September 28, 2007

The “We’re In, You’re Out” Mentality

Friend of Ur, David Fitch, is back with a few thoughts about the deficiencies in evangelicalism and the emerging movement’s reaction. But he’s not exactly enamored with the emerging church solution either. Fitch is a pastor at Life on the Vine Christian Community in Long Grove, Illinois, and a professor at Northern Seminary.

Evangelicals of all types are taking notice of the emerging church/missional church and its variations. Its rise to prominence is owed in part to the rejection of the evangelical church by many sons and daughters of Boomer evangelicals. At a recent Up-Rooted gathering, we talked about the real or perceived shortcomings in evangelicalism the emerging church is responding to, and the strengths and weaknesses of that response. Scot McKnight and Wayne Johnson were a part of that discussion, but here is part of my response to the question.

I believe one weakness in evangelicalism that the emerging church is responding to is evangelicalism's excessively rationalist approach to truth and salvation that birthed a stubborn "we're in/you're out" mentality. There has been an impulse in evangelical fundamentalism towards (a) an intolerant judgmental exclusivism, (b) an arrogant, even violent, certainty about what we do know, and (c) a hyper-cognitive gospel that takes the mystery out of everything.

Many of us grew up with this. This was most obvious in the way we made hell the selling point of the gospel. We said if you do A and B, you’ll be pardoned from sin and escape hell. Those who do not do A or B are going to hell. We built an apologetic that defended this to prove to people outside the church they were doomed. It came off arrogant, coercive, unloving, and indeed antithetical to the very nature of the gospel. In a world of democratic pluralism, the gospel's witness became shut off, dispassionate, and downright sectarian. It became impossible to represent such a gospel as "good news."

McLaren talks about this in New Kind of Christian when he says:
If we Christians would take all that energy we put into proving we're right and everyone else is wrong and invested that energy in pursuing and doing good, somehow I think more people would believe we are right. p. 61

If you ask me whether I believe there is a hell, I will tell you yes. To me the reality of hell is evident in the evil and destruction of souls I see here on earth all the time. If you ask me whether I believe that the salvation God has worked through the person and work of Jesus Christ has direct consequences on our eternal destiny as persons, again I will tell you yes. But if you ask me whether this singularly defines what it means to be saved, here is where I would say no. For our eternal life is the end of a life lived in His salvation (Rom 6:22), not the goal in and of itself. And so let's not put the cart before the horse.

The good news is that God has come in Christ inaugurating his salvation in the world. In Christ (and His Kingdom) there is now forgiveness of sins that sets loose grace and forgiveness among us and to the world. In Christ (and His Kingdom) there is reconciliation with God that breeds a new reconciliation among us and to the world (2 Cor 5:18-20). In Christ (and His Kingdom) there is a healing that has begun through the cross among us and to the world. In Christ's Rule there is indeed a new politic, a way of being, living in the life of God made possible in Christ's life, death, and resurrection that takes shape among us and into the world. Behold all things are made new (Rev 21.1.; 2 Cor 5:17). Our calling is nothing more or less than to invite the world into this incredible new life.

The strength and the weakness of the emerging response to evangelicalism' judgmentalism has been the wide embrace of deconstructive theology. Deconstructive philosophy/theology certainly gives us the skills to diagnose our narrowmindedness, ways we have imprisoned God in the rationalized controlling structures of certain Reformed Western systems. But it fails to deliver the truth. It is always "yet to come." It leaves the gospel disembodied. As I have argued elsewhere, there are resources in McIntyre, Yoder, Hauerwas to help us be embodied communities, communities of hospitality, open communities of witness.

In part 2 of his post, David Fitch will discuss the way evangelicalism has separated personal justification and social justice.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at September 28, 2007 | Comments (22)

September 25, 2007

ATMs: Automatic Tithing Machines

How can you pass the plate to people who don't carry cash? You can't. So the next big wave may be the "Giving Kiosk" in your church's lobby.

"A lot of people no longer carry cash or a checkbook," says Marty Baker, pastor of Stevens Creek Church in Augusta, Georgia. So he installed two ATMs in 2005. The experiment has been a success.

During the first year, the kiosks processed over $100,000 in donations at Stevens Creek. In 2006, that number increased to just over $200,000, representing more than 25 percent of the church's total income. Even more impressive is the fact that giving as a whole increased 18 percent since the ATMs were installed. "It's a safe, convenient way for people to donate to their church," Baker notes, "and it meets people where they are today."

These positive returns encouraged Baker to launch SecureGive, a for-profit company that produces and maintains several different versions of the giving kiosks. "We knew that if this concept and technology was so beneficial for our church, others could benefit from it as well," says Baker.

SecureGive currently operates in 25 churches around the country. One of them is Family Church in West Monroe, Louisiana, where Terry Taylor is the executive pastor. "We wanted to help those who were not giving to start walking in obedience," says Taylor. "We feel that is being achieved."

Princeton Pike Church of God in Hamilton, Ohio, had featured online giving for years, but the service was used consistently by only ten families. The church engaged SecureGive in January and now has more than 150 families contributing regularly through the giving kiosk.

The company points out an array of practical advantages. One example is a decreased risk of embezzlement, since donated funds are transferred directly into a church's bank account, bypassing the counting committee. And the kiosk documents satisfy Internal Revenue Service regulations requiring taxpayers to present a written statement from a bank or charitable organization when claiming a deduction on their returns.

Phil Martin of the National Association of Church Business Administrators says that Automated Tithing Machines might only be the beginning. "Whether we'll have an offering plate with a card reader one day, who knows," he said. "But we're certainly not far from that."

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at September 25, 2007 | Comments (18)

September 21, 2007

The Gap between Rhetoric and Reality

You may think writing a sermon every week is challenging work, but imagine writing speeches everyday for the leader of the free world. That was Michael Gerson's job for six years under President George W. Bush. Last night I attended a benefit dinner in Chicago where Gerson was the keynote speaker. Prior to the dinner I participated in a small roundtable discussion with Gerson about his time in the White House and his perception of current challenges - domestic and international - facing the country.

Much of the conversation focused on Gerson's responsibility in crafting the President's response in the days following 9/11. Leading a nation in shock and grief is not easy, but simultaneously showing strength and resolve is a challenge few presidential speechwriters have faced. Gerson was almost universally praised for shaping Bush's tone in a way that comforted the nation and rallied the world. The President's address at the National Cathedral, which Gerson and his team wrote with less than one day's notice, has been celebrated as one of the finest moments of the Bush presidency.

A theology grad from Wheaton College, Gerson's faith has been a factor both in Bush's speeches and policy. U2's Bono, a friend of Gerson's, has said, "Mike is known as a ?moral compass' at the White House." As a senior policy advisor to Bush, Gerson was instrumental in the push to triple aid to Africa, and he's filled the President's remarks with passionate rhetoric about compassion, the spread of democracy, and the God-ordained dignity of freedom for all people. But at Thursday night's gathering Gerson was critical of the administration's execution of these ideals.

Gerson said his worst day at the White House was when the Abu Ghraib prison story hit the wires. The criminal actions of a handful of US soldiers were graphically displayed for the world to see. One of Gerson's speechwriting colleagues at the White House commented that Abu Ghraib, "undid everything we've done." The President's rhetoric was contradicted by the images coming from Iraq.

Similarly, Gerson believes the administration's policy of detaining enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay has become an obstacle throughout the world. He said virtually everywhere administration official travel to advance the President's ideals of democracy and freedom they are assaulted with questions about Guantanamo Bay. Critics believe the holding of enemy combatants without access to legal representation or oversight by multinational agreements (the Geneva Convention) contradicts the President's desire to bring democratic liberties to the Middle East. Once again, the rhetoric doesn't match reality.

This was the thrust of Gerson's remarks. As a speechwriter for the most powerful political figure on Earth, he takes seriously the impact and transforming power of words. But he says, "The facts on the ground always trump words." It has been the administration's inability to translate its rhetoric into reality that has led to the President's unpopularity both at home and abroad. Nonetheless, Gerson is proud of the major advances made by this White House in humanitarian efforts, and he still believes strongly in the President's agenda to spread democracy as a way of securing peace for future generations.

As a pastor, not a politician, I realized Michael Gerson was reminding us of a basic truth - we've got to practice what we preach. Eloquent sermons, well-composed articles, and even popular podcasts are not enough. Ultimately our credibility as communicators of the gospel is displayed by the content of our characters - the fruit of our lives. In an age when pastors are becoming increasingly isolated from their flocks - whether by the enormity of our sanctuaries or the psuedo-intimacy of video preaching - the temptation to separate rhetoric from reality is more seductive than ever before.

Posted by Skye Jethani at September 21, 2007 | Comments (7)

September 18, 2007

What Pastors Get Paid

Our annual compilation of ministry salaries is out, and this year's tally produced a few surprises:
? If you want to make more money, switch denominations.
? Female solo pastors make more.
? The extra degree is worth the money.

Kevin Miller has a report below.

Our research team here at Christianity Today International just finished surveying more than 2,000 churches, and next month, we'll be releasing the most comprehensive, up-to-date church salary survey we've ever done. While The 2008 Compensation Handbook for Church Staff is at the printer, here is a sneak peek at some results:

1. If you want to earn more, change denominations.
Briefly, if you want to earn more as a senior pastor, become a Presbyterian. If you want to earn more as a youth pastor, become a Baptist.

Presbyterian senior pastors earned the most in our survey - their average salary plus housing/parsonage was $78,000, while Baptist senior pastors earned next to last--$67,000. But virtually the opposite was true for youth pastors. Baptist youth pastors earned near the top--$44,000 in salary plus housing, while Presbyterian youth pastors earned near the bottom--$36,000. Why?

The answer comes from two factors: church income and denominational values.

Our research consistently shows that the biggest single factor in determining any pastor's pay is the church's income. And among churches with senior pastors, Presbyterian churches have the highest-reported church income, so some of that gets passed along to their senior pastors.

But among churches with youth pastors, Baptist churches and Presbyterian churches have virtually identical church income. So they could pay their youth pastors equally, if they wished. Apparently, though, Baptist churches value youth ministry more, because they pay their youth pastors 20 percent more.

2. Female solo pastors earn more than male solo pastors.
Okay, so there aren't many female solo pastors; in American churches responding to our survey, only six percent of solo pastors are women. Still, it's intriguing that female solo pastors reported 10.4 percent higher total compensation. Their average salary was 8.6 percent higher than men's ($49,219 compared to $45,259); and better housing and retirement benefits made up the rest. Why the difference? Why do female solo pastors earn, for total compensation (includes health insurance, retirement, and continuing education), $62,472, when their male counterparts earn $56,558?

My first hypothesis went like this: "Since there are precious few women hired as senior pastors - only 2.5 percent, in our research - women stay in solo pastorates longer, and their longevity leads to higher pay." But that hypothesis doesn't hold up: for solo pastors, the number of years served makes next to no difference in pay.

The more-likely explanation is regional. We know that solo pastors receive the highest pay in the New England and Pacific states (not surprisingly, given the higher cost of living in these regions). And these regions probably have the greatest cultural acceptance of women serving as solo pastors. Thus, women solo pastors tend to find work in regions with a high cost of living, and consequently, get a higher salary.

And before we assume that the church runs counter to the still-prevalent cultural practice of paying women less than men for comparable work, women were paid less than men in every other church position surveyed (except for secretary). On average, females earned approximately 80 percent of the compensation of males. Or, in other words, males earned about 30 percent more than females.

3. That additional degree is probably worth it.
Wondering whether to finish your master's or doctorate? Even in pastoral ministry, from a financial standpoint, the answer is yes.

Roughly stated, moving from a bachelor's degree to a master's degree boosts your income from 10 to 20 percent, and getting your doctorate gets you 15 percent more on top of that. Or here's another way of looking at it: that additional degree will earn you from $7,000 to $15,000 more per year. So if you're going to serve with that degree for five or more years, you'll probably end up ahead.

How to find out more
All data above is taken from The 2008 Compensation Handbook for Church Staff, which presents data on 13 church positions, based on research among nearly 2,100 American churches, who were surveyed between January 2007 and May 2007. To pre-order for October shipment, go to Compensation Handbook or call 1-800-222-1840.

Kevin Miller is executive vice-president and publisher of Christianity Today International.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at September 18, 2007 | Comments (32)

September 14, 2007

Don't Change Your Church!

In part one of our interview with Dan Kimball he talked about the intersection of the emerging church with missional theology. Simply changing the church's worship style isn't enough, he says. Becoming truly missional requires "an ecclesiological change." In part two, Kimball address the role aging congregations can play in helping to reach the younger generation. And, once again, the answer is more about having a missional mindset rather than a cutting edge worship style.

You've been at this conference for a couple of days now. Are you sensing that leaders are asking the deeper philosophical questions? What kind of questions are you hearing? It's been refreshing to see the interest in the future of the church by mostly middle aged and older pastors. They are really concerned about younger people. It's refreshing and very sincere. I think this is happening because churches recognize younger people are disappearing. A woman talked to me just this morning about her daughter disconnecting from the church. She was very emotional. She wanted to know what her church could possibly do. So the refreshing part is seeing real passion from leaders saying we must do something. And the sad part is I suspect existing churches won't be willing or able to make the necessary changes. I really, really hope they can. But it will take a sense of humility and passion.

And what do you say to people when they are looking to you for the answer?
This sounds clich?, but there isn't a single answer. So much depends on the church.

So much depends on the history of the specific church. So much depends on who is in the leadership of the church. So much depends on the skill sets of the existing leaders. So much depends on the church's culture, and who is part of the church and who lives in the community around the church. Sometimes a church shouldn't do anything because they are doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing for the people God has given them to shepherd and lead and reach.

This is a true story. A guy read The Emerging Church, and a year later he saw me. He said, "Dan, It's just not working." And I said, "What are you doing?" He said, "I got some art stuff, and we are doing multi-sensory worship. And I'm having people come up and paint. But the younger people aren't coming in." I asked him, "What is your church is like." He said it was about twenty-five elderly people. My heart broke listening to him share what happened. He convinced this group of elderly people they need to worship differently. They even changed the name of their church. He thought changing the worship gathering and having twenty-five elderly people do art in worship would bring in the younger people. His sincerity almost made me want to cry. We talked about his situation and I encouraged him to just shepherd the existing group of people in a way that makes sense to them and they can relate to.

So, not every leader needs to radically change their church.
No, because God may have their church a certain way intentionally. We need different kinds of churches in every city. Everyone doesn't need to change their style to reflect what we are doing. What does need to change, however, is the development of an outward missional heart - no matter what kind or type of a church you are. But being missional will look different depending on your location, who the leaders are, what the people of the church are like, etc. You can have a very missional church of primarily elderly people or you can have a very non-missional church of twenty-somethings.

It's hard for churches that are growing older to face the future. Maybe for some older congregations the answer is partnering with a younger church plant. We are doing that with our church. We've partnered with an aging church and we share their facilities. We are really joining together. It has its difficulties, but because it is missionally motivated it is extremely rewarding. But what makes it possible is that the older church has a missional mindset.

Dan Kimball is pastor of Vintage Faith Church in Santa Cruz, California, and author of They Like Jesus but Not the Church (Zondervan, 2007). A review of his book can be found in the summer issue of Leadership.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at September 14, 2007 | Comments (11)

September 11, 2007

Alien Nation

We are putting the finishing touches on the next issue of Leadership built around the theme of ministering to people on the margins. Isaac Canales, pastor of Mission Ebenezer Family Church in Carson, California, has sent us this provocative article about ministry among immigrants. We're posting it here first to hear your responses. Some of your comments may be republished with Canales' article in the October issue of Leadership.

I am a Harvard graduate and the son of immigrants. My story is not unique. In California, where I live, immigration has been an issue for decades. We've lived with it every day of our lives, long before it became a divisive political issue. In California, even our governor is an immigrant. But most immigrants here are not from Austria. Most, like my parents, came from Mexico.

Today's debate over "illegal aliens" is not new, but perhaps a bit of historical perspective will be helpful.

My mother was kidnapped by her father when she was four. He told his mother-in-law that he was taking his daughter to the market to buy her shoes. He never returned. Instead he brought my mother to Bakersfield, California, where he supported her by picking grapes, cotton, and fruit. Eventually, he became a naturalized American citizen and was proud of it. He bought a house with white columns and a wide porch. That is where mama grew up.

My father came across the Rio Grande and was an orphan by age eleven. He wandered from family to family, boarding house to boarding house. Freight train cars were his home for many years. At age 27 Papa experienced a powerful conversion and later attended the Latin American Bible Institute in Southern California. But before entering the school, he received a call from Uncle Sam.

Despite being an immigrant, completely undocumented and without naturalization papers, he was sent to fight in World War II. The Bible school sent Papa his first year's books to study while overseas. I still have them. My father glued them all together with egg whites into one big volume as he carried it to England, France, Belgium, North Africa, and then back home. Toward the end of the war, my father became an American citizen with hundreds of other soldiers in a massive swearing-in ceremony. He was always proud of his service in the army.

My father and mother entered the gospel ministry together. When I was a child, they founded two churches including the one I pastor today in Carson, California - Mission Ebenezer Family Church. Many of our members are immigrants. In the beginning they were largely Mexican. Now we see 2nd, 3rd, and even 4th generation El Salvadorian, Guatemalan, Columbian, Peruvian, and other nationalities represented.

My heart is thrilled as they share their testimonies of how God brought them to the United States in a car trunk, under a truck chassis, walking, swimming, or through tunnels. Many risked death walking through the desert. But they all came with God's help and with ours. I do not believe we are being politically defiant by helping them to the land of promise. This is our religious experience. The stories of faith they share make God real, and our mercy right.

In 1983, I was recently ordained, and our church was very small - just 23 people meeting in a tavern. One of our members, Sister Benny, would often disappear for a weekend to perform a secret ministry.

Benny was a Christian Coyote. A coyote usually charges immigrants a fee to bring them over the border and avoid immigration agents, but Benny did not charge. It was her way of serving the Lord. And she only transported babies that had been separated from their families in California.

Benny also had a practical reason for only transporting infants. She was a large woman, at least 380 pounds and only 5 feet tall. She always wore very large comfortable Hawaiian muumuus - red with white hibiscus, or pink with green palm trees and pineapples. Border agents never noticed the baby moving underneath. She brought many children across this way, under her dress or between her legs.

Benny, with the help of her husband Julio, reunited one family that was staying in my garage. The parents, Paz and Jorge, paid a coyote $2,000 to bring them and their older son across the border, but they had to leave their baby behind with his grandparents. So Benny retrieved their two-year-old from Mexico.

Of course, her ministry was not an officially recognized program of the church, but we were excited when she brought back Paz and Jorge's little boy. They pulled up to our house around 1:00 a.m. We woke our three boys. Paz and Jorge were waiting with us curbside. It was a wonderful time of prayer and thanksgiving to the Lord for bringing this family back together.

Nico and Chayo came to America from Oaxaca, Mexico. The elderly couple invited us over for dinner. They lived in a small one-room apartment divided by a wire draped with sheets clipped together with clothespins. This provided some privacy, parents on one side of the sheets, kids on the other. Ten people lived in one room. They were so excited to have us in their home.

We sat on their only two chairs. They stood as they proudly served us. They had a hot plate with two small burners. One had a little pot of coffee. The other burner had some corn tortillas. Little black blisters showed that the tortillas were ready. The dinner was very simple and served humbly and with love.

Nico took his sweaty work hat off and asked me if I would like to say grace. I said no. I wanted to hear him try a prayer since he had just recently given his heart to Christ. He prayed thoughtfully, carefully, and sincerely. Then they served us a small plate of the most wonderful beans, fried in bacon fat, and crispy hot corn tortillas with a cup of steaming coffee. That was all.

I remember thinking to myself, "Is this why you trained at Harvard?" The answer was a resounding, "Yes."

I remembered what Jesus said, "Wherever two or three are gathered in my name, there I am in their midst." Jesus wasn't on the tortilla. But he was there in that sheet-draped apartment.

Nico and Chayo were illiterate. They signed the membership rolls at the church, proudly, with an X. I bought Chayo a New Testament on cassette, in Spanish. She memorized many passages. It was thrilling to watch her stand up during our testimony time and see her wince with bashfulness, smile shyly, close her eyes, and say a Bible verse. Chayo and Nico were faithful to the end. They're both in heaven now.

My years of ministry to immigrants has taught me many things, and has given me insight into many biblical lessons. The Old Testament teaches us a theology of welcome. From the very beginning, in the Torah, God says, "For the Lord your God is the God of gods . . . who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes. He defends . . . the fatherless and the widow, and loves the alien, giving him food and clothing. And you are to love those who are aliens, for you yourselves were aliens in Egypt" (Deut.10:17-19).

Paul carries this lesson into the New Testament. He reminds us in Romans that Israel had forgotten to embrace foreign cultures with the love of God. The worship of the living God had lost much of its evangelistic fervor in their hands. The mandate the church receives is to accept others as Christ has accepted us.

In other words God loves the immigrants among us, and we are called to love them as well. However unsettling this may be, it is the American church's mandate to embrace God's theology of welcome in Christ Jesus. Our task as a church is not to judge immigrants but to love them, to become the arms of Christ, not the hands of tyranny. This is our prophetic and Christian duty.

As we look around our diverse country we need to remember that God's intent is for all cultures and tongues worship in his house. We tell our friends that the kingdom of God is a big party with a pi?ata where all are welcome. But what kind of fiesta is it, really?

Is the kingdom for the documented only? At this fiesta are Asians in one room and blacks in another? Are the Pentecostals all crammed into the afterglow room, whites in the living room, and immigrants in the back?

Throughout our history there have been times when non-Christians see through our hypocrisy. They recognize that not everyone is truly welcome in our churches. These are times when we've worried about being politically right when we should be focused on being biblically correct.

The root of American evangelical hypocrisy is smugness; a historical inability to understand God's unfailing mercies for the immigrant, his unfailing love for the poor among us. If our sense of worth is measured by privatized religion and political culture - from our color, to our work ethic, to the neighborhoods we live and worship in - we remain independent of God and self-sufficiently smug. Christ cannot help us. We are not being his church.

So the question I ask myself, and pose to every pastor, is: Shall I build a church that isolates us from immigrants, or should I embrace God's story of welcome?

It is easy to raise a church with one culture, one language, one worldview. Anyone can raise up a large that is one culture. But building a church that includes the alien, the immigrant poor, can only be done with Christ. That is our biblical challenge and our biblical mandate.

Isaac Canales is pastor of Mission Ebenezer Family Church in Carson, California.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at September 11, 2007 | Comments (40)

September 6, 2007

Emerging + Missional = Emergissional

Dan Kimball is a recognized authority on the emerging church. After all, he did write the book on the subject. At a recent conference we sat down to talk with Kimball about the future he sees for the emerging church, and how it relates to the growing popularity of all things "missional."

There has been a lot of talk at this conference about the emerging church. Looking into your crystal ball, where do you see this going? Do you think this conversation has legs, or will it morph into something else?
It is totally hard to say. The term "emerging church" now means so many different things depending on who you are asking. So it all depends on what stream of the emerging church we are talking about. For me, the term means churches that are being missional in our emerging culture. That part of the conversation certainly seems to be gaining steam and interest from churches of all types. So I really hope the missional outward thinking is something that grows stronger and lasts. But what that looks like may be constantly changing as culture changes. But I hope we keep gaining a passion for being sent by Jesus into the world. I hope that stream of the emerging church grows and lasts.

You've talked about Guder's book, The Missional Church. Do you see a convergence between the ideas generated by the emerging church and the growing popularity of missional theology, or do you see them as really separate conversations?
To my best understanding the emerging church and the missional church are very much the same. But when you talk about the "emerging church" there is also a stream of conversation which focuses more on pragmatic changes - like worship gathering and helping younger people connect with worship. That is part of it, but it is far more than just making changes in the worship gathering, it is a philosophical way of being a Christian and being churches sent into the world. Personally, I use the terms "emerging church" and "missional church" interchangeably. They are synonymous conversations. But not everyone sees them that way.

Because they're not addressing the deeper, philosophical, theological issues, they're just changing their style?
Some churches only change the style or add an alternative Sunday night worship gathering to see younger people come to the church and consider that to be missional or emerging. That's a wonderful hope and worthy motivation, but usually that isn't addressing the deeper issues. Adding an alternative worship gathering to an existing church is very difficult because the philosophical DNA not going to be different. Being missional requires an ecclesiological change.

That's why I never recommend starting an alternative gathering with a different pastor in an existing church. Being missional must impact the whole of the church, not just a department within the church. That's why most churches-within-a-church don't work and why we are seeing so many church planters. It's hard to change an existing church at this deep a level. It's not impossible, but it is a lot harder than just changing the style of an alternative worship gathering.

Dan Kimball is pastor of Vintage Faith Church in Santa Cruz, California, and author of They Like Jesus but Not the Church (Zondervan, 2007). A review of his book can be found in the summer issue of Leadership.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at September 6, 2007 | Comments (4)

September 4, 2007

5 Crucial Questions on the State of Leadership

Few books in my library have offered more quotable material than Jean Vanier's Community and Growth (Paulist Press, 1989).

Here's a nugget:

"In order to be able to assume the responsibility for other people's growth, leaders must themselves have grown to true maturity and inner freedom. They must not be locked up in a prison of illusion or selfishness, and they must have allowed others to guide them.

"We can only command if we know how to obey. We can only be a leader if we know how to be a servant. We can only be a mother - or a father - figure if we are conscious of ourselves as a daughter or a son. Jesus is the Lamb before the He is the Shepherd. His authority comes from the Father; He is the beloved Son of the Father" (p. 225).

In the order of thought in Vanier's two paragraphs, I should like to raise these questions for some of us to ponder:

1. What is "true maturity" in the biblical sense and is our Christian movement producing those kinds of persons in any reasonable quantity?

2. What does it mean to "allow others to guide them?" How are "apprentice" leaders guided in growth toward maturity?

3. Is the notion of Christian obedience still alive in our new view of discipleship? What does it mean to veer away from generally accepted cultural practices because one becomes convinced that they must first reckon with the yes's and the no's of Jesus?

4. What does it mean to be a "daughter" or "son" in Vanier's perspective? And how does that lead to becoming a "mother" or a "father" in the community of faith?

5. Might it not be profitable to take a fresh look to the relationship between Jesus and His Father and see if this is not the primary template of the true Christian life?

Questions like these nag at me because I sense that there are growing suspicions that our Christian movement is simply not producing the kinds of Christ-followers who can stand up to the rigors of this new age in which we live. As has been the case for a long time, we are a movement that can get people to cross a discernable line into faith. But once they've been on the Jesus side of the line for a while, there arises an insipid boredom and bogging down in terms of spiritual growth and service. If there is any credibility to this wild generalization, then the operational question becomes why?

Gordon MacDonald, Leadership editor at large

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at September 4, 2007 | Comments (11)