week 2 replies 845
arnita
week2repliescled845.docxWeek 2 replies cled 845
11:31amJun 30 at 11:31am
Discussion Thread: The Power of Process in Team Ministry
Teams are important to organizations because of the collaborative problem solving that becomes available to the organization. The defined processes for these teams are combined actions from the individual members and their resources and knowledge to achieve a collective goal or purpose (Ean, 2020). He continues that this process consists of interrelated activities that interact to achieve a result; without them, a team will be "dysfunctional". The Bible ( Ecclesiastes 4:9-10 (Links to an external site.) ) puts it this way, “Two are better than one, because they have a good reward for their toil. For if they fall, one will lift up his fellow. But woe to him who is alone when he falls and has not another to lift him up!”
According to MacMillian (2001), within many organizations, teams are volunteers which means that the concept of choice is a factor. As a result, he continues, choice means that a member can corporate with the team or not. A team member cannot be forced to cooperate nor can a group be declared a team. Cooperation at high levels is a product of choice; choices made one person at a time for reasons that are often unique to that individual. The alignment of all team members, the organizational goals, and the leader, are ingredients for harmony and high-performance results.
According to MacMillian (2001) confusion occurs when teams are seen as the end versus the means to the end. Teams are formed to achieve goals that would otherwise be too big and complex to achieve simply using individual efforts. Teams and processes go together. In unlocking performance factors and the issues that prevent some teams from performing, MacMillan (2001) outlines four common barriers to developing effective teams’ processes listed as:
1. Unclear need
2. Lack of time
3. Process evolution versus design
4. Management opposition
When looking deeper into these barriers, a ministry of my church I’d like to address relates to #1 unclear need. At my church, FBCU, a capital campaign and building fund was established 18 years ago. During that time, the church was growing and we saw FBCU at its’ peak. The building fund was established under a covenant of the Bible (Nehemiah 4:6), “So built we the wall; and all the wall was joined together unto the half thereof: for the people had a mind to work.” For the past 12 years, I have been the chairperson for the capital campaign. The estimate for FBCU to build a new sanctuary 12 years ago was 6 million dollars which probably translates into a cost of about 8.5 million today. When the capital campaign team was formed 12 years ago, we were an excited team who had an initial goal to raise 1 million dollars and the remainder would be financed through a bank. While much has changed over the past 12 years, i.e., two Pastors left the church, and one passed away. Additionally, many members left with the terminated pastor who helped to establish the capital campaign initially. Now, on top of this, a few members have died from COVID, young people prefer online service, and other issues and trends that impact the church has to be considered.
Today, I believe that if an assessment was conducted originally to determine the need for a new sanctuary, we would be in a better position for moving forward. Currently, the building fund has 1.2 million in the account, few members in the church, barely a handful of young people, and a dysfunctional capital campaign team. As a result, building a new sanctuary for FBCU has been at a standstill for the past five years. The current pastor has been at the church for three years; most of which he was not in the sanctuary because of the pandemic. Last month, he asked me to establish another team for the capital campaign and conduct an analysis to determine the best course of action or process to move forward. I feel better equipped for this undertaking due to much of what MacMillian discusses in his book. I will also evaluate as part of my report whether the members still have a mind to build in accordance with the original Biblical (Nehemiah 4:6) premise.
References
Crawford. E.R. (2020), Team Processes. Oxford Bibliographies. https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199846740/obo-9780199846740-0192.xm (Links to an external site.)
King James Bible. (1998). Holman Bible Publishers. (Original work published 1611).
MacMillan, P. (2001). The Performance Factor: Unlocking the Secrets of Teamwork (Links to an external site.) (Nashville, TN: B&H, 2001).
MondayJun 27 at 11:47am
MacMillan describes four common barriers to developing effective team processes:
1. Unclear need
2. Lack of time
3. Process evolution versus design
4. Management opposition
These barriers are encountered in almost every organization. In the context of a secular non-ministry corporate organization, attention must be paid to every one of these barriers since they typically cause rework or outright failure. This student has personally encountered issues related to each of these areas in the work environment.
Within local church organizations and, more specifically, for pastoral ministry the critical barrier to overcome, based on MacMillan’s description, is that of “Process evolution versus design.” Needs may be clear, time may be relatively well managed, and there may not be any appreciable “management” opposition. However, with the constant change of members, visitors, and leaders, including the lead pastor, the church can often resemble MacMillan’s childhood home where, “One more “fix,” and the whole structure would surely come tumbling down around our shoulders. I see many processes that remind me of my childhood home, processes that are a product of evolution rather than design” (MacMillan, 2001, ch. 7). Churches and pastors can be particularly prone to “do it the way it has always been done” rather than fixing the process or addressing ministry gaps. With every change of circumstances or leadership, local churches must ensure that the big picture, the foundational purpose of the church, and the overarching design of the church are reinforced.
In this student’s ministry as a lead pastor for three years of a church that was established 33 years ago but had declined in number and vitality, the ongoing need and the focus for the rest of this year is to reestablish the foundation, revitalize the programs, recognize current and potential leaders, renew the commitments for anyone serving in any capacity in the church, and continue with expository preaching based building up of everyone in the church. The first action this student took as the new pastor was to define a mission statement for the church: Loving God, Loving Others, Making Disciples. As Paul describes in 1 Corinthians 3, the focus is now on sowing, watering, and praying for the increase. To use the second metaphor that Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 3, the focus is on leading the regular activities of the church to build on the foundation of Christ and him crucified so that members mature and are able to consume the solid food of the Word of God.
Reference:
MacMillan, P. (2001). The Performance Factor: Unlocking the Secrets of Teamwork. Broadman & Holman.
