The title of a recent article in the Wall Street Journal read, “America is reopening to tension: Easing restrictions is in some ways turning out to be more divisive than shutting down.” I find this statement to be painfully accurate as I listen to pastors and other ministry leaders. The first few weeks of the covid-19 pandemic were difficult, but regathering poses even bigger challenges now and in the weeks to come.

Why? In the first days of the pandemic, most churches and ministries shifted to 100% online. It wasn’t easy, but the steps to make the transition were relatively clear. Now we’ve entered a season of “in between” where the best path to take is much less obvious and the demands on leaders will be even greater than before.

Church and ministry leaders are finding themselves in between:

• Competing pressures to fully reopen and to remain closed, with a variety of other options in the middle. The people on both ends of this spectrum are often vocal and uncompromising, making it impossible to please everyone.
• Continuing online excellence while ramping up on-site offerings. A “hybrid” model (online and on-site) may sound like a great solution. But the cost required to accomplish this both/and approach can be weighty for leaders who already feel overwhelmed.
• Short-term tactical decisions and long-term creative ones. It’s easy to get whiplash going from questions about requiring masks to imaging what ministry should look like in a year (and how to prepare for that now). Both kinds of discussions are necessary and time consuming. 
• “We’ll eventually get back to normal” and “Ministry will never be the same again.” In those moments when you try to engage a team in creative conversations about the future, you may encounter a confused look or someone asking, “Why do we need to change?” 

I don’t have an easy solution for how to lead well during this in between season. But I am certain that the path forward begins with naming the stress and fatigue that you’re feeling. It requires pausing long enough to take inventory and to stop doing things that drain your energy and produce little fruit. It means making the best decisions you can (with your team) and then extending grace (to yourself and them) if you get it wrong. And it calls for carving out moments to rest – even though you “don’t have time” – because the “new normal” may be a long season of in between. 

It’s easy to receive my blogs by email. Just sign-up on Feedburner by clicking here.

Several weeks ago, David Brooks wrote an interesting editorial entitled, “The Welfare State is Broken. Here’s How to Fix It.” The editorial draws on the book, Radical Help, by British social entrepreneur Hilary Cottam. Brooks said a number of things that struck me as important, but one sentence stood out: “People tend to have better outcomes when they are held accountable by a network of peers.”

Brooks was writing specifically about people who are living on the margins and who are being “helped” in some way by governmental agencies. But his statement about outcomes is applicable on a much broader scale. 

When you think about the church or ministry or non-profit that you lead, what outcomes are you hoping to see? For example, “Our desired outcome is …”

• For every person in our church to grow spiritually and become more like Jesus.
• For every person in our church to use their God-given talents in ways that change the world for the better.
• For every child and teen that is connected to our church to love God and be committed to continuing their faith journey when they graduate from high school. 
• For each person that we serve to have stable, meaningful employment. 

Is Brooks’ statement about accountability in a network of peers applicable as you think about your desired outcomes? 

It’s hard for me to imagine that meaningful peer accountability wouldn’t significantly improve any of these outcomes. And yet, we often invest nominal effort in creating the expectations, culture, and systems that will foster that kind of community. Sure, we might encourage people to be in a small group, but do we devote the time and energy that says, “This is the most important thing we do”? When evaluating groups, do we set a high bar of success based on intended outcomes, or do we just focus on attendance?

I know that this kind of work is hard and messy and that peer accountability can be elusive. But if it’s the best way to achieve the outcomes that matter, shouldn’t it be a priority? 

It’s easy to receive my blogs by email. Just sign-up on Feedburner by clicking here.