Re-thinking Voters' Meetings

Recently, Community Church of Joy, a Lutheran "megachurch" in Glendale, Arizona voted to leave their denomination, the E.LC.A. Here's what caught the eye of PBG church: the unanimous vote of the congregation was 129 in favor and zero against. That's right: a church with 6,800 baptized members had only 129 people attend a critical meeting. (Feel any better about your own voters' meeting attendance?)

Clearly, it's time to re-think the entire concept of voters' meetings. Here's a few thoughts from PBG church:

1. It's time we acknowledge that voters' meetings have a very bad reputation with most people. At best, they're viewed as dreadfully boring. At worst, they are often places of conflict and fighting. No wonder they're so poorly attended!

2. Because they are so poorly attended in most churches, voters meetings are NOT an effective tool for communication with the congregation. Anything of importance said in a voters' meeting needs to be said again in written communication, probably in multiple formats.

3. Voters meetings reports must contain a level of detail that is appropriate for a group of people who meet only 2-3 times/year. For example, do the voters really need to see every single line item of the church budget or would a higher level summary suffice?

4. "Robert's rules of order", though designed to ensure the participation of all, have a tendency to scare most average people. Far from encouraging participation, "Roberts' rules" shut many people down out of fear that they will violate "the rules." If voters' meetings are going to be effective, those who lead the meetings have to find a way to follow "the rules" while maintaining an atmosphere that feels less formal.

5. If we expect people to show up, we need to hold them at times that are most convenient for people to attend. Most people are not going to come out for an evening meeting on a school night.

What has your congregation done to improve your voters' meetings?

Senior Pastor Transitions

Recently, I was extended a call by another congregation in another state. After four weeks of prayer, frank discussion, and soul-searching, I decided to decline the call and remain at my current congregation.

Now that it's over and "the pressure's off", it's become a good time for my Board to consider, "How ready are we to handle a senior pastor transition?"

Here's some of our thoughts so far:

1. Every transition is unique and therefore, requires a unique transition plan. We cannot possibly plan ahead for every contingency. However, some things will be common to every senior pastor transition. We should try and be ready for those things that we know will happen. This includes items like:

A. Will we appoint one of other staff to serve as "interim senior pastor" or would we recruit an "interim senior pastor" from the outside? If so, how would we go about doing that?

B. Which ministries could we continue without a senior pastor and which would likely need to be put "on the back burner" during the transition?

2. Whenever a senior pastor announces he is leaving, there will be a temptation for many members to feel like "the sky is falling." Board members need to quickly and confidently communicate with the congregation that:

A. a transition plan is in place and

B. that God is in control of his church and promises He will see us through every challenge we face, including senior pastor transitions (see First Corinthians 3:6)

3. The departure of a beloved senior pastor creates a grieving process not unlike grieving the death of a loved one. All the traditional "stages of grief" will be present: denial, anger, sadness, acceptance. Members may need a forum where they can identify and work through these feelings with others.

What else has your church learned about preparing for senior pastor transitions?

Leadership vs. "Complaint Management"

Here's another great observation my Teaching Pastor recently shared with our Board:

"Someone will come to a board member and say, 'This area is a problem!' It then becomes an agenda item, a 'Let's-Do-Something" item.

How does a board member know this is truly a problem? Do not people closer to the ground have a better idea? If there is a problem, is it the Board's concern if it does not violate a policy or interfere with an outcome?"

How does this observation challenge you and your board? Have you crossed the line from genuine leadership into "complaint management?"

Representation or Leadership?

Another gem from Larry Osborne's book, The Unity Factor:

"Is the primary purpose of a church board representation or leadership? . . . Many, if not most, churches, have opted for the representative model. It fits well with our American democratic principles, as well as one of our most cherished doctrines, the priesthood of believers. It insures that everyone has a chance to be heard, not just those who are powerful or well connected. . . But a board of representatives also has its negatives. . . .

I've become a strong advocate for a leadership-oriented board. . . They are more concerned with leading than responding to every whim of the congregation. When faced with a difficult decision, they ask first, not "How will people react?" but "What does God want us to do?"

This is not to say that a leadership board is unresponsive to the needs and concerns of the body. On the contrary, good leaders are always in touch with their people. But a good undershepherd never forgets he works for the Chief Shepherd, not the sheep." (p. 36-37).

How do Osborne's words challenge you and your board?