The paid person must be the face of the controversy

Way back in 2010 I wrote a post explaining some of the advantages a ministry receives when it is headed up by a paid employee. 

One important thing I didn’t include was PROTECTION.

Alongside identity and accountability, when navigating decisions which may stir up controversy, the leader must be prepared to provide protection.

Because, with controversy comes confusion and/or pain.

And, if you’re prepared to accept money from a church to lead a ministry then you must be prepared to own the decisions of that ministry.

Even if they aren’t popular with everyone.
Especially if they are decided in partnership with volunteers.

A true leader will be prepared to wear the fallout of a controversial decision they were a part of or they indirectly oversaw. Better yet, they will stand in the place of those who are volunteers so they don’t need to face any blame or criticism.

No matter if it is within a church or community organisation, any body which runs on a base of volunteers, these unpaid people should feel valued enough by the employee (who is in a privileged position) to be protected by them.

For, with the pay check comes the heat of any controversy. 

They should be the face.
They should make the announcement.
They should answer questions.
They should be shouted at online.
They should stare down criticism.
They should hear and acknowledge any pain.

In part, this is why they are paid.

The two things you listen through

Are not your ears... SURPRISE!

The two things which will determines how much attention you pay to someone, especially if they are speaking to you in a setting like a sermon or lecture are your ass and your stomach.

These two have loud voices which will drown out and distract from the one entering through your ears.

Why?

Because if your not comfortable or are hungry, then you’ll stop listening.

Ideally, the person speaking or teaching will have stopped talking before your ass or stomach start to complain.

But, as most are painfully aware, this isn’t always the case.

So, this reality has three consequences for any speaker.

First, the speaker should be mindful of the space they are speaking in. How is the seating? How long could you comfortably be expected to sit?

Second, are you presenting immediately before a meal? Will a lack of sugar effect their levels of concentration?

Finally, this establishes the ideal time to speak. The first session after breakfast. This is the speaker’s prime position for this is where the asses and the stomachs will be their most ready to listen and least likely to distract. 

Standing to give immediate feedback

There’s a lot of ways to evaluate the effectiveness of a sermon. 

One little used way is almost immediately evident.

How did the congregation rise to their feet after the sermon?

We’re they energised?
We’re they stiff from sitting too long?

Depending upon the distance of time between the conclusion of the sermon and the start of the next song, the preacher can almost immediately gauge if they preacher for too long due to the amount of lethargy amongst the people.

When should a minister share about their past?

I’ve had an abortion.
I’ve been sexually assaulted.
I’m married to someone who has mental health challenges.
I’ve been addicted to porn.
My wife and I have endured multiple miscarriages.
I used to be an alcoholic.
One of my children died of SIDS.

Any minister who has gone through any of the above things, and a number of other examples, would be a powerful witness and advocate for those they minister to.

Except... these are the types of things we keep private.

So, when should a minister disclose things from their past which could be powerfully used? Additionally, how should they do so?

I ask because at least one of the things listed above are a part of my past. And, they have been helpful in helping others. I got through them. I can empathise with with someone going through them.

Should a minister bring their past to the surface fairly early on in their ministry placement, in a public setting, so others will be aware and can come forward if they want?

Or, does a minister keep their past close to their chest, only revealing once someone has an event which they can then disclose their connection with?

I don’t know the answer, but disclosure of some of a minister’s skeletons would help remove the ministerial veneer and open up new avenues of ministry.

You must have a plan for the orphans

Change happens.
It is inevitable.
If you’re in leadership then you need to make decisions which effect others.

Any time you decide to change something, the consequences will create orphans.

Some won’t want to adapt to the change.
Others won’t be able to, completely beyond their control, transition to the new paradigm.

However they are made, some will become orphans since they will be left out.

These leftovers of a decision to change - be it a philosophical, geographical or chronological change - must still be catered to.

Why?

Because the orphans of any decision still matter.

Chances are, to some extent, they had buy-in to the activity they were involved in. They had a history. They probably envisaged a future.

Change, even a well-thought-out positive change, rocks the world of the orphans it creates.

And, if there is no plan for those adversely effected, then the message communicated to them is either... 

You don’t matter. 
Or...
There were winners and losers. You’re the later.

So, how is this avoided?

The answer is simple.

Have a plan for the orphans.

Even if that plan is to simply sit down with each person and explain why you reached the decision you did. 

This is far better than just an announcement.

Better yet, actually have an alternative for those orphaned by your change.
This shows that they still matter and there are no losers.

Can your worship be inspired by the hottie beside you?

WARNING: The following thought may be a little controversial. And potentially creepy.

It’s not unusual that someone at the front of church might ask the congregation to look around and use their surrounds to draw inspiration for worship.

My question is...

Can you truely worship, inspired by looking at an attractive attendee of your church service, who is not your spouse?

In theory, the answer should be yes.

You can gaze upon someone attractive and genuinely thank God for their beauty. Just like a waterfall or sunset...

But, is this reality?

When we look at someone whom we find hot, is this where our mind is drawn?

I wonder, do those who give invitations to be inspired, consider the humanity around their congregation and the inspirations they may trigger?

Juggling the band:congregation ratio

The larger the church; the larger the band.

Which comes first?

Does your band expand to fit the congregation or does the congregation grow to match the band?

Furthermore, if the later is true, how large do you risk making a worship band before expected growth appears?

I’ve been in a number of congregations where the band, at times, has equalled  a quarter of those in attendance. In theory, any service with approximately twenty attendees, runs the risk of a significant proportion of band:congregation.

But, what if you have a mid-sized congregation wanting to grow?

Are you comfortable with having ten members of the band for fifty to eighty people? Between a regulation three singers, piano, drums, two guitars and bass, reaching double digits isn’t beyond comprehension.

I wonder, when do you expand, and when do you consider contracting?

With a band of 4-5, when do you expand?
With a band of 8-10, when do you reduce?

Primarily, the answers depend upon the options of musicians available and the musical quality a church leadership is desiring, not warm gobies on stage.

But, surely, a church must have a ratio when they feel that the balance between band and congregation has been thrown out of whack.