Celebrate Times of Discernment

One way to keep discerning a high value is to celebrate the past experience of going through a discernment process. We are on the other side of a couple of key decisions. We have still not had enough time to fully evaluate the merit of these selections; yet we seem to have experienced relative unity around these decisions. We have to keep reminding each other of this experience. Reminiscing together where we have been can fuel the worth of the process. Expressing sentiments like, “It really seems like the church is on one page about the new Sunday morning schedule” or “I was not sure what we would end up deciding, but God’s Spirit was truly active as we explored the issues together” or “It sure took a lot of time to come to a decision, but it seems that we explored all possible angles.” Such affirmation can bolster the value of a discernment process in the mind of the congregation. This brings me to the next suggestion.

Make Appropriate Use of Discerning Language

Language is a powerful force. Phrasing sentences in particular ways can have tremendous implications on how we think. It is important to use discerning language in our conversations. When we say, “not too many people are complaining about the new Sunday morning schedule,” we are communicating that our task is to eliminate complaining. If there is no complaining, it was a good decision. However, if we say, “It seems that God has directed us how to distribute missions funding,” we are communicating that God is the one who needs to decide; we are the ones to figure out what God wants. While this may seem petty, such language can transform how we think.

Challenge Inappropriate Behavior

A third suggestion is to challenge inappropriate behavior. This act needs to consist of its own level of discerning. Leaders can easily gravitate toward control-freak status. We feel that we need to make sure that everything is lining up. We must remind ourselves that we are unable to squash all reverting to old models, nor is it our task to do so. However, when obvious misbehavior occurs, we may need to call it out. It is crucial that our tone be in love, but we must not wink at dysfunctional schemes. We must state reality in light of proper discerning as the people of God.

Keep Leading, It Takes Time

Finally, we must remember that transitioning a community of believers from an institutional, self-serving entity to a discerning body of Spirit-led followers of Jesus is no short task. It takes time, energy and continual guiding. We must not be discouraged if our efforts appear short-lived. We must keep pointing the way ahead. This is what leaders do.

No magic pill is available. No three step program will fully transform your church into a discerning community. It is hard work; day in and day out we must keep moving forward. Battles will be lost, personalities will attempt to overthrow the process and people will often revert to self-serving agendas. May we continue to gently lead toward authentic communal discernment. As we experience this sort of environment, may we discover the wonder of living as a discerning people.

The culture of church leadership seems to be shifting away from such models. Sometimes correctives are necessary as we veer away from Spirit-filled leadership. We are no longer afraid to speak spiritual language in our meetings. We are no longer asking if we fulfilled our goals; we now ask if we are participating with God in His mission. I am writing from my own experience; perhaps yours is different.

So what about leadership? Are leadership skills still necessary? Is it appropriate to gain insight from business leaders? Are there ways to balance our responsibility for competency in leadership with adequately following the Spirit of God? I stumbled across one verse in Psalm 78 a few weeks ago that seems to address these questions. While David was a King, not a pastor, his leadership style is appropriate for those in church leadership. The psalmist writes,

(Psalms 78:72 NIV) And David shepherded them with integrity of heart; with skillful hands he led them.

The word pastor (poimēn) is often translated shepherd. This is how David led; he pastored. And how does he pastor? This verse highlights two characteristics. The first is integrity of heart. The Hebrew word for integrity is sometimes translated as blameless or clear conscience. While we know that David made mistakes (Bathsheba), he repented and walked with God in sincerity. The second characteristic is what catches my attention. He is described as having skillful hands. What does this mean? The word translated in the NIV as skillful describes more than competency in management theory. It is sometimes translated as insight or understanding or discernment. David evidently had ability to appropriately lead people. But his leadership included genuineness and skill.

We sometimes emphasize one of these characteristics over the other. Certainly an absence of integrity will cause a pastor to crumble; a genuine heart is crucial. At the same time, the ability to sufficiently understand the ins and outs of leadership is important. Yet leadership is as much about discerning the Spirit’s movement as it is about implementing the latest business techniques.

These are just a few thoughts about leading churches. While we find assistance from other places in scripture, particularly the epistles, this peek into David’s leading is instructive. I would love to hear your thoughts.

In a meeting last week, we gathered to draft a job description for an Associate Pastor. I arrived with a draft in hand. It seemed that we could iron out details in a relatively concise period of time. However it was no small feat. We explored issues of leadership style, team ministry and the importance of empowering the body of Christ to be the church. While little changed in the final job description, the team was empowered to critically consider what it means to function as the church. A shift in church culture occurred.

I don’t think this would be possible through email or phone calls. We needed to meet face to face. We did not plan on discussing all the issues raised. Yet the Spirit led our conversation in the appropriate direction. We left with a finished job description, but we exited the room with much more. We were unified in our direction; we had wrestled with larger issues. The Holy Spirit was active in our conversation. We did not simply conduct business; we met with God.

Business leadership books about conducting meetings do not address this dynamic. Certainly we can gain insight from such material. Yet we must be careful not to dismiss the movement of the Spirit by adhering to tight agendas. Was our gathering a good meeting? No doubt. Was it efficient? Probably not. Was the church strengthened as a result of our gathering? I believe it was.

Decision-making in a church that refers everything to Jesus ought to be markedly different from decision-making in one that doesn’t, because the church that does is held by the primary commitment at the deepest possible level to becoming more and more like him. (Kindle location 2410)

We have spent considerable time rethinking our decision-making in recent years. Perhaps this element of church life is an essential part of our ethos. The way that we do business should not be like the world. It should be markedly different. Hirsch suggests that we replace the word church with the word movement. He insists that our vocabulary influences our ethos.

As a church leader, I am challenged by this idea of ethos. I am sure that changes in congregational ethos do not happen overnight. Sometimes it takes years to shift the mindset, the culture. I am also sure that we have much work to do to bring about needed changes in how we function. I like the word movement. Maybe we should consider using this language. Hirsch includes a quote from H. R. Niebuhr at the beginning of this chapter. It aptly describes the adjustment needed in our context.

There are essential differences between institutions and movements: the one is conservative the other progressive; the one is more or less passive, yielding to influences from the outside, the other is active influencing rather than being influenced; the one looks to the past, the other to the future . . . the one is anxious, the other is prepared to take risks; the one guards boundaries, the other crosses them. – Niebuhr (Kindle Location 2257)

Yet it is worth noting, a decision is never really over. In our discernment process, the final stage is about communication. Once a decision has been reached, it is important to tell the story of the process. Why did we make this decision? How did God seem to be leading us as we discerned? Especially for those who were minimally involved in the process, they need to hear the story over and over again. But the decision is not closed. While it probably doesn’t make sense to go back to the drawing board, the posture of implementation is one of open ears. Were their facets of the decision that we did not consider? Is there new information that may prompt us to tweak the implementation? The final stage is one of communication, but it also one of continual listening.

This might seem confusing, especially to those who are type A personalities (like myself). We like to decide and then get it done. The last thing we want to do is receive new information that may require us to adjust. We like a well devised plan; we like to execute. I am not suggesting that we constantly question our decision. Certainly, God was involved in the process and led us to this place. Yet, we must recognize that God continues to speak, to act, to move. Is there more to learn? I am almost sure of it. Do we have it all figured out? Probably not.

All this to say that the discerning process is continual. Sure we make decisions and implement those decisions. But we must be careful to keep open ears to God’s continual speaking into the decisions we have made. We might be required to adjust as we move forward. This probably makes little sense from a business leadership perspective. Yet we are a spiritual community constantly seeking the direction of our Father. May God give us the patience and persistence to discern his ways. As church leaders, we are not simply here to make efficient organizations or to please the most people. We are called to follow the leading of the Holy Spirit. Ultimately, we strive to be a community of faith collectively discerning God’s movement. May we each pray, as we discussed Sunday morning in worship, David’s prayer.

(Psalms 19:14 NIV) May the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be pleasing in your sight, O LORD, my Rock and my Redeemer.

While I struggle with how to make sense of this, it seems the key lies in submission. Following the Spirit is often an excuse for laziness or inaction. We sit back, fail to do what God is calling us do. All the while, we insist we are waiting on the Spirit. In the other extreme, we lay our plans and work the system; nothing will distract us from our goal. In truth, we are not submitting to God; we are submitting to our plans.

Reading from Common Prayer: A Liturgy for Ordinary Radicals this week, I was blown away by this quote from from Jesuit Jean-Pierre de Caussade (18th Century).

The great and firm foundation of the spiritual life is the offering of ourselves to God and being subject to his will in all things. We must completely forget ourselves, so that we regard ourselves as an object which has been sold and over which we no longer have any rights. We find all our joy in fulfilling God’s pleasure — his happiness, his glory and the fact that he is our great and only delight. Once we have this foundation, all we need to do is spend our lives rejoicing that God is God and being so wholly abandoned to his will that we are quite indifferent as to what we do and equally indifferent as to what use he makes of our activities. ¹

Submission and pursuit at the same time. We are called to actively submit to God’s activity in our life. We will continue to live in this tension between fortitude and flexibility. I would be interested in how you understand this tension.

This morning, I was reading Genesis 24:1-27. This is the story of Abraham’s servant being commissioned to find Isaac’s wife. The servant is doubtful that he will succeed; yet after agreeing on provisions, he agrees to the task.

(Genesis 24:9 NIV) So the servant put his hand under the thigh of his master Abraham and swore an oath to him concerning this matter.

While it might seem awkward placing our hand under our master’s thigh, this is how they did it in those days . Anyway, he packs his bags and heads off to Abraham’s homeland. As I read the story, I was struck by the servant’s dependance on God’s leading. He doesn’t devise a strategic plan for finding Isaac’s wife; he doesn’t gather a team to plan his trip. He simply heads off trusting God to provide.

(Genesis 24:12 NIV) Then he prayed, “O LORD, God of my master Abraham, give me success today, and show kindness to my master Abraham.

He understands that he cannot succeed on his own. He continues to ask God for guidance.

(Genesis 24:13–14 NIV) 13) See, I am standing beside this spring, and the daughters of the townspeople are coming out to draw water. 14) May it be that when I say to a girl, ‘Please let down your jar that I may have a drink,’ and she says, ‘Drink, and I’ll water your camels too’ — let her be the one you have chosen for your servant Isaac. By this I will know that you have shown kindness to my master.”

He pleads for direction, for God’s will to be accomplished in this deal. He knows his task is difficult. He will need to convince the future wife to leave her homeland, her family. He understands the drawbacks for the chosen girl. As you continue to read the story, the young girl fulfills the servant’s request to God. In v. 21, we find the posture of the servant; this is what it means to discern.

(Genesis 24:21 NIV) Without saying a word, the man watched her closely to learn whether or not the LORD had made his journey successful.

I love that phrase “the man watched . . . closely to learn”. What a great definition of discerning. This is what it means to discern God’s movement in the world. I fear that we are often so busy working the plan that we fail to “watch closely to learn.” The rest is history. There are a few more twists and turns along the way, but ultimately this is the girl for Isaac. In the end, the servant worships.

(Genesis 24:26–27 NIV) 26) Then the man bowed down and worshiped the LORD, 27) saying, “Praise be to the LORD, the God of my master Abraham, who has not abandoned his kindness and faithfulness to my master. As for me, the LORD has led me on the journey to the house of my master’s relatives.”

May we be a discerning people who “watch closely to learn” what God is doing in our midst. May we be suspicious of orderly plans that leave God’s movements out of the equation. May we, like Abraham’s servant, understand our dependance on God.

Shared Team Dynamic

I was relieved that we had created a strategy for every team member to share in the presentation of the story. Each leader was responsible to share a particular area of the decision. This was well-planned; each person know his/her job. When I was incapable of leading, it was not a big deal; the show went on (for lack of a better term). I am convinced that decisions are best communicated when various people participate in the story. Each leader brings a different angle, a different perspective. This strengthens the story.

Need for a Leader

At the same time, when an unhappy church member threw the team a curve ball, the mood quickly soured. It seems that my presence may have been helpful in this particular situation. The member cited the church constitution and questioned the validity of the leadership council making this decision. The leaders were not prepared for such a critique. The negative comment prompted others to criticize on other unrelated items. While my being sick was unavoidable, the leader’s presence is preferred in the communication stage. I may have been able to bring the conversation back to a positive tone (or not . . .).

Shifting Culture

At the end of the day, the church affirmed the decision to move forward with the the Leadership Council’s plan. Many expressed appreciation for the hard work of church leaders. While discerning is messy, unpredictable, I am sure that the discernment process gave the leaders the needed structure to adequately discern. They were able to present their story with confidence. First Baptist Muncie still functions on unhealthy levels; but we are making progress. We still have to learn healthy ways to ask questions and express concerns. We need to shift from expressing opinions to collectively discerning. We have to learn appropriate ways to call out inappropriate actions. As leaders, we are in the business of changing culture. It will not happen overnight. I hope that I do not miss another meeting because I am worshiping at the ceramic throne. But if I do, I am confident that the Holy Spirit will still move among the people of God.

The next step is to return to the church council with the information collected from the congregational meeting. I will keep you up to date on the implementation of this decision. The communication stage continues; it carries on until everyone stops asking questions.

At the same time, we are implementing the discernment process (outside of the thesis) with a major church decision regarding changing our Sunday morning schedule. While this may seem like a minor decision to some, in an established church an adequate process can make the difference between much confusion and unity.

Going through the process a second time has revealed the power of a defined process. The process pressed us to spend sufficient time and energy on the decision to alter our Sunday morning schedule. Without giving too much detail, I would like to summarize the work of our leadership team. We met yesterday evening in our third meeting since November 7. Allow me to describe each meeting; this may give you a sense of how the process works.

November 7 (Explore/Listen)

In our initial meeting, we explored various options for altering our Sunday morning schedule. These options included everything from moving to one combined service to canceling Sunday school. We eventually ruled out some of the more extreme actions. However, everything was on the table during this stage. By the conclusion of this meeting we had reached 3 potential options: 1) Do nothing 2) move our early service earlier and late service later 3) implement a flip flop schedule that includes two worship hours and two Sunday school hours.

The second task of this initial meeting was to develop a listening strategy. The strategy would include listening to outsiders, congregational participation, and seeking the Holy Spirit. We developed a three-week listening strategy. Everyone had an assignment and began to work the listening strategy. Over the next 3 weeks, we conducted an all-church survey, spent time in Sunday school classes discussing possibilities, spent time in worship corporately praying about the decision, made phone calls to the other churches regarding their schedules, spoke to students in the area about their Sunday morning schedules, and more.

December 5 (Examine/Decide)

We met a second time on December 5 to examine and synthesize what we learned. This was an amazing experience. We all came into the room with different ideas; we left the room in unity. In this two-hour block of time, we explored what we heard. People shared from their experience of prayer and discernment. Everyone agreed that some change was necessary. We explored the two options informed by the activities of the listening strategy. It seemed as if the Holy Spirit was speaking in our midst. The more we discussed, the more a flip-flop schedule seem to make sense. By the end of the meeting, everyone agreed on a direction. We did not have all specifics worked out; we would meet again on January 9 to discuss the specifics. We also scheduled in all church gathering for January 22 to present the model.

January 9 (Communication)

The fourth stage of the discernment process is communication. It is not enough to decide; we must tell the story of the process in order to confirm our discerning. While a schedule change does not require affirmation from the congregation (a church vote), the leaders felt it necessary to communicate and give the congregation a chance to endorse the decision. We now have a developed plan to communicate the decision. It involves each person on the Council sharing an element of the process with the congregation. We will find out how it goes on January 22. We plan to share and take a consensus vote on this date (I need to share with you about how this works. This will be a subject for a future blog post). I will keep you updated on the progress.

The Benefit of a Process

Is this process of discernment helpful? Will the process aid unity at First Baptist Church Muncie? My sense is that it will. We are learning how to discern as a congregation. We are learning to ask for God’s will rather than lobby for our own preference. I am hopeful that the Spirit will move through our continual discerning as a congregation.

Andrew Chervev from Northwestern University wrote an article entitled Choosing Versus Rejecting: the Impact of Goal Task Compatibility on Decision Confidence. While the title is a mouthful, the results are interesting. In his research he discovered that promotion-focused individuals tend to be more confident while prevention-focused individuals do not. He describes, “the data reported in a series of three experiments show that promotion focused individuals tend to be more confident in their decisions in the context of the selection rather than a rejection task, whereas prevention-focused individuals this effect is reversed.” ¹

What does he mean by this? What is a promotion-focused individual as compared to a prevention-focused individual? I have to admit, I don’t really like these terms. Promotion-focused sounds self-centered, institutional. What he means by a promotion-focused individual is one that is positive thinking, looking ahead, task and goal oriented. In turn, a prevention-focused individual is one who is trying to prevent something bad from happening. They are not necessarily forward thinking, they are just trying to put out fires.

So what does this have to do with the church? What does it have to do with decision-making? While Chervev’s research is from a psychosocial viewpoint (it does not take into account spiritual dimensions of decision-making), his conclusion should be considered. It seems that promotion-focused churches would be those that have a sense of mission, churches who are seeking God’s direction, mission-focused, considering God’s work in our world. We have to be careful, in terms of missional thinking, that the promotion-focus is not about ourselves, our institution. Rather, we are focused on promoting God’s mission in the world.

In contrast, prevention-focused churches are those who are simply trying to appease its members. You probably know churches like this. In board meetings, the discussion usually centers around those who are upset. We question how we can fix the problems; little time is given to vision, considering what God is doing in the world.

So if the result of Chervev’s study is true, we will be more confident in our decision-making if we are missional, promotion-focused (promoting God’s mission, not ourselves). If we are simply putting out fires, attempting to appease members, our confidence level will remain low.

I thought this study was applicable to churches and decision-making. I hope you find it interesting.