Love . . .
bears all things,
believes all things,
hopes all things, and
endures all things.
(I Corinthians 13:7 NASB)[i]
always protects,
always trusts,
always hopes,
always perseveres.
(I Corinthians 13:7 NIV) [ii]
In the oft-cited passage nicknamed the “love chapter” of the New Testament, one tiny phrase has always forced me to pause. Like a spot on a familiar garment where I know that a zipper will drag and need to be coaxed along its track, two or three little words in that otherwise smooth passage require me to slow down and pay attention before I can move on. Depending on the translation, those words are “always trusts” or “believes all things.”
When I was a teenager, I took those words (believes and trusts) at face value, and I felt guilty at the thought that if I didn’t trust or believe someone, then I must not really love him/her. Even then, I had enough experience to wonder, “But how can that be?”
As I got older, it took about two milliseconds of exposure to adult dilemmas for my misinterpretation to evaporate. An abused spouse, the friend of an alcoholic, or the parents of a dishonest child all know quite well that love does not mean unmeasured trust or a simplistic commitment to overlook faults and just hope for the best. Concepts like “tough love” make sense to adults because we know that sometimes the most resolute love requires the suspension of uncritical trust, exactly the opposite of my teenage view.
Lately, I’ve observed a developing, multi-tiered crisis that good and capable people dear to me have seemed unable to manage. It has prompted me to consider how a thoughtful weighing of trust matters not only to relationships between individuals but also to the governance of organizations. As with individuals, it seems to me that sometimes organizations lose their way by not exercising wisdom in extending trust.
How do Christian non-profit boards wisely trust—or, more pertinently, distrust—one another and those whom they are duty-bound to hold accountable, especially if members aspire to live by biblical standards of love?
Defining Terms
Scripture is replete with encouragement to interact honorably with others: for example, to “live peaceably with everyone, as much as it depends on you,”[iii] to distance oneself from idle troublemakers or busy-bodies,[iv] and to “let your gentleness be evident to all.”[v] Of course, Scripture is also clear that mousy passivity is not the goal. John the Baptist called legalistic religious leaders of his day a “brood of vipers,”[vi] right to their faces. Jesus flipped the tables in the temple and called out corrupt leaders as hypocrites and “whitewashed tombs.”[vii] Paul got pretty feisty in his public addresses, judicial hearings, and letters to churches—perhaps most colorfully in his scrappy wish that agitators would just “go the whole way and emasculate themselves.”[viii]
Yet, I have been surprised to encounter people in Christian and other nonprofit organizations over the years who, desiring to do right, seem to have an allergic reaction to engaging in healthy and necessary assessment. I can imagine their discomfort. After all, if love “keeps no record of wrongs” and “always trusts,” then who are we to criticize the leaders of organizations or to hold one another accountable? What does belief or trust mean as an indicator of Christian love in 1 Corinthians 13:7?
If (like me) you aren’t a Bible scholar, you can easily access free resources online to gain some perspective (See endnote for a walkthrough of my process).[ix] By reading through the ways different translations express the same Greek word and by surveying all the verses in which it’s used in the New Testament, you’ll notice that the verb translated as believes or trusts expresses something like faith: a combination of belief, trust, and commitment—not simple intellectual assent to an untested idea, but a placing of confidence in someone or something deemed to be good or true.
Does that mean that if we love people, we will place our unconditional confidence in them? Does it mean that a board operating in love should avoid exercising scrutiny of leaders and even of one another, remaining committed no matter what? Certainly not.
Consider another helpful free online resource for non-experts: links to classic commentaries.[x] Matthew Henry, whose 1706 work was praised by people like John Wesley, George Whitefield, and Charles Spurgeon, captures the overall aim of this particular passage:
“Charity is an utter enemy to selfishness. . . . Not that charity destroys all regard to ourselves, or that the charitable man should neglect himself and all his interests. But charity . . . ever prefers the welfare of others to its private advantage. How good-natured and amiable is Christian charity! How excellent would Christianity appear to the world, if those who profess it were more under this Divine principle. . . . Has this principle guided us into becoming behaviour to all men? Are we willing to lay aside selfish objects and aims? Here is a call to watchfulness, diligence, and prayer.”[xi]
Certainly, a board committed to love can learn from this explanation.
Likewise, John Wesley’s 1755 Notes on the Bible takes all components of the verse—bearing, believing, hoping, and enduring—into consideration. He begins by emphasizing love’s reluctance to judge or to dishonor:
“Whatever evil the lover of mankind sees, hears, or knows of any one, he mentions it to none; it never goes out of his lips, unless where absolute duty constrains to speak. [Love] puts the most favourable construction on everything, and is ever ready to believe whatever may tend to the advantage of any one character.”
But notice that Wesley does not believe that a commitment to think and speak of others in the most honorable light means ignoring or minimizing serious shortcomings. He continues:
“And when [love] can no longer believe well, it hopes whatever may excuse or extenuate the fault which cannot be denied. Where it cannot even excuse, it hopes God will at length give repentance unto life. Meantime it endureth all things: whatever the injustice, the malice, the cruelty of men can inflict. He can not only do, but likewise suffer, all things, through Christ who strengtheneth him.”[xii]
Note that both Henry and Wesley make it clear that love is both clear-headed and full-hearted in its exercise of trust. They see “believes all things” or “always trusts” in light of God’s own honest and optimistic assessment of people: he addresses failings and yet desires the offender’s ultimate repentance and restoration.
If you serve on a Christian board, this hopeful but wide-awake trust is what your love for the organization and for one another requires. It is neither organizational infatuation nor passive deference, but love that has substance and integrity.
Feeling Like Friends
Understandably, trustees or directors who cherish the organization they serve find great reward in warm rapport with one another, and they take care to preserve a climate of friendship. Their affection promotes a positive tone and organizational image to the public. These feelings that spring up automatically from deep wells of gratitude and nostalgia are a strength to the organization.
But unlike team spirit, trust must be deliberate. It should not be automatic. If, on top of institutional loyalty, board members also tend to be encouragers or to avoid confrontation, being measured in assessments of trustworthiness might not come naturally. But it’s crucial.
Consider a beloved nephew or the kid next door. Tender affection and joyful recollections of his birth and childhood may flow freely. But if he asks to borrow the new car when he gets his license? Or promises to care for a treasured pet while the owners are out of the country for two weeks? Or if he becomes a financial planner someday and claims that he can manage the retirement savings? Without a doubt, trust gets weighed. When the stakes are recognized, even the closest friends and most doting admirers find themselves willing to ask some uncomfortable questions. Love may be free, but trust must be measured.
Between the two of us, Scott and I have served for multi-year terms and in various roles on roughly a dozen boards, and we usually end up debriefing the general high and low points of various meetings. Our most satisfying experiences have been on boards with built-in supports for gracious tenacity. That is, some boards have been tenacious enough to insist that members truly understand what is going on within the organization and to assess strengths and weaknesses knowledgeably. They have been gracious enough to communicate in ways that keep everyone engaged and energized. And they have reinforced these qualities through built-in practices (not just intentions) that promote transparency and accountability: a schedule of clear reporting and performance reviews, early dissemination of meeting materials, and collaborative meetings that include sufficient time for clarity and discussion. When such structures have been in place, we have felt reasonably confident that we were trusting rightly.
More often, we’ve felt that boards tend to lean toward the extremes. Some don’t trust nearly enough and are far too critical of organizational leaders and staff. I served on a board in which members barely allowed the leader to float even the most benign idea for discussion before shooting it full of holes. On another board, a few members relentlessly prodded the staff—peck, peck, peck—and the chair did not restrain them. These two boards paid dearly for their unchecked critique and would have benefited from extending more trust to responsible leaders.
The other extreme is less combative but probably more dangerous. In an atmosphere of unmeasured trust, no one is watchful, no one wants to rock the boat, and everyone appears to be happy. Some even assume that this non-critical attitude is evidence of maturity, self-control, or brotherly love. Author Malcolm Gladwell says that this propensity to trust too freely is rooted in a false assumption that what we see of people is a true reflection of who they are; we rarely suspect that our perceptions of trustworthiness are wrong or that others could be presenting a false front.[xiii] The problem is that such a rosy filter allows problems to remain hidden and wrongdoing to go undetected.
The consequences can be enormous. My husband and I were associated with one ministry in which an overly affirming, complacent board allowed a new CEO to bankrupt the organization entirely. How long did it take? Two years total, from the day he was hired until the accounts were all emptied and property sold to pay off debts—in other words, not long at all. By the time the board started asking questions and having uncomfortable conversations, it was too late, and a once strong ministry was gone.
Similarly, we know of a board on which the chair routinely forced votes on consequential matters about which members lacked information and did not feel prepared. Members admitted to us that they had complied with the rushed actions because they had each privately believed him/herself to be the only one feeling confused, and it had taken several tumultuous decisions before they began to suspect that they were all being kept in the dark on purpose so that the chair could influence outcomes to his own advantage. This kind of behavior is not something anyone on a nonprofit board for a noble cause wants to expect or believe, and the propensity to trust unquestioningly made that board vulnerable.
My husband and I were surprised to discover just how differently organizations weigh trust when we had the opportunity to experience the leadership culture of another denomination for a few years. At their governance meetings, which were very similar in structure and flow to those of our own denomination, we noticed that participants directly rebutted from the floor the assertions of leaders on the stage. They demanded clarification for vague answers and openly discussed leaders’ mistakes or shortcomings, even though they entrusted those leaders with significant power and autonomy in decision-making.
In vivid contrast, we recalled the propensity of our own familiar tribe to resist entrusting leaders with independent authority, but yet to recoil at open critique or distrust of them. We noted a tendency to avoid confrontation, rarely addressing anything negative until a leader’s shortcomings had become egregious and obvious. It seemed to us that we typically waited, hoping for the best and trusting a leader to discern and carry out what he or she had been called to do. In good times and with most leaders, that posture works.
But that apparent strength for some situations can conceal significant liabilities for others. When our trust is buoyed by unchecked optimism, we can tolerate for too long leaders who are ineffective. Damage can accumulate. Even worse, we can risk enabling the rare bad apple whose stealth and self-interest could destroy us. Institutions can die. If there were wolves devouring or “hired hands” neglecting the sheep,[xiv] we would likely not recognize them because we cannot imagine that such actors could ever possibly prowl among us.
Learning Together
I’m no expert in board governance and benefit from helpful resources like this one by David Drury to help me improve my own performance as a board member. I can readily admit that docile, trusting positivity lures me like an inviting bath. I doubt I’m alone in that temptation. Because it’s pleasant to serve with optimistic and encouraging people, my hunch is that excessive critique is easier to notice and correct than excessive optimism. We’d all prefer that board meetings end on a happy note, perhaps even when they shouldn’t.
So how can a board that loves its organization and one another avoid extremes and develop a healthy practice of measured trust? How do you?
I welcome your suggestions and feedback!
[i] New American Standard Bible
[ii] New International Version
[iii] Romans 12:18
[iv] 2 Thessalonians 3:11
[v] Philippians 4:5
[vi] Matthew 3:7
[vii] Matthew 23:27
[viii] Galatians 5:12
[ix] Here is how I used free online tools for more understanding of this phrase. If you enter the verse reference (1 Cor. 13:7) into Google and then select Bible Hub, you can see in one listing how different translations render that particular phrase. Then, on that same page, if you scroll all the way to “Greek” at the bottom, you can click the Strong’s concordance reference number for the exact word (believe), and you will land on a list that shows every time that word is used in the New Testament.
[x] You can find both of these commentaries through the same Bible Hub page through a link that says Parallel Commentaries. Their links are abbreviated as MHC and WES.
[xi] 1706. Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible. Available online in public domain.
[xii] 1755. John Wesley’s Notes on the Bible. Available online in public domain.
[xiii] 2019. In Talking to Strangers: What We Should Know about the People We Don’t Know.
[xiv] See John 10.
VIBRANCY 