Two weeks ago, in a post called, Models of Board Member Ministry, I wrote about the endless variations in expectations and assumptions among incoming board (council, consistory, session, elders, deacons) members.
Working through my post – as a group exercise – can be a helpful way to movefrom board confusion, disunity and dysfunction to clarity, unity and effectiveness.
I appreciate your positive responses, and among them, I was asked to add my own notes, my own opinions, to the post. So here goes. If you want to interact on this further, send me an email at churchwhisperer@gmail.com or find the Boards and Staffs category on the Blog and Archives page of my web site – www.helpingchurchesthrive.com – where I have a number of articles about church board dynamics.
Admittedly, this is going to be a long post. It is written for those who are quite interested in getting the “board thing” right. With that said, here’s that post again, with my notes in italics.
Basic board paradigms in evangelical churches:
(1) Board members as officeholders/placeholders. All good men (or good people) are seen as candidates for this revolving responsibility. No special giftedness or level of Christian maturity is required. Do you have a pulse? This is a tragic mistake. God gave us Titus 1:5-16 and I Timothy 3:1-13 for a reason. Whatever titles we use, we need people who CURRENTLY meet these qualifications to lead our churches.
(2) Board members as a team of leaders. Gifted/called individuals serve as a proactive leadership team which focuses on the “big rocks,” the “important, but not urgent” type items of mission, vision, values, policies, boundaries and the supervising of one employee: the senior or solo pastor. This is God’s ideal, but these people don’t just “appear,” they normally require training.
(3) Board members as stakeholders/obstacles/micromanagers or ministry representatives who serve as “checks and balances” for the pastor. “We’re here to keep the pastor from ruining the church.” Checks and balances will keep your church from accomplishing its mission. Sadly, this sort of thing is oftentimes a reaction to the work of foolish former pastors who almost succeeded at ruining their churches.
(4) Board members as caregivers or teachers – Most of the boardroom discussion is about people or the teaching that is given to people. This is okay. It’s hard to argue with shepherding or teaching but it might not be the most important work that board members do. See #2, above.
(5) Board members as “yes men.” The pastor says “jump” and the board asks: “how high?” Pastors need more accountability, involvement and honesty than this. In truth however, some of the best pastors are unfairly accused of desiring this level of authority by those who oppose their visions.
Outside-the-boardroom paradigms (What do we expect from them between the meetings?):
(1) Board members are shepherds of portions of the flock. It’s hard to argue with this. See Acts 20:28-32 and I Peter 5:1-4.
(2) Board members as small group leaders (and shepherds of those within their groups). See #7 below.
(3) Board members as hands-on ministry leaders – Everyone leads at least one ministry. Again, see #7 below.
(4) Board members as liaisons to or supervisors of ministry leaders. I understand that some people hate what they call the “CEO” model, but it simply works best in most churches for the pastor (or an associate or executive pastor) to supervise the leaders of ministries, whether they are paid staff or volunteers. This allows the pastor to be the “evangelist of the vision” and the “captain of clarity” for the entire church.
(5) Board members as teachers or even preachers. Again, see my comments below…
(6) Some combination of the above.
(7) Brian’s monstrosity from 1989: Besides his “inside the boardroom” duties, each board member was (1) a Bible teacher, (2) a ministry leader and (3) a caregiver for a portion of the congregation.We thought we were being Biblical – see Acts 20:28-32 & I Peter 5:1-4 – by requiring each board member to do all of this. The result was frustration on the part of our overworked elders and a lot of dissatisfaction by church members. Most of our guys were great at one of these areas and not so great in the others. We eventually concluded that the duties listed in these two key passages were given to the elder team as a group, not as individuals. We settled on asking each elder to be a great “inside the room” contributor and to do one of these outside the boardroom ministries.
(8)Board members don’t necessarily do any ministry except that of serving as “board members.”This is sometimes the only feasible solution in unusually large churches where the big issues are demanding and the crises are frequent. See #4 below.
Types of boards from Larry Osborne’s great book, Sticky Teams:
(1) The doing board – Board members are highly involved in ministry. In the smallest churches board members frequently teach, manage ministries, provide shepherding care and more. These are some very special people!
(2) The approving board – The board reviews options and makes decisions before anything happens. More often than not, the pastor is going to be “hamstrung” in these churches.
(3) The reviewing board – The board does a lot of discussing, after the fact, of what others have done. This is a little less hands-on than #2, above. There’s a fine line between reviewing and second-guessing, isn’t there?
(4) The direction and boundary-setting This board doesn’t lead or manage; it governs by identifying values and creating policies and boundaries. The pastor functions like a CEO who is accountable to this group. This is normal for the largest churches, but even small churches can benefit from encouraging its board to focus on governance – the setting of boundaries – and allowing a capable pastor to dream about the church’s future, to design strategies and systems and to direct the work of the congregation. Realistically, this option requires a trustworthy, highly skilled pastor and a trained and trusting board. The unproven pastor can’t expect to be treated like an executive who is handed the “keys” to the church.
Views on board member terms:
(1) Lifetime term (potentially, at least, as with a pastor). I’ve never had significant contact with a church which follows this practice. I have heard some horror stories though.
(2) Three-year terms (maximum of two terms in a row, with a mandatory year off after six years). This is pretty much standard practice. Personally, I believe that eldership is a calling from God (and a pastor is “an elder who is paid to be old”). You wouldn’t tell a God-called pastor to take a year off after six years. This policy has forced me to say goodbye (for a year) to some elders who were doing a wonderful job.
(3) One-year terms with no term limit – Some churches do this and have multiple ways to get an unwanted board member “off the island.” (Ask me for the details.) This solution is more compatible with my philosophy regarding eldership (above). In the Scriptures, qualifying as an elder is all about having the Christian maturity and the desire to do such a demanding task. Board members should have the discernment to know when one of their peers no longer meets the Biblical qualifications as well as the courage to be able to tell this person the truth (Ephesians 4:15).
Views on how board members are chosen:
(1) The current board members choose the future board members. In some cases, a single, returning board member can eliminate potential future board members. I haven’t seen this much in practice, but it makes sense to me. As one friend put it, “it takes an elder to recognize an elder.”
(2) The board members are nominated and voted on at congregational meetings. This is a terrible idea. It is congregationalism run amok. After this happened to my father, he never missed an annual meeting again.
(3) Board members are nominated by a committee. Those chosen are affirmed by the current board or voted on by the congregation. I have extensive personal experience with this method and I don’t like it. No matter how hard you try to prepare your committee members to take the Biblical qualifications seriously, they often don’t. As above, it seems to “take an elder to recognize an elder.”
(4) The pastor recruits or appoints board members. If you believe in pastoral dictatorship, this method is for you. I don’t think any of us are smart enough, wise enough or godly enough to be dictators.
Views on the board’s relationships to the senior, lead or solo pastor:
(1) Each board member is the pastor’s boss. May heaven help the pastor who finds himself in this situation.
(2) The pastor is the supervisor of the board – They are chosen to serve him/her. This is not uncommon in congregational churches where the pastor’s supervisor is supposed to be the congregation itself, which does its oversight through congregational meetings. This polity leads to frustrated boards, insolent congregations, nasty congregational meetings, frustrated pastors and church splits.
(3) The board members, as a group, comprise the pastor’s supervisor, though the pastor is expected to lead (but not have authority over) the group. This is the best arrangement, in my view. A godly pastor knows the difference between submission to the authority of the board and giving the board (and church) the gift of godly leadership. The pastor who loves the board, shepherds the board, teaches the board, trains the board and submits to the board will usually be allowed to lead the board, and through the board, the congregation.
(4) The board members interact with the pastor, but the pastor is considered to be accountable only to the congregation via congregational meetings. See my comments on #2, above.
Views on associate pastors and the church board:
(1) All pastoral associates should be on (or at least meet with, in a non-voting capacity) the board.
(2) No pastoral associates should serve on (or with) the board.
(3) Some pastoral associates should serve on (or with) the board.
I understand why many people feel that all pastoral associates are, Biblically-speaking, elders, and should therefore serve on the board. A wise pastor will so freely take a godly staff member into his confidence that the individual will feel as honored as if he/she is on the board.
But experience suggests that if the board has any sort of oversight over the senior pastor, a conflict-of-interest results from having staff members – accountable to the pastor – serving on or meeting with the board. I’ve seen so many churches – with the best of intentions – come to regret this after the pastor/staff member relationship “went south” as a result of the staff member contradicting or even voting against the senior pastor.
The happy exceptions to this seem to occur when the senior pastor is a strong, assertive personality and the staff member is a much less assertive individual with strong loyalty to the senior pastor and a solid ethic of submission to authority. Outstanding spiritual and emotional maturity on the part of the senior and staff pastors is helpful as well!
Views on staff members and board member relationships:
(1) Staff members should be accountable to the senior/lead pastor (who is accountable to the board). The board has only one “report,” (person they are supervising): the senior or solo pastor. From everything I’ve seen, heard and experienced, this is usually the best arrangement and we know that God wants us to do things “decently and in order” (I Corinthians 14:33,40).
(2) Any staff member is accountable to any individual board member. Accountability to multiple individuals usually means accountability to no one.
(3) Every staff member is accountable to the board, as a group. No offense intended toward board members, but there are things that groups don’t do well, and supervising employees is one of them. For this reason, it works best for the board to struggle along with supervising a single employee: the senior pastor.
(4) Individual staff members may be made accountable to individual board members, at the discretion of the board (i.e., Youth Pastor Jones is answerable to Elder Smith, not Pastor Johnson). This can work well in some cases: (1) When the board member who is supervising the employee is a competent supervisor, (2) When the board member has much greater expertise in a given area than the pastor has – such as a financially savvy board member supervising the church treasurer, (3) When there is an unusually strong relationship between the board member and the staff member (or volunteer ministry leader), (4) When the staff member is a son or daughter of the senior pastor.
Views on board member decision-making:
(1) Decisions should be made by majority vote. 51% may not be enough support to make this proposal work in real life. Can we study, discuss and pray about this a little longer? Do we lack training or a common ministry philosophy? Do we lack common values or a unifying vision?
(2) Decisions should be made only by unanimous votes. This might be the opposite extreme. In the real world, where we really live, someone often sees things differently. All board members need the meekness (a “team” attitude) to be loyal to their brethren when they disagree with the decision. If you’re disagreeing often, maybe you’re in the wrong church.
(3) Decisions should be made on a “consensus” basis (but what does “consensus” mean?). This term gets used in a few different ways. I would suggest that you discuss and clarify exactly what you mean by this. 75%? 90%? A reasonably high percentage is a good idea, in my view.
Views on board chairperson roles:
(1) No board chairperson. I’ll stand by what I said earlier: Chaos erupts when the pastor resigns and there’s no designated leader.
(2) The board chairperson is the senior or solo pastor’s supervisor and seen as the leader of the church. This is a serious problem in more than a few churches. If an individual wants to lead a congregation, he or she should pursue training and become a pastor. Something has been turned on its head if the board chair is the leader of the church. The pastor has gone to school for this role, keeps training and re-training himself for it, eats, sleeps and breathes it, but the leader of the church is an individual who works full time in another occupation?
(3) The board chairperson works closely with the pastor, serves as the board’s spokesperson and leads the church in the absence of a senior or solo pastor. In some scenarios the board chair helps the pastor to create meeting agendas and walks the board through the meetings. This is, by far, the best solution. In the best situations, the board chair is the pastor’s “right hand.” They meet together (over food) and pray before each meeting, they craft agendas together and neither of them presents any proposal to the rest of the board without agreement between the two of them. It can be a wonderful partnership.
I’ll say it again: in today’s anti-denominational world, with churches increasingly made up of Christians from a variety of backgrounds, it behooves church leadership teams to work their way through this material, clarifying its congregation’s choices and convictions on every one of these items. May God bless you as you prayerfully work through the process.
QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION:
- What denominational backgrounds are represented by your current board?
- Talk about the current training which is offered in your church to new or prospective board members:
- Have you faced some confusion in this church or another church over these choices and options? (Tell your stories.)
- Walk through this document as a group. Are there items of which you are unsure? Are there options which you need to reconsider?
