Tuesday, December 04, 2007
Pastor John
I was down at the local Starbucks the other day and ran into Ryan, a guy I met briefly at the church I’ve been attending for the last couple of months or so. I was glad to see him because on Sunday he mentioned he was one of the elders. I was looking to get involved in something at the church, and I was hoping I could talk to him about various ministry opportunities. Who better to talk to than one of the leaders?
“Hey, Ryan,” I said. “How are you doing?” He looked up at me with a puzzled look on his face. “Do I know you?” he asked. “Um…yeah. Name’s Chuck, remember? I’ve been coming to the church for a while now. We were talking on Sunday.” “Oh, yeah, now I remember you. Hey listen, if you’re not sitting anywhere, grab a seat.”
I sat down next to him and, after a few minutes of small talk, said, “Hey Ryan, can I ask you a question?” “Sure, fire away,” he replied. “Well, I’ve been coming to the church for a couple of months now,” I said. “I know you just hired Pastor John a while ago, and I was thinking about getting involved in some kinds of ministry. You know, help the guy out or something.” “Hmmm. Interesting thought. So what kinds of stuff were you thinking about getting involved in?”
“I’m a bookkeeper by trade,” I said. “Do you think the church could use some help with keeping the books?” “No,” he said. “See, Pastor John takes care of balancing all the books and writing all the checks for bills and stuff. Got him a used computer too, and of course, took it out of his paycheck.” I thought for a minute. “Well, I’m pretty handy with a hammer,” I said. “I could do some of the repairs around the building. Maybe I could mow the lawn? Or help clean the building?” “Nah, we’ve got all that covered,” he replied. “Pastor John mows the lawn on Sundays after the service, and cleans the building every Saturday night. In fact, we even bought him a new lawnmower and a new vacuum cleaner when he came on board. Of course, we did take ‘em out of his paycheck.” “What about tools?” I asked. “I’ve got a lot of tools he could borrow…” “Nope,” he interrupted. “One of the things on his job description was for him to bring his own tools for use on the building. He’s OK for tools.”
I took a sip of coffee. “What about teaching?” I asked. “I did a couple years of Bible College. I could teach a Sunday School class, or a home group.” “Let me think about that,” he said reflectively. “Actually, right now there’s really no need for teachers. You see, Pastor John and his wife teach the Sunday School classes before the service, and then during the week he leads the three home groups we’ve got—let’s see, that’d be Monday, Tuesday, and Friday nights—so you can see, we don’t need any teachers right now.”
“I’ve got it,” I said. “How about the youth group? I’m pretty good with teens—maybe I could help out there or something.” “Nope,” he replied. “Pastor John and his wife lead the teens group on Thursday nights, and they organize all the outings and stuff, you know, drive the van and all that, so I don’t really think they need your help.” “Hey—maybe I could work on the van,” I said. “What happens if it breaks down? What about oil changes and stuff?” “Thanks for the offer, Chuck, but there again, we cleared a nice little spot out back of the building for Pastor John to work on the van when it breaks down. Just to help him out, we even bought him a set of wrenches the other day! ‘Course we took it out of his paycheck, but at least now he doesn’t have to keep borrowing tools from people anymore. I swear that van has never run so good. Sure nice to have a van, too, so Pastor John can take some of the senior citizens around to doctors’ appointments and shopping during the week.”
"How about music?"I asked. "I play a pretty mean guitar. I used to lead worship now and then at my former church. I could step in..." He interrupted once again. "Sorry, Chuck, I'm sure you're a good guitar player, but you see, Pastor John and his wife handle all the worship. See, we got us a two-for-one deal there! She plays piano, and he leads the singing. And the best part is, we only have to pay him! Of course, for her, it's all about the ministry. We specified on his job description that his wife would lead several 'unpaid' ministries as part of her duties here. Got to set a good example to the other wives, you know!"
I sat back and thought for a bit. What other services could I offer? Then it hit me. “How about visitation? I don’t really mind going to hospitals, or nursing homes, or whatever. Maybe I could do something like that.” He thought for a second, then said, “Well, there again, Pastor John takes care of visitation. Part of his job description, you know.” “What about evangelism?” I asked. “I don’t really mind going door to door, you know, sort of cold-calling.” “Hmm. Well, you see, Chuck, if you did that, you’d be taking away from some of Pastor John’s weekly duties—how he earns his paycheck! Remember, we hired him to grow the church, so he goes out door-to-door every Saturday afternoon.”
I had one last thought. “What about preaching?” I asked. “At my last church, they let me preach a couple times a year. Maybe I could bring a word here and there…” At that he looked positively indignant. “Now listen here, Chuck,” he retorted. “I’ve enjoyed this little talk we’ve had, but now it’s getting out of hand. One of the main reasons we hired Pastor John was to preach the Word every Sunday and Wednesday night. He's our leader, Chuck, a positive example of a man with a true servant's heart. What are you trying to do, take away the man’s livelihood?”
“No, of course not,” I said. I tried to put in a little sarcasm when I said, “Well, maybe all I can do at this church is come every Sunday, sit in the pew, put my tithe in the plate, listen to the sermon, then go home at the end of the service.” I think he missed the point, because he sat back with a pleased smile, and said, “You know, I do believe Pastor John would be real happy to hear you say that. God bless you Chuck, now you’re finally starting to make sense!”
“Hey, Ryan,” I said. “How are you doing?” He looked up at me with a puzzled look on his face. “Do I know you?” he asked. “Um…yeah. Name’s Chuck, remember? I’ve been coming to the church for a while now. We were talking on Sunday.” “Oh, yeah, now I remember you. Hey listen, if you’re not sitting anywhere, grab a seat.”
I sat down next to him and, after a few minutes of small talk, said, “Hey Ryan, can I ask you a question?” “Sure, fire away,” he replied. “Well, I’ve been coming to the church for a couple of months now,” I said. “I know you just hired Pastor John a while ago, and I was thinking about getting involved in some kinds of ministry. You know, help the guy out or something.” “Hmmm. Interesting thought. So what kinds of stuff were you thinking about getting involved in?”
“I’m a bookkeeper by trade,” I said. “Do you think the church could use some help with keeping the books?” “No,” he said. “See, Pastor John takes care of balancing all the books and writing all the checks for bills and stuff. Got him a used computer too, and of course, took it out of his paycheck.” I thought for a minute. “Well, I’m pretty handy with a hammer,” I said. “I could do some of the repairs around the building. Maybe I could mow the lawn? Or help clean the building?” “Nah, we’ve got all that covered,” he replied. “Pastor John mows the lawn on Sundays after the service, and cleans the building every Saturday night. In fact, we even bought him a new lawnmower and a new vacuum cleaner when he came on board. Of course, we did take ‘em out of his paycheck.” “What about tools?” I asked. “I’ve got a lot of tools he could borrow…” “Nope,” he interrupted. “One of the things on his job description was for him to bring his own tools for use on the building. He’s OK for tools.”
I took a sip of coffee. “What about teaching?” I asked. “I did a couple years of Bible College. I could teach a Sunday School class, or a home group.” “Let me think about that,” he said reflectively. “Actually, right now there’s really no need for teachers. You see, Pastor John and his wife teach the Sunday School classes before the service, and then during the week he leads the three home groups we’ve got—let’s see, that’d be Monday, Tuesday, and Friday nights—so you can see, we don’t need any teachers right now.”
“I’ve got it,” I said. “How about the youth group? I’m pretty good with teens—maybe I could help out there or something.” “Nope,” he replied. “Pastor John and his wife lead the teens group on Thursday nights, and they organize all the outings and stuff, you know, drive the van and all that, so I don’t really think they need your help.” “Hey—maybe I could work on the van,” I said. “What happens if it breaks down? What about oil changes and stuff?” “Thanks for the offer, Chuck, but there again, we cleared a nice little spot out back of the building for Pastor John to work on the van when it breaks down. Just to help him out, we even bought him a set of wrenches the other day! ‘Course we took it out of his paycheck, but at least now he doesn’t have to keep borrowing tools from people anymore. I swear that van has never run so good. Sure nice to have a van, too, so Pastor John can take some of the senior citizens around to doctors’ appointments and shopping during the week.”
"How about music?"I asked. "I play a pretty mean guitar. I used to lead worship now and then at my former church. I could step in..." He interrupted once again. "Sorry, Chuck, I'm sure you're a good guitar player, but you see, Pastor John and his wife handle all the worship. See, we got us a two-for-one deal there! She plays piano, and he leads the singing. And the best part is, we only have to pay him! Of course, for her, it's all about the ministry. We specified on his job description that his wife would lead several 'unpaid' ministries as part of her duties here. Got to set a good example to the other wives, you know!"
I sat back and thought for a bit. What other services could I offer? Then it hit me. “How about visitation? I don’t really mind going to hospitals, or nursing homes, or whatever. Maybe I could do something like that.” He thought for a second, then said, “Well, there again, Pastor John takes care of visitation. Part of his job description, you know.” “What about evangelism?” I asked. “I don’t really mind going door to door, you know, sort of cold-calling.” “Hmm. Well, you see, Chuck, if you did that, you’d be taking away from some of Pastor John’s weekly duties—how he earns his paycheck! Remember, we hired him to grow the church, so he goes out door-to-door every Saturday afternoon.”
I had one last thought. “What about preaching?” I asked. “At my last church, they let me preach a couple times a year. Maybe I could bring a word here and there…” At that he looked positively indignant. “Now listen here, Chuck,” he retorted. “I’ve enjoyed this little talk we’ve had, but now it’s getting out of hand. One of the main reasons we hired Pastor John was to preach the Word every Sunday and Wednesday night. He's our leader, Chuck, a positive example of a man with a true servant's heart. What are you trying to do, take away the man’s livelihood?”
“No, of course not,” I said. I tried to put in a little sarcasm when I said, “Well, maybe all I can do at this church is come every Sunday, sit in the pew, put my tithe in the plate, listen to the sermon, then go home at the end of the service.” I think he missed the point, because he sat back with a pleased smile, and said, “You know, I do believe Pastor John would be real happy to hear you say that. God bless you Chuck, now you’re finally starting to make sense!”
Thursday, October 04, 2007
Priority Determines Structure
I have come to believe the statement that “Priority determines structure.” I believe it is true for any organization, be it a church or a business. The priorities of the organization determine the structure of its management style. What it deems its most important priority will determine how the organization is run, and what it wants its people to spend most of their time doing.
Think of the typical church and ask the question: Can you tell its priority from its current structure? You can find out the answer to that by asking another question: What do its leaders spend most of their time and energy doing throughout the week? For most churches, I believe that its leaders spend the bulk of their leadership time and energy on issues of administration, solving crises of one sort or another, building maintenance and building planning issues, making sure that all the various ministries stay up and running, and planning and executing the Sunday (and possibly mid-week) services.
Now I’m not down on pastors or church leaders—don’t get me wrong. I think the point would be too easily made if I were to say, “The problem lies with the leadership of churches.” In some cases, that statement may be correct; but I wonder if more often than not, church leaders are merely living up (or down) to the expectations placed on them by the congregation itself? Are we trying to maintain some kind of status quo, or what?
When I look at Ephesians 4, it seems clear that the passage states that gifted church leadership—under the headship of Christ—are given to the church for one purpose: To equip the believers in order that they can go out and perform the works of ministry, and not only the leaders themselves. What is equipping? From my experience I believe it has to do with helping people identify who God made them to be; finding out what gifts, passions and strengths they have, and then enabling them to minister in that capacity.
The passage goes on to say that when this equipping happens, believers grow up and become mature and more like Christ. Further, when this dynamic occurs, the body of Christ grows and builds itself up in love. Growth happens to healthy organisms.
There seems to be a double whammy going on in churches. From the perspective of leadership, at times there is frustration because people don’t seem to want to get involved in anything, or put forth any effort whatever for ministry. I’ve been on this side before and it is genuinely frustrating. Why can’t people get off their butts and get involved in something, anything? So leaders are constantly strong-arming people to get them involved, or berating them from the pulpit about their lack of involvement in whatever.
On the other hand, from the point of view of the congregation, many people feel that they don’t want to get involved in any ministry because leadership has not presented anything all that compelling. Or, maybe they would get involved in a ministry, but they feel that they don’t have what it takes to do a good job. Again, it could be as well that we have such a consumer society that many people just want to sit, be served, and leave without doing anything in return.
My question is this: What would happen if churches decided completely to sell out to the Ephesians 4 paradigm and make equipping their people for ministry their sole priority? Never mind about starting up, and running, a bunch of ministries; never mind telling people to be more bold in their efforts to evangelize the world; no more starting up and running ministries on the basis of need.
I know it is a hypothetical question. But I believe that if equipping people—truly investing in their lives—were the sole priority of a church, then organic growth would happen. People would start ministries on the basis of intentionality, gifting and passions. Church members would not agree to be a part of a ministry for which they were not gifted and passionate about. Those in leadership would know what leadership is supposed to be about, and would devote their time and energy in helping others reach their potential.
I wonder: what would happen if churches decided to stop focusing on a strategy of “weakness management”—constantly telling people they need to work on their faults and weaknesses—and instead built on their strengths? People would find out that many of their weaknesses would take care of themselves.
And what about evangelism? If people were equipped to be the best body part they could be—not trying to be something they are not—what would happen? Be the best toe you can be! I believe that a person who lives their life with intentionality, focus and passion, who knows why they are doing what they are doing, is far more compelling in terms of evangelism than a person lamely trying to slip Bible verses into every conversational crack. And the irony is, that person probably feels like a miserable failure too. But that's what happens when a toe tries to be an eye.
The ultimate question is this: Can this change be accomplished? I believe it can, but then that leads to the next question: Are churches willing to pay the price associated with changing?
Think of the typical church and ask the question: Can you tell its priority from its current structure? You can find out the answer to that by asking another question: What do its leaders spend most of their time and energy doing throughout the week? For most churches, I believe that its leaders spend the bulk of their leadership time and energy on issues of administration, solving crises of one sort or another, building maintenance and building planning issues, making sure that all the various ministries stay up and running, and planning and executing the Sunday (and possibly mid-week) services.
Now I’m not down on pastors or church leaders—don’t get me wrong. I think the point would be too easily made if I were to say, “The problem lies with the leadership of churches.” In some cases, that statement may be correct; but I wonder if more often than not, church leaders are merely living up (or down) to the expectations placed on them by the congregation itself? Are we trying to maintain some kind of status quo, or what?
When I look at Ephesians 4, it seems clear that the passage states that gifted church leadership—under the headship of Christ—are given to the church for one purpose: To equip the believers in order that they can go out and perform the works of ministry, and not only the leaders themselves. What is equipping? From my experience I believe it has to do with helping people identify who God made them to be; finding out what gifts, passions and strengths they have, and then enabling them to minister in that capacity.
The passage goes on to say that when this equipping happens, believers grow up and become mature and more like Christ. Further, when this dynamic occurs, the body of Christ grows and builds itself up in love. Growth happens to healthy organisms.
There seems to be a double whammy going on in churches. From the perspective of leadership, at times there is frustration because people don’t seem to want to get involved in anything, or put forth any effort whatever for ministry. I’ve been on this side before and it is genuinely frustrating. Why can’t people get off their butts and get involved in something, anything? So leaders are constantly strong-arming people to get them involved, or berating them from the pulpit about their lack of involvement in whatever.
On the other hand, from the point of view of the congregation, many people feel that they don’t want to get involved in any ministry because leadership has not presented anything all that compelling. Or, maybe they would get involved in a ministry, but they feel that they don’t have what it takes to do a good job. Again, it could be as well that we have such a consumer society that many people just want to sit, be served, and leave without doing anything in return.
My question is this: What would happen if churches decided completely to sell out to the Ephesians 4 paradigm and make equipping their people for ministry their sole priority? Never mind about starting up, and running, a bunch of ministries; never mind telling people to be more bold in their efforts to evangelize the world; no more starting up and running ministries on the basis of need.
I know it is a hypothetical question. But I believe that if equipping people—truly investing in their lives—were the sole priority of a church, then organic growth would happen. People would start ministries on the basis of intentionality, gifting and passions. Church members would not agree to be a part of a ministry for which they were not gifted and passionate about. Those in leadership would know what leadership is supposed to be about, and would devote their time and energy in helping others reach their potential.
I wonder: what would happen if churches decided to stop focusing on a strategy of “weakness management”—constantly telling people they need to work on their faults and weaknesses—and instead built on their strengths? People would find out that many of their weaknesses would take care of themselves.
And what about evangelism? If people were equipped to be the best body part they could be—not trying to be something they are not—what would happen? Be the best toe you can be! I believe that a person who lives their life with intentionality, focus and passion, who knows why they are doing what they are doing, is far more compelling in terms of evangelism than a person lamely trying to slip Bible verses into every conversational crack. And the irony is, that person probably feels like a miserable failure too. But that's what happens when a toe tries to be an eye.
The ultimate question is this: Can this change be accomplished? I believe it can, but then that leads to the next question: Are churches willing to pay the price associated with changing?
Monday, September 17, 2007
Redefining Evangelism
Lately I have been doing a lot of thinking about the concept of evangelism as it is generally taught in conservative, evangelical churches. If you’re anything like me, this is what you've heard, the general message from the front: “You need to witness more. You’re not doing enough to spread the good news of the gospel. You need to be bolder, more confrontational; you need to tell more people you meet about Jesus. Swallow your fears and do whatever it takes—hand out tracts, leave tracts in bathrooms, leave tracts on your co-workers desks or work stations, whatever. Just do it, because it’s what God says in the Bible we should be doing.”
Or words to that effect. Basically the message I get is that I’m not evangelizing enough, that I could and should be doing more, that I am generally a failure. And, that evangelism consists of quoting Bible verses to people and telling them what the gospel consists of: the good news of Jesus dying on the cross to be their personal savior.
We heard a guy in church recently who is an expert on evangelism, and he shared story after story of how, wherever he goes, he tries to “be the light” that Jesus spoke of that is not “hidden under a bowl.” For him, this means that everywhere he goes, he tries somehow to work Jesus into the conversation, or give out a Bible, whether he’s at the grocery store, watching planes take off and land (it’s a hobby for some people apparently), or doing balloon art on the streets. I was almost surprised he didn't tell the "sitting on the airplane and leading someone to Christ" story.
But I noticed one conspicuous element absent from his talk—there was absolutely no mention of any kind of relationship-building with these people, or that in the context of that passage it refers to people "seeing our good works and glorifying God." Hard to do that outside of the context of a relationship, isn't it?
It would seem that most of his conversations are like “cold calls,” where somebody tries to sell you something door-to-door or over the phone. However, what was all over his sermon was how we should do it like him—be bolder, “be the light,” always be on the lookout wherever we are for an opportunity to “share the gospel”—the good news.
I am willing to bet good money that most people hearing sermons like this walk away feeling like shameful failures because they can not, or are unable to do it like this guy. After all, he does this for a living! He’s a successful example of what Christian evangelism is supposed to be all about! Isn’t he?
Well, I have some reservations about it. Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying the guy hasn’t actually done some good, planted some seeds, or led some people to the Lord. I’m sure he has. But I wonder about motivating people by making them feel like they aren’t doing enough, intentionally (or unintentionally) shaming them into feeling like failures for God.
Reflecting on this sermon, I had some thoughts on what I call a model of “Leadership Evangelism.” It involves seven points based on a leadership paradigm we came up with several years ago for our church that I have adapted to fit into an evangelism context. It begins with the initial premise and then works backward to a conclusion. Here goes:
1. Leadership is influence. Maxwell said it, and I believe it is true. Granted, influence comes by way of a lot of different means: wealth, position, social status, etc. These are not the means of influence I am advocating here.
2. Influence is not manipulation. Manipulation involves deviousness, trickery, or the idea of presenting something such that the person presenting it knows it is false, but does so because it is personally advantageous. So what is influence, as I define it?
3. Influence is inviting another person to experience a new reality or paradigm by first consistently modeling the effects of that new reality in your own life. To establish that the new paradigm has any validity whatsoever, some sort of positive outcome must be demonstrated. This can establish a level of relevance, which will be compelling to some.
4. Ideally, people are influenced by someone else they trust. Generally speaking, people will not value the word of a person that they know cannot be trusted. So how does one establish trust with another person?
5. Trust is earned by demonstrating consistent faithfulness over a long period of time, in the context of a relationship. Trust is not established overnight; it takes many months or years of modeling consistent, faithful behavior to build a higher level of “trust equity.”
6. We have to earn the right to tell a nonbeliever about the gospel. Because the church and Christianity has such a deservedly bad reputation, we are fighting an uphill battle. We have to work twice as hard to gain half as much, but this is simply the reality of our situation.
7. Being a friend to a nonbeliever is doing evangelism. This right here takes most of the pressure and the guilt right off. All you have to do is be a friend, and you are evangelizing.
Sometimes evangelism is a “one-off” type of situation, such as Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch. And for this guy who spoke, if he has the gift of evangelism, then these one-offs might be just the ticket--for him. But what if that approach doesn't work for me?
When we orient the discussion in terms of giftedness and 1 Corinthians 12, then him expecting others to be like him is, to use Paul's metaphor, to expect a toe to become an eye. Maybe for me, I can't be an eye because I am a toe.
However, we can't escape the reality that all believers are supposed to evangelize on some level. What I'm arguing is that--in the context of giftedness--if you are a toe, then be the best toe you can be. I wonder if that just might be a whole lot more compelling than trying to be something you're not. Being a faithful friend to a nonbeliever, simply being yourself and not trying to force the issue all the time under compulsion, may be the most balanced alternative here.
Or words to that effect. Basically the message I get is that I’m not evangelizing enough, that I could and should be doing more, that I am generally a failure. And, that evangelism consists of quoting Bible verses to people and telling them what the gospel consists of: the good news of Jesus dying on the cross to be their personal savior.
We heard a guy in church recently who is an expert on evangelism, and he shared story after story of how, wherever he goes, he tries to “be the light” that Jesus spoke of that is not “hidden under a bowl.” For him, this means that everywhere he goes, he tries somehow to work Jesus into the conversation, or give out a Bible, whether he’s at the grocery store, watching planes take off and land (it’s a hobby for some people apparently), or doing balloon art on the streets. I was almost surprised he didn't tell the "sitting on the airplane and leading someone to Christ" story.
But I noticed one conspicuous element absent from his talk—there was absolutely no mention of any kind of relationship-building with these people, or that in the context of that passage it refers to people "seeing our good works and glorifying God." Hard to do that outside of the context of a relationship, isn't it?
It would seem that most of his conversations are like “cold calls,” where somebody tries to sell you something door-to-door or over the phone. However, what was all over his sermon was how we should do it like him—be bolder, “be the light,” always be on the lookout wherever we are for an opportunity to “share the gospel”—the good news.
I am willing to bet good money that most people hearing sermons like this walk away feeling like shameful failures because they can not, or are unable to do it like this guy. After all, he does this for a living! He’s a successful example of what Christian evangelism is supposed to be all about! Isn’t he?
Well, I have some reservations about it. Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying the guy hasn’t actually done some good, planted some seeds, or led some people to the Lord. I’m sure he has. But I wonder about motivating people by making them feel like they aren’t doing enough, intentionally (or unintentionally) shaming them into feeling like failures for God.
Reflecting on this sermon, I had some thoughts on what I call a model of “Leadership Evangelism.” It involves seven points based on a leadership paradigm we came up with several years ago for our church that I have adapted to fit into an evangelism context. It begins with the initial premise and then works backward to a conclusion. Here goes:
1. Leadership is influence. Maxwell said it, and I believe it is true. Granted, influence comes by way of a lot of different means: wealth, position, social status, etc. These are not the means of influence I am advocating here.
2. Influence is not manipulation. Manipulation involves deviousness, trickery, or the idea of presenting something such that the person presenting it knows it is false, but does so because it is personally advantageous. So what is influence, as I define it?
3. Influence is inviting another person to experience a new reality or paradigm by first consistently modeling the effects of that new reality in your own life. To establish that the new paradigm has any validity whatsoever, some sort of positive outcome must be demonstrated. This can establish a level of relevance, which will be compelling to some.
4. Ideally, people are influenced by someone else they trust. Generally speaking, people will not value the word of a person that they know cannot be trusted. So how does one establish trust with another person?
5. Trust is earned by demonstrating consistent faithfulness over a long period of time, in the context of a relationship. Trust is not established overnight; it takes many months or years of modeling consistent, faithful behavior to build a higher level of “trust equity.”
6. We have to earn the right to tell a nonbeliever about the gospel. Because the church and Christianity has such a deservedly bad reputation, we are fighting an uphill battle. We have to work twice as hard to gain half as much, but this is simply the reality of our situation.
7. Being a friend to a nonbeliever is doing evangelism. This right here takes most of the pressure and the guilt right off. All you have to do is be a friend, and you are evangelizing.
Sometimes evangelism is a “one-off” type of situation, such as Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch. And for this guy who spoke, if he has the gift of evangelism, then these one-offs might be just the ticket--for him. But what if that approach doesn't work for me?
When we orient the discussion in terms of giftedness and 1 Corinthians 12, then him expecting others to be like him is, to use Paul's metaphor, to expect a toe to become an eye. Maybe for me, I can't be an eye because I am a toe.
However, we can't escape the reality that all believers are supposed to evangelize on some level. What I'm arguing is that--in the context of giftedness--if you are a toe, then be the best toe you can be. I wonder if that just might be a whole lot more compelling than trying to be something you're not. Being a faithful friend to a nonbeliever, simply being yourself and not trying to force the issue all the time under compulsion, may be the most balanced alternative here.
Sunday, September 02, 2007
Giving Up on the Church
I think it is indeed true: I have officially given up on the church.
Now what do I mean when I say “church”? Surely that is too broad, and it is. I mean: The Western church, the traditional type of church with which most of us are familiar. I do not mean necessarily “conservative” or “liberal” churches, but I include both really, as both are in many ways products of—and reactions to—Enlightenment modernism. One can be equally dogmatic and be a fundamentalist conservative or a fundamentalist liberal.
So does that mean I am saying, “There should be no more churches, ever?” We should just do away with all churches period? Surely that sounds a bit harsh, doesn’t it? Actually I am not saying there should never be any more churches. So technically I am not saying that churches should be done away with. No, I believe there is a need for churches. One cannot get away from the reality that God decided, for some reason, to create this thing called “the church” and that it exists to fulfill his purposes somehow in establishing his kingdom. Kinda hard to argue with him, isn’t it?
So what is my point here? I guess that what I am saying is this: My argument is that by and large, the way church is being done in the West, is not really working. I believe that when nonbelievers take a look at the church, their reaction is that the message of the church is not in the least relevant to their lives or situations. And because it is not relevant, it is—by definition—not compelling in any way, shape or form. If something is not relevant then it will not be compelling. Conversely, if something is relevant, then it will be compelling.
I think it has become a very tough sell for churches, this idea of “How do we relate to the world?” The issue has become one of points of contact. Ask yourself honestly, if you have any nonbelieving friends: Would I—could I—invite my nonbeliever friend to my church without feeling embarrassed for him or her at some point during the service? Maybe some would say that they could, and that would be great. But I think the majority would say that church is for “in-house people,” people who are already believers. I mean, the language used in a service is oftentimes highly theological (and thus obscure and irrelevant). And how many of your nonbelieving friends out there sing in any kind of corporate gathering, unless they are part of some Welsh men’s choir or something?
So then the question becomes: “Why would I invite a nonbeliever to my church?” What indeed would be the point of it? Now I grant you, there are lots of Christians out there who somehow found their way into a church and got saved. I know of one friend personally who has that story. Clearly it was a God thing. In fact I think that ultimately church growth must be a God thing, otherwise we would formulize it (though we have certainly tried—pick up some books on church growth methods) and every church would use the formula and grow.
But in giving up on the church, I have found a wonderful thing has happened. I no longer have to defend the church, which tends to be a large part of the conversation when talking with nonbelievers. I have had recently two conversations with avowed atheists, and each one was surprised when I told them I had given up on the church. They said much the same thing, for a lot of the same reasons I cite above. When I mentioned that I am on a quest personally to find out what it means to have a relationship with a God that one cannot see or communicate with person-to-person, they said much the same thing. The only difference between them and me is that I’m asking those questions from a perspective of faith while they were not. Though I have given up on the church, I have not given up on God.
Funny thing though, that I have perhaps more in common with atheists these days than other believers.
So what can be done about these problems? Of course there is no surefire “answer”—that would be too easy. I just wonder if we had the courage to ask these kinds of questions--and to act on them: Why are we doing what we are doing, at any point in our church? And if you can’t come up with a compelling answer as to why, then seriously think about scrapping it.
Where does it say that we have to have a church building? Think about how much money gets spent every year simply on maintenance and building upgrades, just to keep things looking nice. Where does it say that we have to have a service every Sunday morning (and/or Wednesday nights) complete with the following: Announcements, worship music, special music, and a sermon, followed by “fellowship time?”
Seriously, where does it say all this? Not in the Bible. All I can find is that it says not to forsake the regular gathering together, but it doesn’t indicate that gathering takes place in a multi-million dollar facility every Sunday, with all the other accoutrements we feel are so necessary to have in order to “do church.”
Margaret Thatcher a few years ago took a look at the British economy and decided that it was too dependent on manufacturing and coal mining. She reasoned that in 20 years or so, if things were left the way they were, the UK’s economy would not be internationally viable. So she simply closed down mills and coalmines. It was a brutal time for the country, for those who depended on those jobs. But she knew it had to be done, or within a few decades the UK would be in serious trouble.
Sometimes we need to cut our losses when we finally see the reality, that things aren’t working, that within 20 years the church as we know it will not be viable any more. Would it be difficult? Absolutely.
Painful? Yes.
But I ask: What is the alternative if things stay the way they are now?
Now what do I mean when I say “church”? Surely that is too broad, and it is. I mean: The Western church, the traditional type of church with which most of us are familiar. I do not mean necessarily “conservative” or “liberal” churches, but I include both really, as both are in many ways products of—and reactions to—Enlightenment modernism. One can be equally dogmatic and be a fundamentalist conservative or a fundamentalist liberal.
So does that mean I am saying, “There should be no more churches, ever?” We should just do away with all churches period? Surely that sounds a bit harsh, doesn’t it? Actually I am not saying there should never be any more churches. So technically I am not saying that churches should be done away with. No, I believe there is a need for churches. One cannot get away from the reality that God decided, for some reason, to create this thing called “the church” and that it exists to fulfill his purposes somehow in establishing his kingdom. Kinda hard to argue with him, isn’t it?
So what is my point here? I guess that what I am saying is this: My argument is that by and large, the way church is being done in the West, is not really working. I believe that when nonbelievers take a look at the church, their reaction is that the message of the church is not in the least relevant to their lives or situations. And because it is not relevant, it is—by definition—not compelling in any way, shape or form. If something is not relevant then it will not be compelling. Conversely, if something is relevant, then it will be compelling.
I think it has become a very tough sell for churches, this idea of “How do we relate to the world?” The issue has become one of points of contact. Ask yourself honestly, if you have any nonbelieving friends: Would I—could I—invite my nonbeliever friend to my church without feeling embarrassed for him or her at some point during the service? Maybe some would say that they could, and that would be great. But I think the majority would say that church is for “in-house people,” people who are already believers. I mean, the language used in a service is oftentimes highly theological (and thus obscure and irrelevant). And how many of your nonbelieving friends out there sing in any kind of corporate gathering, unless they are part of some Welsh men’s choir or something?
So then the question becomes: “Why would I invite a nonbeliever to my church?” What indeed would be the point of it? Now I grant you, there are lots of Christians out there who somehow found their way into a church and got saved. I know of one friend personally who has that story. Clearly it was a God thing. In fact I think that ultimately church growth must be a God thing, otherwise we would formulize it (though we have certainly tried—pick up some books on church growth methods) and every church would use the formula and grow.
But in giving up on the church, I have found a wonderful thing has happened. I no longer have to defend the church, which tends to be a large part of the conversation when talking with nonbelievers. I have had recently two conversations with avowed atheists, and each one was surprised when I told them I had given up on the church. They said much the same thing, for a lot of the same reasons I cite above. When I mentioned that I am on a quest personally to find out what it means to have a relationship with a God that one cannot see or communicate with person-to-person, they said much the same thing. The only difference between them and me is that I’m asking those questions from a perspective of faith while they were not. Though I have given up on the church, I have not given up on God.
Funny thing though, that I have perhaps more in common with atheists these days than other believers.
So what can be done about these problems? Of course there is no surefire “answer”—that would be too easy. I just wonder if we had the courage to ask these kinds of questions--and to act on them: Why are we doing what we are doing, at any point in our church? And if you can’t come up with a compelling answer as to why, then seriously think about scrapping it.
Where does it say that we have to have a church building? Think about how much money gets spent every year simply on maintenance and building upgrades, just to keep things looking nice. Where does it say that we have to have a service every Sunday morning (and/or Wednesday nights) complete with the following: Announcements, worship music, special music, and a sermon, followed by “fellowship time?”
Seriously, where does it say all this? Not in the Bible. All I can find is that it says not to forsake the regular gathering together, but it doesn’t indicate that gathering takes place in a multi-million dollar facility every Sunday, with all the other accoutrements we feel are so necessary to have in order to “do church.”
Margaret Thatcher a few years ago took a look at the British economy and decided that it was too dependent on manufacturing and coal mining. She reasoned that in 20 years or so, if things were left the way they were, the UK’s economy would not be internationally viable. So she simply closed down mills and coalmines. It was a brutal time for the country, for those who depended on those jobs. But she knew it had to be done, or within a few decades the UK would be in serious trouble.
Sometimes we need to cut our losses when we finally see the reality, that things aren’t working, that within 20 years the church as we know it will not be viable any more. Would it be difficult? Absolutely.
Painful? Yes.
But I ask: What is the alternative if things stay the way they are now?
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
The Man in the Plastic Mask
Once upon a time there was a man who had an ugly face. His face was not always ugly; he had been born a normal child with a basically normal face. However, over the course of his life his face became increasingly disfigured until he could hardly stand to look at himself in the mirror. As ugly as his face was, all of his friends’ faces looked much like his own, so at least he felt fairly comfortable around his own ugly kind. At least his ugly friends seemed to accept him for what he was.
One day the ugly man came into contact with some people who had perfect faces, smooth and beautiful with no noticeable blemishes at all. One even deigned to talk to him, and though the perfect-faced man was somewhat condescending, he let the ugly-faced man know that it was possible for him to have a perfect face like his. How could this be, the ugly man asked. How did your face come to be so perfect? I’ll let you in on a secret, replied the perfect-faced man. My face was once ugly just like yours. But when I joined this exclusive club, my ugly face was transformed to become the perfect one you see now.
For months after this conversation, the ugly man pondered these words. A small seed of hope had been planted in his heart. Could it actually be true? Was there a possibility that his ugly face could be transformed into a thing of beauty like the perfect-faced man? One day he decided he needed to check into this exclusive club of which the perfect-faced man spoke. So he sought out the club and with much fear, entered through the front door and took a seat at the back of the room.
As he sat down in the chair, every person in the room turned to stare at him. He was somewhat taken aback when he realized that every face staring at him was perfect. In their eyes he saw many emotions reflected—fear, judgment, anger, pity, loathing. It was all he could do not to get up then and there and simply walk out, but the possibility that he could have a perfect face just like all of theirs held him in his seat. During the meeting many perfect-faced people stood up in the front and shared how their faces had once been ugly, but due to their membership in the club, their faces were now perfect. How he longed to be like one of them!
After the meeting no one talked to him. Some walked by and acknowledged his presence with a cold nod, while others stared in open revulsion at his ugly face. He felt ashamed and fled the meeting without trying to talk to any of the perfect-faced people. Nonetheless week after week he came to the meetings, the hope of one day having a perfect face drawing him back despite the coldness of his reception.
Finally after months of attending meetings he decided he needed to join this exclusive, perfect-faced club. He went through the elaborate rituals designed for members and, although he felt better about himself on the inside, to his surprise no immediate changes to his face were evident. He went on attending the meetings, but it was painfully obvious that he was still as ugly-faced as ever. Sitting in the back of the room he tried to ignore the sometimes hostile or judgmental looks given him by some of the perfect-faced people. Even though he was now a member, still no one paid much attention to him. Clearly something was wrong, and his presence disturbed the others. What was the ugly man to do?
Sitting at home, the ugly man faced a dilemma. Should he quit the club, given his reception by the perfect-faced people? Yet if he did that, his hopes of having a perfect face might never be realized. So he came to a decision, the only possible alternative he could think of: He would help himself the only way he knew how. He would craft a mask to cover up his ugliness, and maybe given time his ugly face would truly be transformed and he would not need the mask anymore.
Although he was not artistic, the man tried his best, fashioning a crude paper-mache mask held in place with a string around his head. He painted the mask with flesh-tone paint and put in on just prior to the perfect-faced club’s weekly meeting. To his complete surprise, this day was to be different than all the rest. None of the perfect-faced people commented on his mask, but many, many people actually talked to him. For the first time he felt that there was a possibility of acceptance.
Over the months and years the ugly-faced man improved his mask, moving from his original crude paper-mache to more sophisticated plaster masks, finally settling on a state-of-the-art plastic, flesh-colored mask that realistically approximated actual skin. At last he had a perfect face just like all the others. Only the man knew that under the plastic mask his face was still as ugly as at the beginning, but he was now a respected member of the perfect-faced club in good standing.
Slowly he came to the realization that all of the others wore masks like his. From time to time their masks would slip and he would catch a glimpse of the true ugliness that lay beneath the plastic. But because everyone in the club played the game, and acceptance was based on outward appearance, the stakes of removing the masks were simply too high; so everybody continued to put forth the effort to keep their masks on and looking good.
At first the ugly-faced man only wore his mask to club meetings, but as years passed it became imperative for him to wear it all the time, at home or at work. Though he was just as ugly as before, he felt that it would be disloyal to the club to admit that their alleged program of true face-change was in fact not working at all. For the first time in his life he felt accepted, and although he knew deep down that its basis was false, it still felt good. So he kept up the masquerade along with everybody else, although it became increasingly difficult to live what he felt to be a double life. He knew that the mask was truly not who he was, but there was never any place safe enough for him to take off the mask and admit the truth. Besides, in all of the years of his membership of the club he had never once seen anyone take off their mask voluntarily for any reason.
Finally one day the ugly-faced man had had enough of the charade. He came to the painful decision that he was going to admit the truth that he was still ugly, and he was going to take off his mask in front of all the other perfect-faced people at the club. Standing up in front of everyone at the next club meeting, the man admitted to all the others that he had worn a mask for years, but that underneath he was just as ugly as before. Nothing had really changed.
During his talk the man reached back behind his head and untied the string that held his mask in place, taking it off in front of the others. He heard horrified gasps as the perfect-faced people saw his true ugliness, some for the first time ever. He told them that he knew that underneath their masks they were all just as ugly as he was, and that if they all took off their masks at the same time, they would realize that they were actually all the same.
Some members fainted dead away; others covered their eyes, refusing to gaze upon his ugliness. Others reacted angrily, muttering, “Who does he think he is? Look how ugly he is!” The club leaders quickly stood up and, grasping him by the elbows, propelled him down the aisle as the perfect-faced club members darted angry glances at him. The leaders pushed him to the door and told him never to return to the club, that his membership was revoked for life.
“But I thought you were my true friends!” the ugly man protested as they shoved him out the door. One leader looked him in the eye and stated flatly, “If you had kept your mask on, we’d still be your friends.”
One day the ugly man came into contact with some people who had perfect faces, smooth and beautiful with no noticeable blemishes at all. One even deigned to talk to him, and though the perfect-faced man was somewhat condescending, he let the ugly-faced man know that it was possible for him to have a perfect face like his. How could this be, the ugly man asked. How did your face come to be so perfect? I’ll let you in on a secret, replied the perfect-faced man. My face was once ugly just like yours. But when I joined this exclusive club, my ugly face was transformed to become the perfect one you see now.
For months after this conversation, the ugly man pondered these words. A small seed of hope had been planted in his heart. Could it actually be true? Was there a possibility that his ugly face could be transformed into a thing of beauty like the perfect-faced man? One day he decided he needed to check into this exclusive club of which the perfect-faced man spoke. So he sought out the club and with much fear, entered through the front door and took a seat at the back of the room.
As he sat down in the chair, every person in the room turned to stare at him. He was somewhat taken aback when he realized that every face staring at him was perfect. In their eyes he saw many emotions reflected—fear, judgment, anger, pity, loathing. It was all he could do not to get up then and there and simply walk out, but the possibility that he could have a perfect face just like all of theirs held him in his seat. During the meeting many perfect-faced people stood up in the front and shared how their faces had once been ugly, but due to their membership in the club, their faces were now perfect. How he longed to be like one of them!
After the meeting no one talked to him. Some walked by and acknowledged his presence with a cold nod, while others stared in open revulsion at his ugly face. He felt ashamed and fled the meeting without trying to talk to any of the perfect-faced people. Nonetheless week after week he came to the meetings, the hope of one day having a perfect face drawing him back despite the coldness of his reception.
Finally after months of attending meetings he decided he needed to join this exclusive, perfect-faced club. He went through the elaborate rituals designed for members and, although he felt better about himself on the inside, to his surprise no immediate changes to his face were evident. He went on attending the meetings, but it was painfully obvious that he was still as ugly-faced as ever. Sitting in the back of the room he tried to ignore the sometimes hostile or judgmental looks given him by some of the perfect-faced people. Even though he was now a member, still no one paid much attention to him. Clearly something was wrong, and his presence disturbed the others. What was the ugly man to do?
Sitting at home, the ugly man faced a dilemma. Should he quit the club, given his reception by the perfect-faced people? Yet if he did that, his hopes of having a perfect face might never be realized. So he came to a decision, the only possible alternative he could think of: He would help himself the only way he knew how. He would craft a mask to cover up his ugliness, and maybe given time his ugly face would truly be transformed and he would not need the mask anymore.
Although he was not artistic, the man tried his best, fashioning a crude paper-mache mask held in place with a string around his head. He painted the mask with flesh-tone paint and put in on just prior to the perfect-faced club’s weekly meeting. To his complete surprise, this day was to be different than all the rest. None of the perfect-faced people commented on his mask, but many, many people actually talked to him. For the first time he felt that there was a possibility of acceptance.
Over the months and years the ugly-faced man improved his mask, moving from his original crude paper-mache to more sophisticated plaster masks, finally settling on a state-of-the-art plastic, flesh-colored mask that realistically approximated actual skin. At last he had a perfect face just like all the others. Only the man knew that under the plastic mask his face was still as ugly as at the beginning, but he was now a respected member of the perfect-faced club in good standing.
Slowly he came to the realization that all of the others wore masks like his. From time to time their masks would slip and he would catch a glimpse of the true ugliness that lay beneath the plastic. But because everyone in the club played the game, and acceptance was based on outward appearance, the stakes of removing the masks were simply too high; so everybody continued to put forth the effort to keep their masks on and looking good.
At first the ugly-faced man only wore his mask to club meetings, but as years passed it became imperative for him to wear it all the time, at home or at work. Though he was just as ugly as before, he felt that it would be disloyal to the club to admit that their alleged program of true face-change was in fact not working at all. For the first time in his life he felt accepted, and although he knew deep down that its basis was false, it still felt good. So he kept up the masquerade along with everybody else, although it became increasingly difficult to live what he felt to be a double life. He knew that the mask was truly not who he was, but there was never any place safe enough for him to take off the mask and admit the truth. Besides, in all of the years of his membership of the club he had never once seen anyone take off their mask voluntarily for any reason.
Finally one day the ugly-faced man had had enough of the charade. He came to the painful decision that he was going to admit the truth that he was still ugly, and he was going to take off his mask in front of all the other perfect-faced people at the club. Standing up in front of everyone at the next club meeting, the man admitted to all the others that he had worn a mask for years, but that underneath he was just as ugly as before. Nothing had really changed.
During his talk the man reached back behind his head and untied the string that held his mask in place, taking it off in front of the others. He heard horrified gasps as the perfect-faced people saw his true ugliness, some for the first time ever. He told them that he knew that underneath their masks they were all just as ugly as he was, and that if they all took off their masks at the same time, they would realize that they were actually all the same.
Some members fainted dead away; others covered their eyes, refusing to gaze upon his ugliness. Others reacted angrily, muttering, “Who does he think he is? Look how ugly he is!” The club leaders quickly stood up and, grasping him by the elbows, propelled him down the aisle as the perfect-faced club members darted angry glances at him. The leaders pushed him to the door and told him never to return to the club, that his membership was revoked for life.
“But I thought you were my true friends!” the ugly man protested as they shoved him out the door. One leader looked him in the eye and stated flatly, “If you had kept your mask on, we’d still be your friends.”
Monday, July 30, 2007
Vote for the New Pastor!
Thank you all for coming to the meeting tonight.
As you all know, we’ve been two long years without a head pastor, ever since we had to let Pastor Jesus go. You all remember how we voted on that issue. Quite simply it wasn’t working out, either for him or for us.
But now we are certain that God has answered our prayers! After reviewing the resumes of literally dozens of potential pastors, we have found one that we think could be a great fit for our church. And last week, Pastor John and his family came up here and spent the entire weekend candidating for the job of Senior Pastor. And we are here tonight to cast our vote for or against him.
But before we vote, we wanted to take a few minutes and review the situation, just to refresh your memories of last weekend. Now, handing over the keys of a building worth nearly a million dollars, not to mention the eternal fate of over two hundred adults and children, to a complete stranger, is not something we take lightly. You can’t get to know someone overnight, after all. No, it takes at least a solid weekend in order to build that level of trust.
So if you were here last weekend, you were a part of the full activities we had planned so we could get to know Pastor John and his family. We had a great barbeque on Friday night and another one Saturday. It was a great, informal time to find out about them. Then he preached in both services on Sunday—what a dynamic, powerful message!—which was then followed up by a question-and-answer session Sunday evening. Thank you for attending these events, those of you who did.
For us, the most important issue was this: Can he preach? After all, this is the most important job for a pastor. You’ll remember from Sunday morning that he did a great job preaching from the Word. He preached on “forgiveness” and told us what we should do in light of Jesus’ words from the gospels. This is exactly what we need at this church—someone to unpack the Bible for us in plain language, not like Pastor Jesus and all of his stories that didn’t make any sense.
And if you recall from the Sunday night meeting, someone asked him the important question: “Pastor John, if you were to land this job, what is your vision for how you would grow this church?” Without batting an eye, he had a ready answer: “My job is to preach the Word and to teach you how it applies to your lives.” Talk about confidence! We believe that this was the best—and really only—answer he could have given. After all, a man who has graduated from both Bible College and Seminary should be able to teach the Bible, but not everyone can tell people how they should live it. This solid teaching will finally start to grow this church, we believe.
How is this going to happen, you might ask? Well, once he gets hired and starts preaching, that will be the time for all of you to go around to your neighbors’ houses and start inviting them to church; and start inviting your co-workers too. After all, we’ll have a new, dynamic pastor who can really preach! With this strategy this church will be sure to grow. All you have to do is get ‘em through the doors here and Pastor John will take care of the rest.
By the way, have you seen the job description for Pastor John? Basically we expect him to put in an average of 50-60 hours a week. He’ll take care of the finances, the building maintenance and grounds, lead several Bible studies throughout the week, preach both services on Sunday and have a new sermon for each Wednesday night service. We also expect him to provide his own cell phone and vehicle and be available for church members throughout the week---basically he’ll be on call 24/7 for all emergencies and problems. He’ll have a week of vacation per year, with an additional week given after five years.
What if there are problems with Pastor John? We want you to know that every member of this church is free to voice concerns. There are several possibilities for this, including e-mails, letters, or you can certainly come to one of us leaders. Rest assured we’ll deal with the issue quickly and discreetly.
And of course, as we’re getting a two-for-one deal here, we expect his wife to be involved in leading several ministries—we need a choir director, for one, and a piano player for church services, and a new Children’s Ministry director. Plus she can probably head up the Women’s Ministry too. But remember that only he gets the paycheck, as technically we’re only hiring him, not her.
OK everybody, are we ready to vote? All in favor of hiring Pastor John, please raise your right hand…
As you all know, we’ve been two long years without a head pastor, ever since we had to let Pastor Jesus go. You all remember how we voted on that issue. Quite simply it wasn’t working out, either for him or for us.
But now we are certain that God has answered our prayers! After reviewing the resumes of literally dozens of potential pastors, we have found one that we think could be a great fit for our church. And last week, Pastor John and his family came up here and spent the entire weekend candidating for the job of Senior Pastor. And we are here tonight to cast our vote for or against him.
But before we vote, we wanted to take a few minutes and review the situation, just to refresh your memories of last weekend. Now, handing over the keys of a building worth nearly a million dollars, not to mention the eternal fate of over two hundred adults and children, to a complete stranger, is not something we take lightly. You can’t get to know someone overnight, after all. No, it takes at least a solid weekend in order to build that level of trust.
So if you were here last weekend, you were a part of the full activities we had planned so we could get to know Pastor John and his family. We had a great barbeque on Friday night and another one Saturday. It was a great, informal time to find out about them. Then he preached in both services on Sunday—what a dynamic, powerful message!—which was then followed up by a question-and-answer session Sunday evening. Thank you for attending these events, those of you who did.
For us, the most important issue was this: Can he preach? After all, this is the most important job for a pastor. You’ll remember from Sunday morning that he did a great job preaching from the Word. He preached on “forgiveness” and told us what we should do in light of Jesus’ words from the gospels. This is exactly what we need at this church—someone to unpack the Bible for us in plain language, not like Pastor Jesus and all of his stories that didn’t make any sense.
And if you recall from the Sunday night meeting, someone asked him the important question: “Pastor John, if you were to land this job, what is your vision for how you would grow this church?” Without batting an eye, he had a ready answer: “My job is to preach the Word and to teach you how it applies to your lives.” Talk about confidence! We believe that this was the best—and really only—answer he could have given. After all, a man who has graduated from both Bible College and Seminary should be able to teach the Bible, but not everyone can tell people how they should live it. This solid teaching will finally start to grow this church, we believe.
How is this going to happen, you might ask? Well, once he gets hired and starts preaching, that will be the time for all of you to go around to your neighbors’ houses and start inviting them to church; and start inviting your co-workers too. After all, we’ll have a new, dynamic pastor who can really preach! With this strategy this church will be sure to grow. All you have to do is get ‘em through the doors here and Pastor John will take care of the rest.
By the way, have you seen the job description for Pastor John? Basically we expect him to put in an average of 50-60 hours a week. He’ll take care of the finances, the building maintenance and grounds, lead several Bible studies throughout the week, preach both services on Sunday and have a new sermon for each Wednesday night service. We also expect him to provide his own cell phone and vehicle and be available for church members throughout the week---basically he’ll be on call 24/7 for all emergencies and problems. He’ll have a week of vacation per year, with an additional week given after five years.
What if there are problems with Pastor John? We want you to know that every member of this church is free to voice concerns. There are several possibilities for this, including e-mails, letters, or you can certainly come to one of us leaders. Rest assured we’ll deal with the issue quickly and discreetly.
And of course, as we’re getting a two-for-one deal here, we expect his wife to be involved in leading several ministries—we need a choir director, for one, and a piano player for church services, and a new Children’s Ministry director. Plus she can probably head up the Women’s Ministry too. But remember that only he gets the paycheck, as technically we’re only hiring him, not her.
OK everybody, are we ready to vote? All in favor of hiring Pastor John, please raise your right hand…
Monday, July 09, 2007
The Leadership Conundrum
Everything rises and falls on… what now?
Oh yeah, I remember what they say: “Leadership.” Well, John Maxwell does anyway.
But you know what, I think he’s on to something. The success or failure of any organization—be it a church, a business, a non-profit organization, whatever—ultimately depends on the quality, (or lack of quality), of its leadership.
Another great definition of leadership is provided by Marcus Buckingham, who said, “Leadership is taking people into a better future.” I like that too, but one thing needs to be clarified—what is a “better future,” exactly? That could mean a lot of things to a lot of different people.
To understand what it looks like in the context of biblical values, I would look no further than Ephesians 4 to find out what that better future is supposed to be about. What I get out of what Paul is saying there is that church leadership—under the headship of Christ—are to be about one thing and one thing only: equipping people in the church so that they—not the leaders alone—can do the various works of ministry.
So what this looks like, as I understand it, is that church leaders should unapologetically be about the business of investing most of their leadership energy into helping individuals within the church to become who they are; to become the person God made them to be. In large part, this involves helping people to discover their God-given gifts, talents, passions and abilities, and then leading them into areas where they can use those abilities for the works of ministry they are indeed passionate about—doing what they love.
I think that if leaders were to do this, instead of running themselves ragged simply trying to keep the typical one-hundred-and one church ministries afloat, and doing much of the work themselves, there would be a major paradigm shift in the ways we think about, and do, church. Think of the average church leaders’ weekly schedule: how much of it is truly spent in pouring their leadership energy into equipping others? On the other hand, how much leadership energy is spent trying to keep everything going, simply in order to maintain the status quo?
In my opinion, I think many churches are in this boat. Here’s a description that I think fits many churches: They have many good and worthwhile ministries. They have many good and honest, hardworking people who sincerely believe in those ministries, whether or not they have ever been actually equipped by their leadership to do them. On any given day of the week one encounters every stripe of ministry—from mothers with preschool children, prayer rooms, coffee get-togethers, men’s prayer breakfasts, and on and on. Now what is wrong with all of those ministries? Nothing, except for one crucial factor: No one running those ministries can tell you how their ministry fits in with the big picture vision of the church.
Hang on, you say, that’s not fair. To be truly fair, we have to ask: Then what is the vision, mission and purpose of that church? Here’s the problem: the leadership doesn’t have one. Or if they do, it’s one they stole from another, “successful” church, or a book on church growth, or from “40 Days of Purpose.” Maybe they even got it out of the Bible—Great Commission, Great Commandment. But do you want to know what the real problem is, bigger than not having a vision, a mission, or a purpose? Two words: status quo.
Just for the sake of argument, let’s say that the leaders of the church I just described decided it wanted a complete paradigm shift. Its leaders became convinced that they should be all about an Ephesians 4 culture, a church sold out to equipping its members for ministry, along with everything that statement means. But in order to come to that place, every current ministry would have to be shut down for a period of time, re-assessed in light of the new priorities of the church. Following this time, some hard decisions would have to be made about which ministries get to continue, and which ministries get the axe. Only those ministries that fit into the new vision get to carry on.
Oh, and to make matters worse, all the current leaders would have to step down from their leadership positions for a period of time as well, regardless of how long they have been in leadership. They need to undergo a solid one-year leadership training program that not only equips them to lead their ministry, but also evaluates them during that time to find out if they even have the character and abilities even to be a leader at all. The truth is, some won’t make the cut.
You tell me—how many church leaders are willing to take these kinds of radical steps in order to lead their churches into health? I think we’re not going to see it happen, for the simple reason that many churches exist to maintain the status quo, to meet people’s expectations. As long as everybody gets what they want, the church members don’t complain. Notice I didn’t say they were happy. But if you as a leader try changing things around, try doing some radical surgery like I just described, and here’s my advice: Get your resume up to date.
Say, ever thought of working for Starbucks?
Oh yeah, I remember what they say: “Leadership.” Well, John Maxwell does anyway.
But you know what, I think he’s on to something. The success or failure of any organization—be it a church, a business, a non-profit organization, whatever—ultimately depends on the quality, (or lack of quality), of its leadership.
Another great definition of leadership is provided by Marcus Buckingham, who said, “Leadership is taking people into a better future.” I like that too, but one thing needs to be clarified—what is a “better future,” exactly? That could mean a lot of things to a lot of different people.
To understand what it looks like in the context of biblical values, I would look no further than Ephesians 4 to find out what that better future is supposed to be about. What I get out of what Paul is saying there is that church leadership—under the headship of Christ—are to be about one thing and one thing only: equipping people in the church so that they—not the leaders alone—can do the various works of ministry.
So what this looks like, as I understand it, is that church leaders should unapologetically be about the business of investing most of their leadership energy into helping individuals within the church to become who they are; to become the person God made them to be. In large part, this involves helping people to discover their God-given gifts, talents, passions and abilities, and then leading them into areas where they can use those abilities for the works of ministry they are indeed passionate about—doing what they love.
I think that if leaders were to do this, instead of running themselves ragged simply trying to keep the typical one-hundred-and one church ministries afloat, and doing much of the work themselves, there would be a major paradigm shift in the ways we think about, and do, church. Think of the average church leaders’ weekly schedule: how much of it is truly spent in pouring their leadership energy into equipping others? On the other hand, how much leadership energy is spent trying to keep everything going, simply in order to maintain the status quo?
In my opinion, I think many churches are in this boat. Here’s a description that I think fits many churches: They have many good and worthwhile ministries. They have many good and honest, hardworking people who sincerely believe in those ministries, whether or not they have ever been actually equipped by their leadership to do them. On any given day of the week one encounters every stripe of ministry—from mothers with preschool children, prayer rooms, coffee get-togethers, men’s prayer breakfasts, and on and on. Now what is wrong with all of those ministries? Nothing, except for one crucial factor: No one running those ministries can tell you how their ministry fits in with the big picture vision of the church.
Hang on, you say, that’s not fair. To be truly fair, we have to ask: Then what is the vision, mission and purpose of that church? Here’s the problem: the leadership doesn’t have one. Or if they do, it’s one they stole from another, “successful” church, or a book on church growth, or from “40 Days of Purpose.” Maybe they even got it out of the Bible—Great Commission, Great Commandment. But do you want to know what the real problem is, bigger than not having a vision, a mission, or a purpose? Two words: status quo.
Just for the sake of argument, let’s say that the leaders of the church I just described decided it wanted a complete paradigm shift. Its leaders became convinced that they should be all about an Ephesians 4 culture, a church sold out to equipping its members for ministry, along with everything that statement means. But in order to come to that place, every current ministry would have to be shut down for a period of time, re-assessed in light of the new priorities of the church. Following this time, some hard decisions would have to be made about which ministries get to continue, and which ministries get the axe. Only those ministries that fit into the new vision get to carry on.
Oh, and to make matters worse, all the current leaders would have to step down from their leadership positions for a period of time as well, regardless of how long they have been in leadership. They need to undergo a solid one-year leadership training program that not only equips them to lead their ministry, but also evaluates them during that time to find out if they even have the character and abilities even to be a leader at all. The truth is, some won’t make the cut.
You tell me—how many church leaders are willing to take these kinds of radical steps in order to lead their churches into health? I think we’re not going to see it happen, for the simple reason that many churches exist to maintain the status quo, to meet people’s expectations. As long as everybody gets what they want, the church members don’t complain. Notice I didn’t say they were happy. But if you as a leader try changing things around, try doing some radical surgery like I just described, and here’s my advice: Get your resume up to date.
Say, ever thought of working for Starbucks?
Sunday, June 10, 2007
Fill-In-The-Blank Theology
There’s nothing wrong with evangelicals.
The truth is, I’m not just picking on the conservative evangelicals. I’m also talking about theological liberals too. One can be just as dogmatic to one’s cause and be on the left or the right.
But evangelicals are the ones I know best, because I was one for a lot of years until I became fairly disillusioned and struck out more or less on my own.
What did it for me was when I realized that a lot of the nicely packaged theology and Bible I had been taught in Bible College and seminary didn’t really work for people out in the real world. Oh, I had plenty of answers—but after several years in ministry I noticed that by and large, people’s lives weren’t changing, that things in the church seemed to be actually getting worse and not better. Something was not working here. But what was it?
I went back and re-examined not so much the content of what I was taught, but rather the methods that were employed, and I came to realize that a lot of it was “fill-in-the-blanks.” What am I talking about? I’m talking about the systematic theology classes where the professor stood up in the front lecturing (from prepared notes) and the students filled in the corresponding blanks on their notes. You know, stuff like “God is __________” and the professor told us the answer and we filled it in and moved on to the next blank. At the end of the term, both students and professor alike had the same set of notes!
And in Bible classes we had notes with blanks in them too, with points like “The main theme of the book of Judges is ______________” and the professor would tell us the answer and we would write it in the blank. And the best part of all, when it came time for exams, we would encounter essay questions like this: “State the professor’s view as to the main theme of the book of Judges” or “Give the professor’s interpretation as to what constitutes the ‘unpardonable sin.’” This makes me wonder: didn’t he already know his own viewpoints? Why did he need a class full of students to parrot back to him what he already believes?
Now the irony is, maybe the professors were correct in the answers they gave us for the blank spaces. Even if they were, that isn’t the point I’m making here. What I’m saying is this: Where’s the ownership on the part of the students? A person can’t own what they are told to write by somebody else into a blank space. The student did not discover it on his or her own; he or she did not come to that “Aha!” moment of self-discovery and make the concept theirs. In fact it was the rare professor who taught in such a way that we engaged in this process ourselves—but they were few and far between.
What this “fill-in-the-blank” process can do is turn out a bunch of students who have heads full of great-sounding theological words and concepts that they memorized in order to pass their exams. They can tell you with absolute confidence their various professors’ views as to the interpretations of biblical books. And when many of them get out into the real world of ministry, they can survive for years by using their class notes for sermon preparation and leading Bible studies. And it all sounds so good, so scholarly. And the people in the pews are buying it because it’s what they expected to hear all along, After all, that’s why they hired this young kid straight out of seminary—to maintain the status quo, to live up to their expectations.
But we can’t stop there. We have to ask the next question too. In a church like the one described above, what kind of Christians does this process turn out? It turns out a bunch of Christians who have an attitude of theological and biblical certitude. Because their leaders are so certain, so black-and-white in their teaching and theology, the congregation has the same attitude. Their mentality is summed up in the words of an 80’s Stryper song: “And we’re fighting all the sin/and the Good Book, it says we’ll win.” We know we’re gonna win in the end, so in the meantime, let’s all sit around and reassure each other how right we are about everything theological and biblical as we point out all the flaws in the world and everybody around us.
If I sound a little cynical, it’s because I am. The irony is, it took me about twelve years of hardship in ministry to come to the place where I finally realized that the old system was crumbling, as the worldview of modernism is being replaced by postmodernism. The more the old system of doing things passes away, the more the desire for theological certitude on the part of conservatives. But when people do this, two things happen: One, it tends to concretize interpretations and make them fixed, with no room for change or adaptation. And two, it means that in the meantime, culture has passed them by. There is little or no engagement of the culture because they are too busy shoring up their defenses to deal with what the world is actually doing. So at the end of the process, there will be a great looking castle standing there, but even before it was finished it was obsolete.
The truth is, I’m not just picking on the conservative evangelicals. I’m also talking about theological liberals too. One can be just as dogmatic to one’s cause and be on the left or the right.
But evangelicals are the ones I know best, because I was one for a lot of years until I became fairly disillusioned and struck out more or less on my own.
What did it for me was when I realized that a lot of the nicely packaged theology and Bible I had been taught in Bible College and seminary didn’t really work for people out in the real world. Oh, I had plenty of answers—but after several years in ministry I noticed that by and large, people’s lives weren’t changing, that things in the church seemed to be actually getting worse and not better. Something was not working here. But what was it?
I went back and re-examined not so much the content of what I was taught, but rather the methods that were employed, and I came to realize that a lot of it was “fill-in-the-blanks.” What am I talking about? I’m talking about the systematic theology classes where the professor stood up in the front lecturing (from prepared notes) and the students filled in the corresponding blanks on their notes. You know, stuff like “God is __________” and the professor told us the answer and we filled it in and moved on to the next blank. At the end of the term, both students and professor alike had the same set of notes!
And in Bible classes we had notes with blanks in them too, with points like “The main theme of the book of Judges is ______________” and the professor would tell us the answer and we would write it in the blank. And the best part of all, when it came time for exams, we would encounter essay questions like this: “State the professor’s view as to the main theme of the book of Judges” or “Give the professor’s interpretation as to what constitutes the ‘unpardonable sin.’” This makes me wonder: didn’t he already know his own viewpoints? Why did he need a class full of students to parrot back to him what he already believes?
Now the irony is, maybe the professors were correct in the answers they gave us for the blank spaces. Even if they were, that isn’t the point I’m making here. What I’m saying is this: Where’s the ownership on the part of the students? A person can’t own what they are told to write by somebody else into a blank space. The student did not discover it on his or her own; he or she did not come to that “Aha!” moment of self-discovery and make the concept theirs. In fact it was the rare professor who taught in such a way that we engaged in this process ourselves—but they were few and far between.
What this “fill-in-the-blank” process can do is turn out a bunch of students who have heads full of great-sounding theological words and concepts that they memorized in order to pass their exams. They can tell you with absolute confidence their various professors’ views as to the interpretations of biblical books. And when many of them get out into the real world of ministry, they can survive for years by using their class notes for sermon preparation and leading Bible studies. And it all sounds so good, so scholarly. And the people in the pews are buying it because it’s what they expected to hear all along, After all, that’s why they hired this young kid straight out of seminary—to maintain the status quo, to live up to their expectations.
But we can’t stop there. We have to ask the next question too. In a church like the one described above, what kind of Christians does this process turn out? It turns out a bunch of Christians who have an attitude of theological and biblical certitude. Because their leaders are so certain, so black-and-white in their teaching and theology, the congregation has the same attitude. Their mentality is summed up in the words of an 80’s Stryper song: “And we’re fighting all the sin/and the Good Book, it says we’ll win.” We know we’re gonna win in the end, so in the meantime, let’s all sit around and reassure each other how right we are about everything theological and biblical as we point out all the flaws in the world and everybody around us.
If I sound a little cynical, it’s because I am. The irony is, it took me about twelve years of hardship in ministry to come to the place where I finally realized that the old system was crumbling, as the worldview of modernism is being replaced by postmodernism. The more the old system of doing things passes away, the more the desire for theological certitude on the part of conservatives. But when people do this, two things happen: One, it tends to concretize interpretations and make them fixed, with no room for change or adaptation. And two, it means that in the meantime, culture has passed them by. There is little or no engagement of the culture because they are too busy shoring up their defenses to deal with what the world is actually doing. So at the end of the process, there will be a great looking castle standing there, but even before it was finished it was obsolete.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)