Positives, Negatives & Neutrals

Every ministry leader needs to be a positive. They also need to know who the positives, negatives, and neutrals are both in official leadership and unofficial leadership in their ministry.

Positives are people who do gospel things in gospel ways for gospel reasons. They are trusting, supportive, and encouraging. They build bridges and mediate conflict. Positives bring organizational health, work for the good of the gospel over any single issue or cause, and are a blessing because they humbly want the gospel to win. Positives are prone to turn neutrals into positives, while they also work to neutralize negatives. In the Bible, positives are often referred to as shepherds.

Negatives are people who do ungospel things in ungospel ways for ungospel reasons. They are distrusting, unsupportive, discouraging, and contentious. They burn bridges, are wounded by bitterness from past hurts, and are often the center of criticism and conflict. Negatives bring organizational sickness, division, and trouble because they are proudly more interested in their cause winning than the gospel and the good of the whole. Negatives tend to draw other negatives toward themselves as factions, and they also prey on neutrals in order to increase their own power and control. In the Bible, negatives are often referred to as wolves.

Neutrals are followers who are easily influenced. They are prone to being unsure, confused, and fearful. Neutrals are often caught in the middle when there is conflict between positives and negatives. A neutral becomes a positive or negative depending upon who their friends are, whom they listen to, what information they have access to, which books they read, and which teachers they look up to. In the Bible, neutrals are often referred to as sheep.

Sadly, in most ministries, the negatives are the most vocal, most exhausting, and most distracting, as well as the least likely to contribute to growth and health. Though they are few, they are often loud and difficult, spreading - as Paul says - like gangrene through the church body (2 Tim. 2:17). Practically, this means that even a few negatives working together can become quite difficult. The Bible reveals that negatives often pair up like two barrels on a gun, as was the case with Jannes and Jambres opposing Moses, Sanballat and Tobiah opposing Nehemiah, and Hymenaeus and Alexander opposing Paul.

For a ministry to remain positive, three things need to occur.

First, the senior leader and the other official and unofficial leaders who wield the most influence must be positives. Further, they must be continually exhorted to remain positives. This means that even when they deal with negative things, they do so in a positive way for the glory of God and the good of his people.

Second, the negatives must not be allowed into leadership. If they are in leadership, official or unofficial, they must be rebuked. Titus 3:10-11 describes this rebuke: "As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned."

Too often negatives are tolerated for too long; the longer their sin is tolerated, the more toxic the ministry culture becomes. Therefore, unrepentant negatives need to be brought through formal church discipline after their negativity has been documented and addressed; this process may end with their removal from the ministry, if needed. Ministry leaders are often reticent to deal so forthrightly with negatives; however, the longer they are tolerated, the more neutrals they infect with their gangrene.

Third, the neutrals need to be lovingly and patiently informed that they are in fact neutrals and that they need to take responsibility to not give in to negatives. Additionally, neutrals cannot be allowed into ministry leadership because they are prone to be influenced rather than be influencers. Sadly, neutrals are often nominated for and voted in to ministry leadership because they tend to be nice people who are likeable because they are amiable and easily influenced. But they are prone to work toward consensus rather than lead and are therefore not helpful for moving a ministry forward into innovation and growth.

Change is controversial and requires someone who is a strong positive to build consensus for change and who is also able to neutralize the negatives rather than being influenced by them.

 

9 Comments »

1. Good framework of thought and well-written.  But I would caution against readining things into this that are not there and the temptation to label dissenters as negative and scapegoat them.  I’m fine with the defintion given (non-gospel things for non-gospel reasons), but it’s too easy to impute and judge motivation (non-gospel reason)——-if you don’t agree with me, you are sowing discord.

   Take the extra time and work to check out what you perceive as negativity.  It’s one of the core practices of mediation and can yield an abundance of good information and relationships.  Most people want to be heard.  Churches (and almost every other organzation) seldom offer the opprotunity in a *meaningful* way.

   Comment by Joe - May 19, 2009 @ 09:07 AM

2. When I read between the lines here it would appear that anyone who disagrees with Mark Driscoll would be a negative and any neutral who doesn’t agree wtih Mark Driscoll is a negative. Hence, if you agree with Mark Driscoll and his interpretation of “gospel reason” then you are a positive.

   Personally I don’t agree with Mark’s crude language from the pulpit. Since I don’t agree, I’d probably be labelled a negative in his ministry.

   All you “neutrals” out there had better pick a side and it had better be Mark’s because if it’s not you’ll never grow as a church. Please.

   The motive of this article may be pure, but the reason for it by Mark Driscoll may not be. I cannot take anyone who uses crude language in the pulpit seriously so if Mark’s motives are pure, his crudeness is a stumbling block to learn from him for me. God gives Grace to the humble.

   Comment by Chris - May 19, 2009 @ 01:41 PM

3. I agree with most of what Mark laid out.  The one thing I would disagree with is Mark’s statement that Neutrals not be allowed in church leadership.  Our job as church leaders is not to choose other leaders.  It is to pray about who God wants to join us in “official” leadership.  How many of us had it all together when God called us into ministry?  How many of us have it all together now?  God may call whomever He chooses and then use the experiences and ministry that He calls that leader into to shape and mature them.  Was Paul a Positive when God called him?  I don’t think so.  He became sold out as a follower, but when God called him he would have to be categorized as a Negative at best.  As leaders we need to be careful that we don’t put our qualifications on leadership above those given within scripture.  God calls out the sheep to become shepherds, that is not our job.

   Comment by Larry - May 19, 2009 @ 02:13 PM

4. Great article! Thanks to Mark for this help!

   Comment by Shane Smith - May 19, 2009 @ 03:24 PM

5. Great article and very helpful.  It was right on target and practical!  I have been a part of ‘negative leader driven’ churches before, and know of far too many others.  Those churches don’t get much done for the Kingdom because the leadership is too wrapped up in the negative junk that is attached to the negatives. 

   To respond to something Larry posted in #3 - ‘Was Paul a Positive when God called him?’  What we must remember is that while Paul was certainly not fit for leadership immediately after his Damascus Road experience with Christ, he was not called into leadership immediately.  He had a few years of refining by God (becoming a Positive) before he took on any church leadership (Galatians 1:13-17).

   Comment by Ian Stamps - May 21, 2009 @ 05:35 PM

6. Yeah, I’m not nuts about some of the language Mark uses or the smug way he comes off. That said, I think this post is very practical and gives something to really think about and use discernment with if you open your mindset to it.

   Some of the reasoning above of skeptics on some of the points I understand but can also easily become man reasoning to water things down and get into tough and hurtful situations. One lesson I learned the hard way was not putting “neutrals”(to use this vocab) into key leadership roles.

   The bible is clear on the qualifications of leaders and they should not be in those roles until they are ready. It’s like saying I’ll marry him and change him after we are married. It’s not good and when a nuetral in a leadership role goes towards negative instead of positive, they are then in a role to hurt handfuls of people, split the church community, and shut down a ministry into a long period of healing and rebuilding.

   Be cautious on who you put into leadership.

   Comment by Thomas - May 21, 2009 @ 08:39 PM

7. Our job as church leaders is not to choose other leaders.  It is to pray about who God wants to join us in “official” leadership.  How many of us had it all together when God called us into ministry?  How many of us have it all together now?  God may call whomever He chooses and then use the experiences and ministry that He calls that leader into to shape and mature them.  Was Paul a Positive when God called him?  I don’t think so.  He became sold out as a follower, but when God called him he would have to be categorized as a Negative at best.  As leaders we need to be careful that we don’t put our qualifications on leadership above those given within scripture.  God calls out the sheep to become shepherds, that is not our job.

   Comment by Filtered Water Vancouver - Jun 11, 2009 @ 10:27 AM

8. This is simplistic reasoning. It vilifies those with real concerns and disagreements. what about the negative who wraps their efforts in positive messages. Simple, formulaic approaches, easily cause as much problems as the complex life situations they try to encapsulate. These kinds of messages are the breeding ground for dogmatic legalism. Discernment and wisdom are venerated in scripture becuase they are rare and difficult, not and easy A,B or C formula.

   Comment by Paul - Jun 12, 2009 @ 03:12 PM

9. “Driscoll has little patience for dissent. In 2007, two elders protested a plan to reorganize the church that, according to critics, consolidated power in the hands of Driscoll and his closest aides. Driscoll told the congregation that he asked advice on how to handle stubborn subordinates from a “mixed martial artist and Ultimate Fighter, good guy” who attends Mars Hill. “His answer was brilliant,” Driscoll reported. “He said, ‘I break their nose.’ ” When one of the renegade elders refused to repent, the church leadership ordered members to shun him. One member complained on an online message board and instantly found his membership privileges suspended. “They are sinning through questioning,” Driscoll preached.”

   Excerpt from “Who would Jesus Smackdown?”, The New York Times, 1/6/2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/magazine/11punk-t.html

   Comment by R. Kelley - Jun 17, 2009 @ 05:11 AM

Sorry, but commenting is no longer available for this post.