Last week I considered who makes up a board and training being a necessity for the members to live effectively into their role – as helpers. 

                Today, many times we go to a secular model for our church boards rather than a biblical one, and we see the church board as a board of directors which has as a major part of its job to direct and evaluate the pastor.  Perhaps even more that than helping the pastor.  Moses enlisted the first elders and he asked them to be helpers.  There's no where in the text that they are appointed to be his Board of Directors evaluating him.  Not that he couldn't have used that.  Every leader should have this. 

                 Imagine all those boards above, comprised of those particular people, not helping the banker, dentist, and pastor but directing them and evaluating them.  Not that that couldn’t effectively happen or shouldn’t happen.  I’m not saying that.  But again it should not happen without real training in how directing and evaluating and how banking or dentistry or ministry really works. 

One very simple maxim for a board undertaking such a role is, “If you haven’t said clearly how it ought to be, you have less right to evaluate how it is.”  In other words, have the board members and, say, the pastor, ahead of time agreed to what the duties are, what the results desired are?  If not, then what can happen is that evaluation happens against whatever the desire de jour is or whatever the last performance gap was.  “You haven’t given us enough fellowship events.”  There may be a felt need for those events but was that actually asked for?  If no, it isn’t a fair evaluation.  

Usually, we find that our supervisors evaluate.  Sometimes it is peer review.  Sometimes it 360 degrees.  So a banking board, a peer group of dentists, and, in our case, a presbytery would be sane to have doing this role.  Don't you think?