Earlier this week, Dave Travis from Leadership Network asked Skye Jethani a few questions regarding his objections to the Twitter poll they launched for THE NINES. In part 2, Travis answers questions about the same poll asked by Jethani.

Skye: You've noted that the Twitter poll has been really effective at generating more names of possible speakers for THE NINES. What other criteria do you use to select the speakers?

Good question and we get it a lot. To keep from rambling on too much, I gave an answer in May in response to our SAGE online conference. You can find that full answer here:

http://learnings.leadnet.org/2010/05/how-do-you-pick-the-speakers.html

I also answer why sometime speakers choose not to participate there.

But in summary, we ask for nominations from our staff, about 15 people. Most of those staff are based across the country and have some wide relational networks. Now many of those nominated comes from those we work with in our regular programs.

As I said in that post: “Most of the speakers have been a part of one of our Leadership Communities, Labs, or the like. Or we have known them forever through our history. So, if you have never been a part of one of our programs, it is hard for us to know you.”

In order to get a blend of speakers we do seek out some interesting stories from people that are friends of friends. And we try to mix people our clients have heard before with people that few have heard. If you were to go back and look at THE NINES last year, Aha! And SAGE this year, you would find that to be true.

I would just also say that we choose to platform people that we think have a story that needs to be told, particularly if they are an 'unknown' voice. We try to cast a wide net.

We ask a lot of people, and sometimes speakers choose not to participate and I cover that in that previous post.

And I will also say – we ask God to have people say “yes” that can help leaders expand and clarify their own leadership as a Christian leader. That means I can listen to someone that I disagree with and still learn something and gain clarity on my own leadership. There are some people on our list that I think I can learn from even though I may not like how they lead, their church, their views, or other assorted baggage they may bring with them.

I think most viewers and participants at any conference are very discerning about what to keep and what to throw out.

Skye: Given all of the shortcomings you and Todd have acknowledged about the Twitter poll, why have you decided it's worth keeping up?

I am the king of shortcomings and failures so people pointing them out really doesn’t hurt my feelings. (or feeling as some of my staff would say)

But like I said in a previous post, despite the fact of sending surveys to thousands of people after last year’s THE NINES asking for recommendations, we got back pitifully few names. And the ones we got were mostly people we had just had on THE NINES. The few that weren’t were people we had slated for future online conferences. So, bottom line, not a lot of new names.

Skye Jethani, managing editor of Leadership Journal, and Dave Travis, managing director of Leadership Network, have been talking about the controversy surrounding THE NINES' poll. Jethani thinks it was a mistake--a poorly communicated idea that has deteriorated into a popularity contest among church leaders. Travis says its been a helpful way to generate new ideas and speakers for THE NINES online video conference. They've decided to have an open dialogue about the issue. Dave Travis has started by asking a few questions about Skye Jethani's objections to the poll. Later this week we'll be posting Travis' response to Jethani's questions.

Dave Travis: Skye – you really didn’t like the list idea at all did you? What was your main issue?

Skye Jethani: Based on the explanation you and Todd gave, I understand the list was intended to build buzz for THE NINES and to do some trolling for new voices. There’s certainly nothing wrong with that motive. It’s the execution that’s worrisome. The open source list has no instruction, no context, no explanation for how to participate, and no details about how you intend to use it. Anyone visiting the page simply sees a list of a few hundred Christian leaders with “like” and “dislike” voting options next to his/her name and photo.

I believe very often “the medium is the message.” The message you intended was one of open participation; you wanted to let the audience have a role in nominating and selecting the speakers for THE NINES. That’s a fine thing. But the medium you chose, this Twitter poll, communicated something very different. It encourages the ranking of church leaders with a simple thumbs up or down. It’s one thing to “like” or “dislike” a person’s book, sermon, or theology. But this site communicated something more, something you did not intend. It asks visitors to “like” or “dislike” a person. In my view that crosses a line and encourages very unchristian values. Again, I know this was not the intention but that is the danger of using a new medium without much reflection. As Todd said, “From the time I saw the application until the page was posted was probably all of three minutes.” Those of us responsible for leading leaders in the church should exhibit more caution when presented with a new medium.

That’s good feedback. I know you have seen some of our thinking now but my guess is that you are still uncomfortable. I get that. Share with the readers some of that queasiness.

Both you and Todd have acknowledged the way the list can be misused and misunderstood. You did not intend for it to be a popularity contest, although that’s how many have seen it. You’ve recognized the problem with the application not allowing you to post instructions, directions, or guidelines for voting. You’ve regretted the “like” and “dislike” language. On your blog and on Out of Ur you’ve listed the numerous shortcomings of the format. So, my only question is--why keep it up? Sure, its generating buzz--and I’ve become an accomplice in that through my objection to the poll--but any positive input it’s provided can be cultivated by other means (which I’ll discuss in a minute). So why not take it down?

Yesterday, Skye Jethani wrote a post critical of how Leadership Network was driving publicity for THE NINES conference. The "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" poll raking Christian leaders struck him as distasteful and he asked his friends at Leadership Network to reconsider the site. Dave Travis, managing director of Leadership Network, spoke with Skye and explained their thinking behind the use of the "crowd source" poll. Travis has written a response to the objections on his blog, and we've excerpted a section here. Read Dave Travis' entire post at Learnings @ Leadership Network.

A few weeks ago a new web site technology went live that allows you to post a list to get opinions. Todd Rhodes (Leadership Network's digital guru) decided to try it to stir up some interest in THE NINES.

We seeded the list with 20-25 names and encouraged folks to add to the list.

We did this to get some suggestions on who we might need to invite to speak this year. We knew that via social media connections we would cast a much wider net to see who is suggested.

Now the site (http://twtpick.in/4k) has its limitations. That is how that service works.

It doesn’t allow you to put any explanatory text on the page.

It only allows the “like” or “dislike” which are unfortunate word choices. Our preference would have been different for word choice.

It does allow people to freely add people as suggested speakers though for lots of others to see. And we liked that.

It does mean you have to sign in with your twitter account so we can see who you like. It’s not an anonymous service.

Sometimes there is a good leader who is overexposed. They speak everywhere and they are good at it. There is a place for that and a place at THE NINES for that. I think some hit the “dislike” button because they have heard a person too many times.

In ancient Rome large audiences gathered in coliseums to be entertained by slaves and prisoners—including many Christians—fighting for their lives against wild beasts and one another. Their fate was often determined by the emperor who gauged the crowd’s pleasure or displeasure. If he displayed a thumbs up the victim was spared; a thumbs down meant he was put to death. Popularity became the measure of a person’s life.

For 2000 years the people of Christ have stood in opposition to this value. Paul wrote to remind the church that “we regard no one according to the flesh” (2 Cor 5:16). We do not measure a person’s value by the same standard as the world. Worth is not determined by popularity, beauty, or worldly success. It is this conviction that has motivated Christians to fight against slavery, seek justice for the orphans and widows, build hospitals and schools, preach the Good News to the poor, and value all people from the womb to the tomb.

For this reason I was both saddened and disturbed by the Leadership Network’s decision to run a Twitter-based popularity contest to determine the speakers for THE NINES conference in 2010. The feedback form seen here allows users to submit the name of a church leader. Twitter users are then able to give a thumbs up or down to each person. Ranking is then automatically determined by the ratio of positive to negative votes a leader receives. Adding a dash of arsenic to an already distasteful dish, the site allows you to see exactly who voted up or down for each leader.

Read part 1 of the interview.

How would describe some of the rewards of leading a multi-ethnic church to pastors who have spent their vocational lives within a homogeneous church?

For eighteen years prior to planting Mosaic I served homogeneous congregations. Like my friends and colleagues serving such churches today, I was blessed on numerous occasions to experience God working in and through me for his glory. Nevertheless, my wife and I have found an inimitable dimension of the Holy Spirit, a unique power and pleasure of God, that dwells in the midst of a diverse people seeking Christ as one. Through Mosaic we have ministered with and to so many people who are different from us, people who in one way or another have encouraged, challenged, or validated our calling beyond what we might have ever known had we stayed within the safe confines of the homogeneous church. In addition, visitors consistently tell us that they cannot stop crying during the service. In such moments they sense the Holy Spirit near, in ways they are not accustomed to.

Of course, we also face discouragement along the way. At times, we think, "Let's just go back to doing what is easy, what we know, in a church with people like us.” But at the end of the day we return to the roots of our calling, mindful that in pursuing the path of a peacemaker we are blessed to be called "the sons of God," (Matthew 5:9).

Mark DeYmaz is the founding pastor of Mosiac Church of Central Arkansas, author of Building a Healthy Multi-ethnic Church and co-founder of the Mosaix Network. Mark’s recently published second book, Ethnic Blends, addresses some of the unique challenges faced by multi-ethnic churches. Urthling, David Swanson, spoke with Mark about the theology and challenges of multi-ethnic ministry.

In the book you argue that the New Testament paradigm for the local church is one that exhibits ethnic and socio-economic diversity. In your years pastoring a multi-ethnic church, what has been the theology that most compels people to embrace this ideal for the local church?

While God's heart for the nations is evident from Genesis through Revelation, such a broad understanding is not enough to inform pastors concerning their approach to ministry. A closer examination of the New Testament, however, reveals a very precise theology upon which the multi-ethnic/economically diverse local church should be built, a biblical mandate that cannot be ignored. Namely,

Christ envisions the multi-ethnic church on the night before he dies (John 17:20-23), so that the world will know God's love and believe.

Luke describes the model at Antioch (Acts 11:19-26; 13:1ff.), the first mega, missional and multi-ethnic community of faith and the most influential church in the New Testament.

Paul prescribes unity and diversity for the local church in his letter to the Ephesians, where his theme is "the unity of the church for the sake of the Gospel."

This excerpt is taken from "Control Tweaks" in the Spring issue of Leadership. Read the entire article.

"In my research I found that churches often lean in one of two directions. Some believe that people should be "self-feeders." The church's responsibility is to create impressive worship services with practical teaching, and maybe connect members into relational groups. From there, however, the people are expected to do the rest. Their spiritual growth is in their own hands.

"On the other side are churches who are "spoon-feeders." They place a high value on biblical teaching and exposition. The sermons are deep and these churches imply that if you just come and listen, you'll grow in your faith. "Maturity migration" happens when attenders at a "self-feeder" church desire more depth and make the shift to a "spoon-feeder" congregation.

"There are problems on both extremes."

Darrin Patrick is the pastor of The Journey in St. Louis, Missouri, and vice president of the Acts 29 Church Planting Network. To read the rest of his interview in context, pick up the Spring 2010 issue of Leadership journal or subscribe by clicking on the cover in the left column.

Earlier this week, Collin Hansen warned about the growing popularity and risks of using humor in the pulpit. I thought an illustration was called for. Mark Driscoll uses humor frequently, among other communication tactics, to convey his messages. Here is Driscoll employing the most elemental, and apparently biblical, of all comedic genres--potty humor.

I love to laugh. And when I laugh, you’ll hear me if you’re in the same zip code. I have a few all-time favorite comedy TV shows that I can watch over and over again. And I enjoy funny movies, so long as they forego the explicit sexual content.

So why do I often cringe when pastors crack jokes during their sermons on Sunday morning? Maybe the joke’s on me, because comedy has become many pastors’ best friend. Apparently, seminaries may want to consider adding a course in stand-up comedy to prepare their preachers. One church I know recently hosted “Church Joke Sunday.” In lieu of hearing a sermon, a dwindling number of people who actually understand denominational humor laughed about the differences between Methodists and Presbyterians. And during the recent Festival of Homiletics in Nashville, Susan Sparks coached pastors in clerical comedy.

“Close to 200 ministers crowded a classroom at First Baptist, with more hanging out in the hallway for her workshop on bringing humor into the pulpit,” Bob Smietana wrote for The Tennessean on May 20. “She says that humor can help preachers connect with their parishioners, defuse church conflict and deal with an often-stressful calling. To help get her message across, Sparks gave preachers a Ten Commandments of stand-up comedy.”

I don’t suppose there is any way to criticize this approach and come across as anything but dour. So be it. I can’t help but wonder about the health of American churches when comedy is considered a cure. Are we just bored with the gospel? Do we have nothing to offer the broader world except jokes that few outside the church would consider funny? Is anyone aware that the watching world laughs at us, not with us?

Years ago I worked for a visionary pastor who saw ‘the city on the hill’ that he believed our church could become and then he proceeded to lead us there. Using his preaching, pastoral care and personal charisma, he got everyone – or nearly so - focused on the one main goal of impacting our city for Christ. And because of his single-minded devotion, in time his vision became a reality. The church prospered, the community was blessed, and hundreds of lives were touched with the Gospel.

Unfortunately, that was the extent of his success. In subsequent years he lost his way. He regularly generated new ideas and strategies but hardly focused at all on the need for more organization and structure. He continued to change out staff and lay leaders, but spent almost no time building community with the ones who stayed. And he gave too little attention to the necessary practice of self-leadership. That, unfortunately, resulted in a tragic moral failure. Too bad Scott Belsky’s book Making Ideas Happen wasn’t around then. It might have saved our pastor, his family, and the church a lot of heartache and wasted resources.

Back on May 18, Religion News Service reported that Ted Haggard filed business documentation with Colorado’s secretary of state to incorporate a nonprofit called “St. James Church.” The address listed on the documents was the same as Ted and Gayle Haggard’s home.

Asked at the time if he was starting a new church Haggard replied, “A corporation does not a church make.” Haggard said the nonprofit was established to help him manage the revenue and expenses generated from his speaking and traveling. "There are tens of thousands, probably hundreds of thousands, of people that travel and incorporate in order to manage finances," he said. "That's what I'm doing."

Asked if “St. James Church” might become an actual church in the future, he commented that there was “no way to know the future.”

At a press conference today, Ted Haggard announced he is launching a new church.

40 years ago the Boeing 747 entered commercial service on route between New York and London. While the spectators marveled at the technological achievement—no one had seen 700,000 pounds of aluminum fly before—no one in the crowd realized that they were also witnessing a sociological revolution—no one except Juan Trippe. Trippe was president of PanAm, the first airline to purchase the massive new Boeing. The visionary businessman knew the huge plane would change air travel, but he predicted much more. Before the plane had even left the drawing board, Trippe said that the 747 would be “…a great weapon for peace, competing with intercontinental missiles for mankind’s destiny.”

His remarks may have been interpreted as hyperbole in 1970, but most now agree that the Boeing 747 has been a significant catalyst of globalization. The Jumbo Jet, as it was affectionately nicknamed, represented a huge increase in passenger capacity compared with earlier airliners which in turn lowered the cost of flying. As a result the 747 made long-range, intercontinental travel accessible to millions of people for the first time. To use Thomas Friedman’s phrase, the Jumbo Jet was instrumental in making the world flat.