Lausanne World Pulse – World Pulse Archives – World Pulse Archives

It’s a pleasant enough meeting room. Large windows look out onto fields and woods, a stream intersecting both. Coffee cups, water bottles, snacks, books and files cover much of the polished mahogany table surrounded by comfortable chairs.

The setting and technology seem able to meet any imaginable need. But among those sitting around the table, one essential piece is missing. These men and women lack the will to persevere until most of them agree on the best solutions. Too often in missions this missing factor hinders success. A ministry philosophy that highly values unity often fails to balance the just-as-vital value of effectiveness. At the same time, those who go against the grain and pursue “effectiveness at any cost” may dismiss unity too glibly. There is a better way.

Everyone in missions leadership must get along and make decisions. That sounds simple enough, but these two goals are often pitted against each other, and sacrificed on each other’s altar far more than we realize. Some people naturally gravitate more easily to the goal of getting along, while others focus on making wise decisions (as they judge them) and tend to let the chips fall where they may. These two sides themselves may be internally divided over means and priorities, making effective decision-making even more challenging.

The too-common solution is to “punt”—an American football term applied here to say no effective solution exists, so we’ll just continue our work and hope that the issue resolves itself. This reminds me of a definition for insanity I’ve heard: “doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome.”

We may too easily throw up our hands, concluding that we must just put up with our differences. While this may be true at times, this response is improper for most circumstances where thoughtful principles should guide what we do. Too often, though, it’s simply individual preferences that win the day.

A better solution is what I call “lock-the-door leadership.” Gathering the right people in the room is the essential first step for this to work. Unless the opinion-shapers are aptly represented, the group runs the risk of more splits and discord. But if the right people meet, and the leader sets the tone for a good exchange of ideas, big things can be accomplished.

The second key: the group’s leader must be committed to finding the right solution and must be willing to hold his fellow leaders to the task until the end. “Locking the door,” at least figuratively, is vital to making that happen. All must agree that failure is not an option.

When people on opposite sides of an issue genuinely listen and hear one another in a spirit of pursuing Christ-likeness, amazing progress can be achieved. I’ve seen these cases in point: One group created best-practice guidelines for ministry among Muslims even though huge opinion differences existed at the start. Another developed a useful system for sending and receiving short-term missions teams, though home and field offices were originally deeply divided. A regional team agreed on how best to use outside finances to help local ministry initiatives without creating unhealthy dependence, never an easy task.

When respected leaders known for holding opposite positions jointly reach agreement, these decisions become powerful shapers of policy and practice at any level. None of this is rocket science, but the principles work. Why not give it a try?

Gary Corwin is associate editor of Evangelical Missions Quarterly and a special representative with SIM in Charlotte, N.C.