Jesus practiced the habits of solitude and retreat throughout his ministry (Luke 5:16).  As I recall, Jesus had only one extended retreat recorded in the gospels (Luke 4:1 and parallels).  He used it to reflect on his identity and crystalize his purpose, define the appropriate use of his power, and fix in his mind the need for absolute obedience to what Scripture reveals of his Father’s will.  We still benefit today from the work that Jesus did that flowed out of this one powerful retreat!  Throughout his ministry, Jesus regularly used short spiritual retreats to:

• keep himself grounded in his mission
  • Luke 4:42-44.  When the crowds demanded that he stay and continue to minister to them, Jesus went into seclusion and then announced that his purpose was to preach in other cities as well.  
• reflect on what was happening around him
  • John 6:14-15, 26-36. In this account, the crowds misinterpreted what the signs of Jesus’ ministry meant.  After seclusion, he came back to the crowds and corrected them.
• make key leadership decisions
  • Luke 6:12-13.  He chose the twelve apostles after a night of solitary prayer.  
• set the next phase of his leadership
  • We see this, for example, at key points such as the beginning of his ministry when the Spirit took him alone into the wilderness and at the end of his earthly ministry in the Garden of Gethsemane.
• meditate on God’s word
  • Someone I read just recently (sorry, I can’t find it again) suggested that Jesus must have meditated a lot.  How else would he have come up with the metaphors and parables he used to draw spiritual truths from everyday activities?

Based on Jesus’ use of retreat time, there is great value for us doing retreats as well.  I pray, study, listen, meditate and reflect as a regular practice,  but setting aside an extended period of time for a more intensive encounter alone with God provides an incredibly rich grounding for my leadership.  Look again at the list of what Jesus used his retreats for.  That list is just as important for us today.

There are lots of ways to do a retreat, so I am not prescribing how you should do yours.  I am sharing what I do, to spark your own creative ideas about what you might do.  Also, I think a key to a successful retreat is not to have any particular agenda as far as specific output is concerned.  I want God to control the outcome, not me.  My attitude is ”Let’s see how God will use this time.”  I intentionally set aside the time, use a general structure, have a starting place, but then stay open to how the Spirit leads.

I do a five-day spiritual retreat once a year.  I do it in the summer because in my circumstances:

• I get my performance review at the June board meeting. 
• I get the results of the Best Christian Workplace survey in June as well, giving me a window into how the staff evaluates the ministry’s work environment, and indirectly my leadership.  
• Our fiscal year-end is March 31, so by June the staff has evaluated our organizational performance over the last year. 
• At the June board meeting I get the board’s direction or suggestions for the next planning cycle. 
• Finally, management works on the strategic and action plans in the fall for the next fiscal year.  The retreat helps me  frame the discussions that we’ll have in the planning process.

My five days generally look like this:

1. Day 1 is spent reflecting on how well I as an individual am following Christ.  This has nothing to do with work directly, but if my personal walk is not pleasing to God, then my professional walk won’t be any better.  I owe it to the ministry to have a rich, personal, vibrant spiritual life.  The personal day could include these checks from The Making of a Leader by Robert Clinton:
   1. An integrity check – are you living out your stated values?  Are your intentions and motivations honourable?  Are you walking the talk?
   2. An obedience check – are you doing what God has asked you to do?  Following God’s laws and trusting his leadership?  Confessing, repenting and forgiving?
   3. A word check – are you able to perceive God’s truth and work it out in your own life?  Can you discern God’s guidance for you personally?  Being able to discern God’s guidance is a prerequisite to leading God’s people.
2. On Day 2 I reflect on my personal call and how well my leadership at CCCC reflects that call.  I have my personal call to serve the church, which takes precedence over my call to CCCC.  CCCC is simply the way I am currently fulfilling my call to serve Christ’s church.  I’m going to write a separate post on this, but the key point here is that there is a reason why God has placed me and not someone else in leadership at CCCC at this time in its life.  The board and I mutually discerned God’s call for my appointment, so there must be something about me that God wants expressed at CCCC.  I reject the personality cult of leadership, so it’s not about me, but it is about how God has prepared me for this role.  When I was offered the opportunity to come to CCCC I was at the same time in the process of looking for a church to pastor.  I was on a 7 day spiritual retreat and the issue at hand was which option was God’s will?  Was one a test for the other?  The short version is that I received the Lord’s direction that I was free to choose, but that if I chose CCCC my particular contribution would be to use the ministry’s mandate to protect Christ’s reputation by helping Christian leaders lead more authentically as Christians.  So, that’s why we have the Best Christian Workplace survey.  That’s why I write this blog.  That’s why we incorporate theology (hopefully free of denominational distinctives) into our stewardship training.  That’s why the conference workshop tracks were increased from six to eleven, to incorporate theologically-sound soft skills topics into the mix.  So I spend a day thinking long and hard about the unique contribution I can make to CCCC.
3. Day 3 is a reflection of how well CCCC is fulfilling the mandate that God has given it.  At the June 2003 board meeting, when I was appointed as executive director, they directed me to explore the edges of CCCC’s mandate.  We had been consumed for more than ten years with the clergy residence legal cases, and the last one was settled the week I arrived for work.  While that issue doubled our membership and earned us the gratitude of pastors across the country (I still regularly have people in the regional seminars stand up to thank CCCC for this huge thing we did for them), it did focus our attention pretty much exclusively on one particular program (the Legal Defense Fund).  My predecessor, Frank Luellau, did a remarkable job shepherding CCCC through that time.  However, we are now past that time, so I am free to use Day 3 reflecting on what our mission really means.  What else could we do to achieve our mission?  I think of all the people I have met over the past year, and review notes of our conversations, and pray about the issues our members are dealing with and how we might help them.
4. Day 4 is when I draw on traditional strategic planning resources to have a systematic approach to reflect on CCCC and its future health.  I’ll pull out the books and use the models.  This is also the day when I think of CCCC and its business model.  We are in effect an association.  Is this still the appropriate model?  Should we be a fee for service professional organization?  (No, but the question still needs to be asked.)   I use everything I have on association management and trend analysis for the association sector.  This day helps ensure I don’t overlook anything.  By the way, this day does NOT replace any of the planning that is done with staff.  It is only to help me prepare for that planning.
5. Day 5 tends to change each year according to what I feel the major need is.  Over the last year I realized the Lord is calling us at CCCC to be bolder.  To step it up.  To think big and believe that resources follow vision.  [IMPORTANT NOTE: I did not say that money follows expenses!!!  Unless God specifically calls your ministry to live by faith, he calls us to be wise in how much risk we should accept.]  So I spent the day this year praying, meditating on God’s provision and his promises related to courage and boldness, and reflecting on what boldness might look like for CCCC.  In previous years the emphasis has been on other aspects of our ministry, such as what it means for CCCC to be part of a community of ministries as opposed to a thinking of us only as a single organization.  That year I thought through issues of partnership, cooperation and competition.  I worked through how we could be open-handed and generous while at the same time preserving our financial viability.

This five day structure works well for me, and you can adapt it for your type of ministry.  For example, if you are a relief and development ministry, then on Day 4 you’ll be looking at best practices, trends and other aspects of your sector (both secular and Christian).

There is a lot of room for individual preference as to how you commune with God.  For me, I tend to do best by asking questions of God, and then waiting silently for a response (no distractions, no music, etc.). 

When the retreat is over, I don’t “come down from the mountain” with a fully laid-out plan to impose on staff.  I do come back with directional thoughts to discuss and test with staff, and then lay out specific plans.  I also don’t give them out all at once, because that could be overwhelming and sometimes the Lord gives ideas for me to steward over time, taking time to ruminate on them and share them at the appropriate time.

For those who want to read about the spiritual disciplines of silence and solitude, which form the core of a spiritual retreat, I’m sure you’ll find excellent courses at your local Bible college or seminary which you might be able to take, or as a quicker alternative, the two main authors to read are Dallas Willard and Richard Foster.  Between them, they’ve written quite a few books on this topic.

Now, I know I’m not the only one doing personal leadership retreats.  Can you share your approach?  I’m open to experimenting next year with something different.

“If I as a pastor want to help believers and inquirers to relate science and faith coherently, I must read the works of scientists, exegetes, philosophers, and theologians and then interpret them for my people.  Someone might counter that this is too great a burden to put on pastors, that instead they should simply refer their laypeople to the works of scholars.  But if pastors are not ‘up to the job’ of distilling and understanding the writings of scholars in various disciplines, how will our laypeople do it?  This is one of the things that parishioners want from their pastors.”

These sentences point to a key leadership responsibility which is to develop whoever we are leading.  We know from Ephesians 4:11-12 that the reason Christ gave his church apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers is for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ.  The principle of equipping people to build up the body of Christ applies to all Christian leaders.  We equip people to fulfill the Christian mission. 

Whatever your field of ministry is, you should read the deep thinkers in your field.  You are likely already doing this so that you can write your sermons and speeches, and better design your logic model, strategic plan, program evaluations and your case for support.  Keeping up with the thought-leaders contributes to your own personal development too, and their ideas are the sparks that ignite your creativity to generate new ideas for your ministry.

I’m suggesting you take the extra step of interpreting the experts in your field for your staff and supporters by repackaging their ideas into an easily understood, user-friendly format.  The people you lead will better understand what your ministry is doing and advocating, appreciate that you are being responsible in how you do it, and will be better equipped to tell others why what you are doing is so important.  You will have contributed to their personal development and will raise future leaders and champions for your ministry.

Most people have neither the time nor the inclination to wade through the ‘heavy’ writing of deep thinkers in your field.  If you’ve done the reading, you’ve done the bulk of the work already.  Follow through and leverage the value of the time you have already invested. 

So, if you are:

• a pastor, read great Christian theologians and help your parishioners develop a richer theology;
• a seminary or Bible college president, read educational theorists and show your supporters how your school excels;
• an inner-city mission leader, read experts on poverty, addiction, and the systemic conditions that create the problems in the first place and let your supporters know how you not only are responding to the fallout of these problems, but are working to prevent them from happening at all;
• an executive director of an evangelism ministry, read missiologists and let your people know about the nuances and sensitivities of working cross-culturally and how you are being responsible in creating self-sustaining churches around the globe;
• and, well, you get the idea.

• Having a voice at the board table,
• Guiding the board’s agenda,
• Moving ahead in a timely manner, and
• Setting strategy, while at the same time
• Respecting the board’s authority, and
• Earning the board’s trust.

Here are some ideas that will help leaders better serve their boards and organizations by providing visionary, strategic leadership to the board within the parameters of good governance.

Voice at the Table

Senior staff leaders need the right to speak at board meetings if they are to provide organizational leadership. Since the board wants them committed to the ministry’s mission and to organizational success, staff leaders must ‘own’ the directives that come from the board. It should never be an “Us vs. Them” scenario, but a partnership where staff leaders can speak of the board-staff relationship as “We.” The more that leaders participate in the development of board directives, and the more they feel they have truly been heard, the more they will take ownership of the board’s decisions.

Another benefit of having the staff leader at the board table is that they have much to contribute to board discussion. They were hired either because of their professional expertise in the ministry’s business or their ability to lead an organization, and the board should benefit from their knowledge and skill. Staff leaders are also immersed in the affairs of the ministry, living close to its activities and making it their business to be intimately aware of all of the major factors that could affect its success. In short, this person is an expert the board cannot afford to leave on the sidelines.

The ministry’s bylaws or constitution should therefore provide that the senior staff person has the right to attend and fully participate in the discussions of all meetings of the board and its committees, except for matters that would be a conflict-of-interest (such as the compensation and performance review committee). This ensures that the pastor or executive director is able to speak to all issues that come to the board and present their perspective.

Guiding the Board

The board is responsible for its own work and should not be subservient to staff. However, the board and staff together are responsible for accomplishing the ministry’s mission, so it only makes sense that staff contribute to setting the board’s agenda. This is part of the board-staff dialogue. The board speaks to staff through policies and motions, while the staff speak to the board through reports and assistance with setting the agenda. Only board business should be on the agenda, of course, but the staff are in a great position to know what the board should be spending its time on, based on their knowledge of risks, trends, opportunities and other factors that could affect the ministry’s future.

Agendas should be developed by the chair with the support and advice of the senior leader. The staff leader should always be thinking about what issues the board should be aware of and which ones need board discussion.

From time to time boards should invite the senior staff leader to have a ‘fireside’ chat with them. Leaders can use this opportunity to share with the board their dreams and concerns, to paint the picture as they see it of the organization’s future, all without the pressure of having to pass a motion or approve anything. These meetings are like background briefings, helping the board to understand the context in which the staff are working.  This type of meeting gives the leader a ’sounding board.’  The board can consider this meeting as a consultation with a stakeholder.

Many times with volunteer boards, it is the staff leader who provides the corporate memory for the board, and the leader should also watch to ensure that the ministry’s values and culture are respected by the board. The board will benefit from leadership in these areas.

Moving Ahead

Many leaders who are not directors fear that the board will slow them down by process or by second-guessing their decisions. This does not have to happen, and when it does, it might be the leader’s fault. If leaders keep the board fully-informed about their intentions, listen to the board and understand its concerns, and do their due diligence before going to the board, staff proposals should get a good reception and a quick answer. The key is that both staff and board are thinking alike in terms of mission, risk, stragegy and vision.  Good planning leads directly to fast action. If the trust level is high enough, the board might be willing to delegate more authority to the staff leader and further speed up the decision process.

Boards sometimes become paralyzed due to a negative political climate, or because of an ineffective governance model or a model that no longer fits the circumstances. The way forward in cases such as these is to do board development. Staff leaders can take the initiative and suggest books or consultants that might help directors see a brighter future. It is in the leader’s own interest to have the best board possible, and leaders should do whatever they can to help their board become a model of governance excellence.

Setting Strategy

The board’s role in strategic leadership is best described by Richard Chait, who wrote in Building Effective Boards for Religious Organizations: A Handbook for Trustees, Presidents, and Church Leaders that “No governing board can, in effect, spin the whole intricate web that constitutes organizational strategy….The board is best positioned to ensure that organization leaders think strategically and devise an organizational strategy in the first instance. At a basic level, the board can gauge whether the plan contains the elements of an identifiable, consistent, competitive, and realistic strategy….The board is also well positioned to evaluate whether the plan makes sense, both literally (Is it understandable?) and conceptually (Is it viable?)….The board leads largely by questions and not by answers….The board can constructively challenge the executive and senior staff to articulate the plan clearly, explain their reasoning persuasively, and confront squarely the plan’s feasibility, including its downside and its blind spots. In particular, the board should assess whether the plan serves the long-term welfare of the organization as a whole or the short-term indulgences of various constituents….Boards are not well designed to conceive, draft, or edit strategic plans. Instead, they should ask questions, examine the data, express concerns, state objections, suggest alternatives, and when necessary, ask the chief officer to return with a better plan” (pages 161-62).

Chait’s solution keeps the board in charge, exercising its fiduciary duty, while allowing the expertise of staff to guide the ministry’s strategy. Staff remain accountable to the board, but take the lead in suggesting what the strategy should be. Together, the board and staff create the ministry’s strategy.

The board should have an opportunity to contribute to the leader’s thinking before the planning process occurs. This could be done at a board-staff retreat or at a regular board meeting that discusses strategy. The leader can then consider the board’s issues and suggestions as the plan is developed.

Board Authority

A leader who does not accept the board’s authority is not likely to get far with the board. Rarely does a staff leader show outright disrespect for the board, but far more often their disrespect shows up in more subtle ways, such as not having all the board information out for pre-reading, not giving the board valid choices to consider, and not advising the board of negative information.

Staff leaders need to accept that the board is responsible for approving the strategic statements (i.e., vision, mission), for determining the strategic initiatives, and for ranking the strategic priorities by approving the strategic and annual action plans. The board is also responsible at law for the assets and mission of the ministry. In essence, the board is like the Canadian Senate: a chamber of sober second thought.

A senior staff leader shows they respect the board’s authority when they:

• Are teachable, willing to accept the board’s correction or ideas for improvement;
• Do what the board asks them to do;
• Respect the board by submitting well-documented reports and proposals far enough in advance of meetings that they can be read and thought about; and when they
• Follow board procedures and don’t use the old adage, “It’s easier to ask for forgiveness than for permission.” This is highly disrespectful of the board!

Board Trust

Senior staff leaders who are not on the board have no position authority over the board. They therefore must lead the board through moralsuasion, the use of argument and persuasion. A staff leader is in no position to force the board to do anything. Instead, they must rely on their personal credibility to inspire people to want to follow their advice. They must be accepted by the directors as a person who provides quality input to the board that is persuasive and compelling. A leader with credibility is:

• An expert in the ministry’s mission;
• Highly-conversant in both the environments in which the ministry operates and in the key issues that relate to its success;
• Close to all the stakeholders and in regular conversation with them, willing to absorb different points of view from their own to develop a realistic view of the present and future;
• Operating on a “no-surprise” policy, keeping the board fully-informed;
• Constantly thinking deeply about the ministry’s mission and about the future of the ministry as an organization (i.e., thinking not just at a program level, but also for the holistic health of the organization);
• A person who accepts responsibility for everything that happens in the ministry, whether it was delegated to another staff member or not;
• Ensures that everything presented to the board is done ‘first-rate;’ and is
• A leader who has internalized the mission and lives a life that manifests the best of what the ministry is all about.

It really helps the board have confidence in staff leadership when the senior staff leader thinks like a director.  Boards will have fewer worries when they know their interests and concerns are being addressed at the staff level without the board having to intervene.

Ministries will thrive when staff and board work together, respecting each other’s roles. Staff provide visionary leadership and boards provide them with an accountability partner that protects the organization and its mission.

Do you have any comments on this post? Why not leave a comment!

The Chapel served more meals in a week than any restaurant in Akron.  They had a feeding program for everyone it seemed.  They had an entire three storey WING just for youth ministry.  They didn’t have a singles group; they had singles groups for single and widowed, single and divorced, single and looking, and single and happy to be single.  They didn’t just have a support group for people dealing with issues.  They had support groups for cancer (three different kinds of cancer, as I recall), for grief, for broken families and on and on.  And the library!  They had a very large, impressive library, but then in an adjacent room were all the resources a pastor could ever want, including a rare book collection with at least one first edition of a 200 or 300 year old commentary.  It was AMAZING.

Regional churches such as this one are large enough that they can specialize and provide programs that few smaller churches could possibly provide.  (In 2003, 74% of all Canadian evangelical churches had fewer than 150 attendees.)  The large concentration of people enabled the church to move beyond providing basic services to offering very specific, targetted services that met specialized needs.  It is, in fact, a resource to all the churches in Akron.  And that is an advantage to being big.  I never again felt that large churches were out of place.  Large churches and agencies help the church fulfill its mission in ways that smaller organizations can’t.  Large and small churches both have their places.

Very few Christian ministries in Canada are large.  In my last post I gave some statistics showing how small most Canadian ministries are.  Based on the 22,000 T3010′s for Christian ministries that we have in our database at CCCC, here are some stats for the larger ministries:

• Only 1,179 ministries (6%) report more than $1 million in total revenue, and only 96 (0.6%) have more than $10 million
  • As a matter of interest, about half of the ministries with more than $1 million are members of CCCC (and all but 14 of the ones over $10 million are members)*
• Only 6.5% report ten or more employees, and only 317 (1.4%) report having more than 30
  • I’m highly suspicious of this number because a huge number of charities leave the line for employees blank.  Do they have no employees or are they not filling the form out correctly?  Nevertheless, the stats are what they are

Here are some of the advantages that large ministries provide to the mission of God and some of the responsibilities that go with their size.  It is possible that some smaller ministries may have some of these benefits too, but it is not likely that very many would.

• A small ministry works hard just to run its programs, but then it also has to fundraise, do all the administration and look after the myriad of other things that have to happen to make the ministry work.  (This is one reason why the CCCC exists – to help charities of all sizes with these supporting functions so they can concentrate more on their core missions!)  A larger ministry not only has the staff to do all of that, but it can also have staff who work on the ministry rather than in the ministry.  I got that idea from a secular business writer, Michael Gerber, who wrote The E-myth Revisited – required reading for any entrepreneur, including ministry entrepreneurs.  I’m not completely sold on everything he writes in the book, but I do think he’s got a gem of an idea as it applies to organizational leadership!  Larger ministries can have people with the time to think deeply about their mission and become thought-leaders in their fields.  In a ministry that overlaps with the secular sphere’s interests (such as relief work), they can speak out and be respected in the public sphere.
• Larger ministries have the capacity and infrastructure to take on a leadership role in much larger projects than most ministries could handle.  In overseas development work, for example, their ability to handle large, comprehensive projects that cover a region and not just a neighbourhood gives them credibility that may open doors to leverage Christian donations with government funding.  Rather than dealing with fifty small organizations, government funding agencies can deal with one or two large ones.
• Not only do large ministries have the people to handle larger projects, they also have the ability to raise significantly more funds than a small ministry can, and therefore can respond to more complex, expensive opportunities than a small ministry can.  There are a number of very large inner-city missions across Canada that I’ve toured that have developed some very exciting and comprehensive programs, but they required millions of dollars to implement them.
• While large ministries undoubtedly have more management overhead, good management results in more efficient operations.  And since there are more programs to allocate the overhead to, a large ministry is likely more efficient than a number of small ministries each running just a few programs, especially when one evaluates outcomes rather than simply outputs.
• Beneficiaries benefit from large ministries too.  Looking again at a large inner-city mission, it can provide its beneficiaries with a complete solution, such as a shelter combined with training for job skills and addiction counselling.
• With size comes responsibility (Luke 12:38).  Their size makes large ministries a highly visible witness to the world of Christian love and compassion at work.  This may be a side of Christianity that many people aren’t aware of, and these ministries may be the only Christian witness these people encounter.  Large ministries should make sure their Christian identity is known.
• A corollary of the last point is that since they do have such high public visibility, they will be seen by the public as representative of Christian ministries.  This means that all the more care must be taken by large ministries to protect the reputation of our faith.  If their practices are unbecoming a Christian ministry, all Christian ministries are discredited to a degree because of our shared identification with Jesus Christ.  So for this reason alone, even if there were no biblical basis for accountability to the body of Christ (which there is), they are accountable to us (and, of course, to the Lord himself!).
• Christian agencies provide a means for people to work together across denominational boundaries.  They provide “neutral territory” based on a common belief in the essentials of the Christian faith.  They are therefore a powerful witness to the unity of the people of God.  The large ministries, which are more likely to have a broad cross-section of the church represented among their staff and volunteers, should be sure to add to their primary mission a secondary mission of demonstrating the unity that can be achieved while respecting the diversity of denominational distinctives.  At every opportunity, I tell reporters and others that the CCCC membership reflects a broad cross-section of our faith and not just a few particular denominations.

So both large and small ministries have something to contribute to the work of the church.  This begs the question, if I have an idea for a new ministry, should I start my own or try to get an existing ministry to take it on?  I’ll address that in the next post.

* I revised these stats after looking at the actual list produced by the database.  There were, in fact, a number of non-Christian charities included in the stats as originally published in this post.

I wondered, what might a strategic plan have looked like if the apostles had felt they needed to write one?  Let’s speculate with a “What if…” scenario. 

(Don’t take the scenario too seriously folks, the serious point is at the end.) 

If this were a TV show,  your screen would now mist over as you enter an alternate world and find yourself in Jerusalem the day after Pentecost.  As the mist clears, we see the apostles holding a strategic retreat.   

Mission Statement

The mission seems pretty clear and they quickly agree it is: To be Christ’s witnesses (Acts 1:8) by preaching the gospel (Mark 16:15) in order to make disciples (Mat 28:19).  Sure, the Scripture references are anachronistic on several levels, but this scenario is preposterous on every level, so does it really matter?

As you watch events unfold, you notice a twist.  They interpret their mission as taking the gospel to the Jews wherever they have settled, even to the uttermost ends of the world.  Since the prophets repeatedly said that God’s promise to bless the nations will be fulfilled by the nations coming to Jerusalem, and not by Israel going to the nations, it simply is not in their minds to initiate a mission to the Gentiles, and in fact, they explicitly reject that possibility and put it in their plan as a guiding policy that they will follow the current Jewish practice of receiving Gentile converts but not looking for them.   

SWOT Analysis

The SWOT analysis starts off well enough, but in this alternate world the apostles get bogged down in the Weakness and Threat categories.  

“Well,” Peter starts off encouragingly (remembering the events of the previous day and the promise that the gates of Hades would not overcome the church), ”we do have the Lord’s backing and the Holy Spirit’s gifts.  Those are strengths.” 

“Yes,” someone acknowledges, “but they have the army, the judges and the crosses!  That’s a threat with a capital T for sure!”  

Peter, still with a bit of his old bravado, suggests that his preaching is a strength.  Thomas counters, “Yes it went well yesterday, but you can’t assume that God will do that everytime you preach.  Why would people listen to us when we have no recognized rabbinical training?  We all need to go to rabbinical school first to prepare  for our mission.  We need,” he said, “to study to show ourselves approved to handle the Word of God.” 

Tapping his toes with excess energy, one of the Sons of Thunder, itching to get moving, jumps to his feet and blurts out, ”Forget the egghead stuff!  We are weak because we have no POWER in the synagogues!  First we must build a coalition of leaders with AUTHORITY who can MAKE THINGS HAPPEN!”  

Unconvinced, a small voice pipes up, “Maybe in time we can do that, but right now we don’t even have the right people on the ox cart.  We need to get some of the upper class on board before we go public any more than we already have.” 

As the chair, Peter tests for a consensus.  “It sounds like we are agreed then that we’ll take a go-slow approach and build capacity before rolling out to the public.  We need to do some recruiting to our ranks, some training and some coalition building before the public phase.”  Hearing no opposition, he suggests they move on to develop a strategy for the public phase so they are ready for it when it is the right time.

Strategy

This was a short discussion as they decide, due to quality control concerns, that only the apostles should present the Gospel to anyone.  People speaking to family, friends and workmates would not be allowed to present the Gospel message, but would invite people to one of the mass evangelism events instead.

Performance Measurements

“Let’s see,” Matthew comments while calculating figures on his tablet.   ”If Peter could convert 3,000 in one sermon, I think a good target to shoot for, assuming we take a course and get more polished in our oratory skills, would be 5,500 people per sermon, and we should be able to do, what, ten sermons a week?  All we need is to have an advance group assemble a crowd so when the evangelist shows up he can concentrate his time on working in his area of strength – preaching.  So anything less than 3,000, which Peter already has shown is attainable with no sermon prep time and no training I might add, is not acceptable.”

Evaluation

Suddenly the scene blurs as we jump forward a few months to hear Thomas ask, “How are we doing?  Do you think we’ve done what we said we’d do?  Let’s do a program review.”

“Whoa!” someone exclaims.  “We don’t need to go through that exercise.  It’s obvious.  Just look at what happened to Stephen.  And Jerusalem is too hot for us to do anything in public anymore.  Doesn’t look like this certainty about our beliefs is going to take us very far.  I think we need to fine tune the message and appear more reasonable.  The hardline approach doesn’t work well.”

Implementation

Skipping forward a few years now, we come across Silas and Paul debating about the direction of their ministry.  The Plan agreed upon by the apostles has remained solid so far, but Paul has endangered it.  Silas says: ”I know, Paul, that you had this personal revelation about going to Macedonia, but the plan is to finish Asia first!  We committed to our Asian goals and now we have to perform!  We can’t change The Plan!”

Back to Reality

At this point, your screen mists over again and you are back in the real world where everything is once more as it should be.  “Phew!” you say to yourself, “that was a fun diversion, but I’m sure glad that’s not what they did!”  And you flip open your Bible to read again about the Lord of all creation who has called you into ministry to serve his purpose using his resources, and who goes before you and behind you.  You appreciate anew the power of the Holy Spirit who equips you and who works in the hearts of people, calling them to their Creator.  You feel a fresh affinity for Paul, who in his own weakness relied on God’s strength and turned the world’s order upsidedown through the foolishness of the Gospel.  You’re glad Peter set aside his preconceived plans and went to see Cornelius when God told him to go.

Does this mean that strategic planning is a no-no?  Not at all.  Preparation, planning and training are good practices.  Just be careful that, like everything else you do in your ministry, they support your mission and your identity as a Christian organization. 

The problem with traditional strategic planning is that the plan can easily become the master instead of the servant.  It can easily restrict God’s ability to be God and do fresh things today because once we have a plan we can become too attached to it.  Worse, strategic plans become straitjackets when performance evaluations are based on them. 

This is why I prefer to talk about strategic thinking or strategic management to strategic planning.  I see it as a way of leading as opposed to a periodic task.  There is a place for going through a specific strategy development process, one in which you give much more time to plumbing the depths of strategy, and in which you invest extra time in more thorough research than usual.  But the tools and techniques you use should go beyond objective analysis and leave room for subjective analysis, spiritual reflection and group discernment.

Fulfilling our organizational missions depends on us doing our part (which means we do have to plan), but it equally depends on us allowing God to do his part, which means our plans must be subject to change at any time.  That way, when we take a retrospective look at our progress, we will be able to say, “And here is where the miracle occured!”

I’d love to hear any stories or thoughts you have related to developing strategy for a Christian ministry.