their own terms.

Ah, then I would be among those thus exposed and you would know to focus on those who will sign what you ask them to sign. It's good that there are such people. It spares you the hassle of dealing with those of us who are less compliant.

[Marsha Lynn]

Same here. But I don't have a better idea.

OK, now I'm feeling unkind in rejecting your proposed covenant without offering a better idea.

The thing is, requiring church leaders to sign a covenant agreement is imposing outward requirements when what you are really looking for is inward commitment. The Manual already sets forth requirements for church leaders as outlined in paragraph 113.11. To go beyond those requirements won't produce the heart for ministry you desire in your leaders.

A long history of dealing with Mennonites, Amish, and legalistic Nazarenes has convinced me that not only do outer restrictions fail to produce the hoped for heart change to support them, such restrictions are actually a hindrance in that they give people a false security of having a right heart because they are wearing the right clothes (or actions). It has always been much harder to stir up repentance in the heart of the self-righteous than that of the abject sinner.

We can't afford to spend our limited resources whitewashing sepulchers full of dead men's bones. Not only does it hide the real problem, but every moment spent in such activity is a moment lost to addressing heart issues.

In my opinion.

Marsha

[Mike Schutz]

Obviously, there is nothing wrong with making explicit our implicit expectations for one another. And I think all of the expectations listed here are legitimate.

That being said, such a list as you have offered does the same thing that all such lists - as the Law - always do. It exposes sin, and reminds us of our failure. It offers no grace.

If this list is developed without conversation and outside of relationship, it seems adversarial and accusatory, as Dave has stated.

If this list is developed together, it still is difficult. Imagine sitting there, as a member of the board, and saying in the board meeting - "My spouse is against tithing. We struggle with this. I want to, but I do not know how to deal with this in a healthy way in our marriage." That is a very important conversation - and can happen in such a setting (It has occurred at our board meeting), but it would be much more difficult if there was already an explicit "If you don't do this you are a failure as a church leader" judgment on the books.

I am certainly not suggesting that the way we deal with such things is better - I just know that such a document, in our situation, would be detrimental to my pastoral relationship with my leaders.

[Dan Henderson]

Yes, I think you are correct in that assessment.



Ah, then I would be among those thus exposed and you would know to focus on those who will sign what you ask them to sign. It's good that there are such people. It spares you the hassle of dealing with those of us who are less compliant.

Not meant as an accusation. Iron sharpens Iron. Its a tool, and like any tool, not always the right one. I have a small book on my shelf called "A Quiver full of Teaching Tools (or is it Techniques), by Dan (I can't remember) from Asuza Pacific University. Same concept, fill your tool bag, assess, the job, select the best available tool and get to work. That's all I'm talking about here.

[Charles W Christian]

I agree that covenants are two-sided (actually, three, if you count God's role).... I DO think it is reasonable to expect such things -- and being a pastor (Davd M.) does give one the responsibility (I don't like the term "right"; not quite as biblical). 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? If you said, "I expect for us to interact ______________," and they were offended and said "WHo do you think you are?", would you not have a problem with them? What benefits do the board members get? Accountability, growth in their maturity as believers in Christ, the privilege of serving the Church of Jesus Christ as overseers who have been entrusted with decisions that far outrank those of material benefit, etc. This is hard to understand from a purely business perspective, I realize, but theologically one can see it....

Sorry to sound "preachy," but I guess my point is that I wouldn't dismiss the idea of up front agreements altogether just because some board member thinks that the church is so privileged to have him/her give his/her time and money that he/she should not be subject to any accountability....

But, I do agree with Dave M. that these are expectations that should already be in place before one is even nominated to a board position. So, for me, reminding one another what we are called and expected to do by Scripture and the Manual at the beginning of a new church year especially, is reasonable. At that stage, if a board member balks, then perhaps her or she should re-examine whether or not they should be in leadership over time. But, as pastor, it is my calling to not only BE accountable (this is the part that volunteer board members like) but also to HOLD accountable (the part that "volunteers" balk at sometimes, if they have the wrong theological model of the church). If this is a two way street, then we are all helping one another and being Scriptural in our approach to leading the congregation in a humble, Christlike manner....

In summary (pardon the slight rant) -- Agree that covenant should be less legalistic sounding and more "two sided"; disagree that it is not the pastor's role to expect and communicate such things "up front", regardless of the amount of time and money a church member chooses to give.... Pastors are making financial and time sacrifices, too, even though we get paid. And if one is going to be a leader, he/she must be willing to be an example and to be accountable in love. Even if one is a volunteer....

Charles

[Roy Richardson]

I agree that covenants are two-sided (actually, three, if you count God's role).... I DO think it is reasonable to expect such things -- and being a pastor (Davd M.) does give one the responsibility (I don't like the term "right"; not quite as biblical). 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? If you said, "I expect for us to interact ______________," and they were offended and said "WHo do you think you are?", would you not have a problem with them? What benefits do the board members get? Accountability, growth in their maturity as believers in Christ, the privilege of serving the Church of Jesus Christ as overseers who have been entrusted with decisions that far outrank those of material benefit, etc. This is hard to understand from a purely business perspective, I realize, but theologically one can see it....

Sorry to sound "preachy," but I guess my point is that I wouldn't dismiss the idea of up front agreements altogether just because some board member thinks that the church is so privileged to have him/her give his/her time and money that he/she should not be subject to any accountability....

But, I do agree with Dave M. that these are expectations that should already be in place before one is even nominated to a board position. So, for me, reminding one another what we are called and expected to do by Scripture and the Manual at the beginning of a new church year especially, is reasonable. At that stage, if a board member balks, then perhaps her or she should re-examine whether or not they should be in leadership over time. But, as pastor, it is my calling to not only BE accountable (this is the part that volunteer board members like) but also to HOLD accountable (the part that "volunteers" balk at sometimes, if they have the wrong theological model of the church). If this is a two way street, then we are all helping one another and being Scriptural in our approach to leading the congregation in a humble, Christlike manner....

In summary (pardon the slight rant) -- Agree that covenant should be less legalistic sounding and more "two sided"; disagree that it is not the pastor's role to expect and communicate such things "up front", regardless of the amount of time and money a church member chooses to give.... Pastors are making financial and time sacrifices, too, even though we get paid. And if one is going to be a leader, he/she must be willing to be an example and to be accountable in love. Even if one is a volunteer....

Charles

You might make a good Supreme Court Justice Charles

Thanks for the thoughts. I saw this come across Dennis Bickers' FB feed today, and it hits at the heart of what is going on here. I just went through my 2-year review, and there is a lot of accountability in that process. Each of the board members gets to say their heart - positive and negative - to the pastor, and I found it to be helpful. What I am struggling with is how I get to communicate that back. They all have expectations - spoken and unspoken - of the pastor. Everything from how quickly I get to the hospital to how often I see the shut-ins to how I pray with people at the altar, choose songs, dress etc. I don't want to be negative about anyone, but somehow a culture of low expectation for the board developed. I know in years past they nominated from the floor just to get enough warm bodies on the board. The congregation is taking its cues from the board, and when they are spotty in attendance, they model the behavior that the congregation repeats. I have repeatedly said that it is rare for a group (congregation) to rise above the level of its leadership. For some reason, that doesn't seem to be sinking in.

I really don't know what to do. It sounds like the covenant is to legalistic. When the nomination letters went out, they had the Manual description of the board in them.

This is frustrating.

[Susan Unger]

I just went through my 2-year review, and there is a lot of accountability in that process. Each of the board members gets to say their heart - positive and negative - to the pastor, and I found it to be helpful. What I am struggling with is how I get to communicate that back. They all have expectations - spoken and unspoken - of the pastor. Everything from how quickly I get to the hospital to how often I see the shut-ins to how I pray with people at the altar, choose songs, dress etc. I don't want to be negative about anyone, but somehow a culture of low expectation for the board developed. I know in years past they nominated from the floor just to get enough warm bodies on the board. The congregation is taking its cues from the board, and when they are spotty in attendance, they model the behavior that the congregation repeats. I have repeatedly said that it is rare for a group (congregation) to rise above the level of its leadership. For some reason, that doesn't seem to be sinking in.

I really don't know what to do. It sounds like the covenant is to legalistic. When the nomination letters went out, they had the Manual description of the board in them.

This is frustrating.

Having been on church boards a lot, I am getting a picture of what is going on. A lot of prayer is needed for this environment to change. Plus, healthy discussions in which you get to state your concerns as well, not just the board getting to say their piece. Maybe through regular conversations plus regular times of fellowship [following Jim's model] will help encourage higher behavior rather than giving off the feeling of forcing proper behavior.

[Roy Richardson]

Having been on church boards a lot, I am getting a picture of what is going on. A lot of prayer is needed for this environment to change. Plus, healthy discussions in which you get to state your concerns as well, not just the board getting to say their piece. Maybe through regular conversations plus regular times of fellowship [following Jim's model] will help encourage higher behavior rather than giving off the feeling of forcing proper behavior.

Maybe that is a better approach. I'll give it some thought and prayer.