The prayer you don’t have to pray but hear often

There is a prayer which I’m sure, if you’ve spent any significant amount of time around churches, that you’ve heard uttered before.

And, while it is said with the best of intentions, it is completely needless.

The prayer is for God to be present.

These words are not required.

Why?

Because God is present everywhere.

It goes along with the omniscience of God…

God, by His nature, is present. Everywhere. All the time.

What we should pray, and what I think is usually intended to be prayed, is the following… that we should be aware of the presence of God.

This is a POWERFUL prayer.

This is a TRANSFORMATIVE prayer.

This is a prayer which we NEED.

We need to be aware of God’s presence, allowing it to shape our actions, words, thoughts and worship.

Be it at the start of a church service, bible study, meeting, confrontation or any other occasion when we tend to invite Gods presence, praying for mindfulness of the reality of God’s presence will be far more useful.

The power of the meeting confession

Last Sunday I was in a church meeting. Nothing unexpected was predicted.

How wrong I was.

During the meeting the church leadership did something I’ve never seen before.

They publicly confessed.

Openly.

In front of the entire church.

Without even the hint of a scandal.

They admitted that they’ve let people down.

They admitted that they’ve miscommunicated.

And then they were prayed for, while kneeling before the congregation, by a lay leader of the church.

It was refreshing to see and hear.

It was vulnerable.

It was authentic.

It was something I’d never considered doing personally.

Nor was it something I’d heard done elsewhere.

But, it’s moments of pastoral awareness like this which dramatically add relational capital with those who have been let down by the leadership and those who will remain under the pastoral wings of the leaders.

The aim is to be in a group beyond nice

We have all been in a group which is nice.

No one objects.

No one disagrees.

No one argues.

No one is… honest.

Instead, everyone is nice.

Churches are… nice.

Bible studies are… nice.

Meetings are… nice.

But the truth is, we need more than nice.

In a safe space… We need truth.

In a respectful manner… We need challenge.

This is the kind of churches we need.

This is the kind of small groups we need.

This is the kind of meetings we need.

Why?

Because nice doesn’t produce growth.

If you don’t offer this service then you’re clearly saying that you don’t want families to attend your meeting

Childcare.

I could wrap this post up now and my point would be made.

No matter what it is about, if a church doesn’t offer some form of child minding then they are sending the message that those with small children don’t want to be heard.

Why?

Because, the reality is, the majority of families will not attend otherwise.

For a demographic which is so highly desired by churches, to make important decisions without their input is foolishness.

No childcare shows them that they are not valued.
No childcare strips families of their voice.
No childcare alienates them from contributing.
No childcare stops them from feeling truely included.

If you wonder why churches seem to be guided by those in retirement age, it might be because they don’t put in systems for families to effectively be involved.

How to cut off a service hijacker?

What do you do, if leading a church service, it gets hijacked?
I'm not talking about terrorists or a gun-toting-crazy...

I'm talking about those who, when invited to share, go into a full-blown take-over-the-service rant.

What do you do then?

Once the leader realises that they are at the dawn of a hijacking, they have three options.

The first is to do nothing. Show patience. Pray silently that their point, even if it's longwinded, will go somewhere productive. 

For some people, this will be the only time and place where they will feel comfortable enough to speak up and be listened to.

Other hijacks are more insidious.

For these people, you can either shut them down or redirect.

You can, in the gentlest way possible, affirm their answer, quickly summising their point, saying that you're moving on to others who want to share.

Otherwise you could exercise the technique that you'd be really interested in hearing their complete point, while cutting them short, but you'll be glad to chat with them further after the service.

Of course, this means you'll need to make space to talk at the conclusion of the service. This may not always be practical.

But, there's a secret in successfully pulling off the shut down or redirection.

Two breaths.

The person should get to share two breaths once you've recognised what's going on.

Why?

Because you don't want to be known as someone who will shut down input which you're not enthralled with.

Leading a public sharing time can be a delicate balancing act, but any interruption to an answer should, if nothing else, still communicate gratitude, inclusion and grace.

Ministry of being the thermometer

Excited.
Engaged.
Bored.
Spaced out.

Anyone who's at the front of a group, no matter what context, if they want to serve those they are communicating with well, must be a good thermometer.

Every speaker, presenter, host, chairperson & MC must be able to gauge the mood of the room and, if need be, change things up in order to keep connected with their audience.

This is a must when dealing with children and youth.
This is essential when leading a bible study.
This is vital when preaching.
This would serve your people tremendously well during a church service.

Every leader needs to hone their antenna of room discernment, or employ someone else who'll give them a helpful nudge, or their level of engagement/buy-in from the group will always be reduced.

The elephant scout

How many meetings have you been in, after having already dragged on for ages, someone finally pipes up and says what everyone isn't?

Last night I went to my first church meeting in... well... months.

Not for the first time, I took it upon myself to name, what I thought, was one of the looming elephants in the room.

I think every meeting needs someone to do this (even if it isn't me!).

If your meeting has a purpose, and ideally they all should (outlined in the previously circulated agenda), then tiptoeing around the problems, ultimately, wastes everyone's time.

Fortunately, I've been in many meetings where I've either helped set the agenda or have been in the fortunate enough position to claim ignorance, so my elephant spotting can usually be excused...

But, as hard as it might be, every meeting needs someone who will spot the elephant and make it known.

For, it is only then that the real issues get wrestled with and things progress.

The code of "pushback"

Inevitably, in a world full of ideas, meetings and political correctness, you'll hear someone "pushback."

Whenever someone throws an idea into the ether, another will pop up their hand and ask if they can offer "pushback."

But, is "pushback" just PC for I-think-your-idea-sucks or I-actually-think-your-a-bit-of-dick?

I would like to say that this isn't the case, but when the sugar-coating is removed, is this all that you're left with?

Sometimes you shouldn't cast the vote

Yesterday our church had a meeting where a vote was taken surrounding an issue of staffing. It wasn't highly controversial and the vote went as I expected.

But, while I could have voted and knew which decision I would have made, I decided not to.

I didn't tell anyone and, in all likelihood, no one probably noticed.

But I believe that there are some time when a staff member should abstain from being a decision-maker.

The reasons are simple.

On some resolutions, like staffing, mission or redevelopment, the decision ultimately lies with the members of the church. They need to own the outcome. They need to way up the costs and discern the direct God is taking them. Whatever is decided needs to be up to them.

Furthermore, on significant matters, the results will directly effect those on staff. If you vote, then you can leave yourself open to the accusation of bias or self-serving.

Finally, depending on the outcome of a vote, tensions can be created amongst staff who have voted differently. And, even if it is a silent vote, questions can be raised about the way workmates voted in a tight decision.

As important as I might think my opinion is, at times, it's not worth airing voting in order to give control to the congregation and because of the potential interpersonal fallout.

Five-Fingered voting

The denomination I work in uses the consensus model of voting in many of its meetings.

Today I read here a brilliant way to show your feelings about a motion during a meeting. The idea is based on the number of fingers you raise during the vote...

Five fingers. You’re all-in and prepared to own the project. You’ll take the lead if asked.

Four fingers. You give strong support and active participation, but you’re not willing to lead the initiative.

Three fingers. You’re on board.

Two fingers. You have important reservations but will support the initiative.

One finger. You have serious reservations but will not block or subvert the effort. You also commit to open communication regarding your reservations.

Folding – no fingers. You want to block the proposal because you believe it’s damaging.

I think this method covers a lot of important bases, beyond mere approval, but active participation/ownership, and alternatively, beyond objection, but the amount you're prepared to stand in the way of the idea proceeding.

Absent or apology?

I always inwardly chuckle when I'm at a meeting and they take apologies (Admittedly, it might have to do with my opinion of many meets I attend or those which I'll gladly skip).

I do so because, for a lot of meetings, those who aren't present are not apologetic, they just aren't physically there.

In short, they aren't sorry they're missing the meeting!

In ministry, the aim should be to create those, who if they miss an event, are actually apologetic.

Church services...
Children's ministry activities...
Youth group...
Family ministry shindigs...

They should be important enough, impactful enough, of a high enough quality to be something which will be missed if they are... missed (which will inevitably happen on the odd occasion).

Last one through the door is the scribe

I love what I read here about meetings and is a brilliant extension of a costly no-show.

I short, not only is being absent made expensive, but you delegate a non-desired duty (such as taking minutes) to the poor sole who is last into the meeting.

Sure, it might kill continuity with your minute taking (which, really, how hard is it?), but it'll make sure people are punctual to your meetings...

Report reading until...

Last night I attended a meeting. Nothing unusual about that. I do work for a church...

But I needed to arrive early in order to read the papers which were going to be discussed.

But I have a confession.

There have been times when I would skim the reports prior to a meeting. Barely skim. Glance at even.

But now I have a system which I try and enforce upon myself.

I read ever report and glean at least one question or comment which I want to make (even if I ultimately don't disclose it publicly).

The reason? If I didn't, then I'd be forced to question the value I add to the meeting and if my attendance is the best (or even decent) use of my time...

I got this email about my erectile disfunction

Did the title grab your attention?!?

Was there any correspondence?

I just took the minutes of a meeting I'd previously agreed to be the secretary for.

Like many meetings, we quickly touched on any correspondence.

It was noted that the question of correspondence is becomingly increasingly irrelevant.

Sure, you still need to keep tack of important pieces of communication, but correspondence mattered much more when communication wasn't instant. You didn't just shoot off an email or converse over Facebook. Instead, you crafted and sent a letter. It was more formal, and often, more through out.

Now, if we tabled all the correspondence that went through, for example, the email address for a committee, we would be discussing correspondence for hours.

And who needs to hear that we got spam for Viagra?

Meeting euthanising

I've written a bit about meetings. Good meetings. Bad meetings. Productive meetings. Mind-numbing, kill-me-now meetings.

When you work for a church, or are just an active member of a congregation, you have lots of meetings.

I had one last night.

As the meeting was arranged I was told that the term "meeting" was... unproductive. In fact, I recall being told that it sucked.

The more I think about it, the more I agree.

The term "meeting" should be stricken from the church vernacular.
So should "think tank."
So should "committee."
For good measure, toss in "consultation."

Churches should work in terms of "conversations," "gatherings" and "get togethers."

Maybe we'd have more people attend our "meetings" then.

Costly no-show

Over the last few days the network has been down at church. No Internet. No connection to the photocopier/printer (very annoying!). No access to all the common files.

All I've had in my office is a computer with my old files.

So, in the name of procrastination, I started to go through them. In the process, I found the minutes of an old accountability group I was in when I started in ministry.

One thing that caught my eye was the punishment if you missed an arranged meeting. Unless it was an emergency (we weren't crazy legalists!), missing a meeting would set you back $30 (you would need to buy the other guys a CD... a hint at how long ago this was).

For important meetings, it seems life a good idea.

Make non-attendance costly.

I'm not talking about church council meetings, regular youth group or church. I'm specifically talking about accountability or planning meetings which have been set for a long time.

You need to buy lunch for the next meeting.
You need to purchase everyone's favourite chocolate bar and drink for next time.

The aim isn't to send someone bankrupt, but perhaps we need to put a price on skipping the group..

Blacksmith meetings

As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another. Proverbs 27:17.

Today I had a staff meeting where nothing incredibly groundbreaking happened... But it was good.

I enjoy staff meetings and I think the majority of people who work for churches should enjoy their staff meetings.

These meetings should be enjoyable if they reflect Proverbs 27.

Meetings where genuine, critical reflection occurs.
Meetings where there is honest feedback.
Meetings where opinions are freely expressed.
Meetings where forgiveness is given.
Meetings where other ministries are not "the competition."
Meetings where everyone wants the other people to succeed.
Meetings which involve growing conversations.

If staff meetings reflect the qualities above, then the individuals and church are strengthened by each team member being a master blacksmith.

Another meeting is not always a step forward

Churches love to have meetings. Or committees. Or hold "think tanks."

Sometimes they are productive. Other times they seem to exist to merely make us feel important.

Whilst at the conference I attended a few weeks back I was a part of a dramatised meeting. I was the chair and had to negotiate a volatile meeting of opposing views.

In the end the decision made was to hold another meeting.

It was noted that this was not progress. Instead it was a delay.

But this is our action step all too often. Plan a date for another meeting. Then talk about the same things.

But this just pushes back the problem, and potential solution, back a further month.

Closer?

Beware... This question could change the way churches run...

Will forming a committee get you closer to the solution or just put off answering a difficult question?

Win stories

I just read this article about telling stories (I never said that everything i read on the web was riveting).

Points four and five jumped out at me. Especially the application for the later.

Tell stories at the start of meetings, not just give updates.

I think the staff meetings at most businesses and churches would be far better off if they began with a story that detailed person who represented a win for each.