June 30, 2010

An Open Dialogue about THE NINES' Poll (Part 2)

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.

In addition, we did ask some friends on an informal basis and got a few new names.

While I knew almost all of our Aha! And SAGE speakers from being the old man at Leadership Network my guess is that very few others knew the majority.

Now our blog doesn’t have the readership that yours does, but as we have asked via our twitter and blogs, we still tend to get the same names.

Here is the first tweet from two weeks ago from Todd Rhoades, our digital guru:

“I'm making a list of "Speakers You'd Like to See on THE NINES this year" on TwtPickin.http://twtpick.in/4k // Please RT.9:51 AM Jun 14th via twtpickin”

Todd put it out there to his twitter followers. It says, “tell us who you would like to see.” Some have said we should have considered all the implications and unintended consequences of everything we try. Honestly, if we did this, we would never get anything done. If you worry about how a few will respond, we wouldn’t reach very many people.

But we liked the idea to try it. We like trying new things. If things don’t work, we just don’t do them again. We’ve had some faulty programs and events in the past and we just move on to the next idea. We are ok with people not liking the idea.

We had no idea so many people we see or use it. We hoped we could get at least 100 new names and a 1000 people to look at the page. Obviously we have surpassed those numbers.

The site lets people nominate whoever they want, whether we like them or not. Plus it lets us see who nominated them and who is saying “I would like to hear this person speak.” So there is no anonymity to hide behind.

Sure, the template technology, which allows very little tweaking, is limiting. I didn’t figure people would use the “dislike” button much and just eyeballing it, people are using the “like” button 10 times more than the other one. One has to really read into the page to look at this as a 'like'/'dislike' of the individual. This page was created to solicit names of speakers people wanted to hear/see at THE NINES. In that context, 'like' means I'd like to hear them; 'dislike' means I would 'not like' hearing them. Nothing more.

And like I said on my previous post, a high dislike factor means that this person may have some interesting things to say.

It won’t stay up forever, once we get ready to release the “official” site for this year, I think we will leave it alone.

Skye: Have you been surprised at all by the feedback you've received from folks other than me?

Well we have certainly been surprised by how many people have looked at the page and how many suggested folks.

So far, and I know you don’t like it, this little experiment has generated tons of potential speakers. (Over 400) A lot of people, over 12,000, have made a comment. We never get that kind of feedback with any other technology. The number of comments is about ten times the number of any other list on their platform. Which means that the topic of Christian Leadership is ten times more popular than iPad apps right now.

Todd had a call from someone on the list who wanted to be taken off, and we took them off. I had one call from a pastor friend who felt bad for someone near the bottom and said I should have mercy on them and take them off. I told him that I like that person and they had always been gracious to me and that it wasn’t going to influence whether we would invite that person or not.

I was surprised by some names at the bottom of the list because I think they may have a good contribution to the conversation. In fact, I will blog about that hopefully later this week.

Other than a very few bloggers and a few comments on your blog, it’s been pretty quiet, except for the thousands who did vote, and the hundreds who submitted speakers. :)

Now part of that is that we have a pretty solid list of people that don’t like Leadership Network, the churches we serve and how we do it. (Not saying you are in that camp) But part of my job is to keep us focused on our mission and plan and focus on those that are receptive to our point of view.

About the weirdest thing I read was that someone said 9 minutes was not long enough and that 20 minutes is also too short. We think both of those are way too long for this type of format. We find that good communicators can make a good point in six minutes.

Skye: How might a pastor without a publishing deal, a big church, or massive name recognition get a shot at speaking on THE NINES or any other Leadership Network event? How do you try to cultivate new, wise voices?

Well, I sound like a broken record ( I guess you have to old to even know what that is anymore) but I would encourage people to go look and see who spoke at our last three online events and you will see that most of these aren’t authors and don’t speak “on the circuit.” Now many do lead innovative, growing churches but that is sort of our niche. I make no apology for that.

I think some of the best content was on SAGE and Aha! But we only had about 20,000 viewers for those. Go back and check those out! http://sage.leadnet.org andhttp://aha.leadnet.org

The lists do tend to be dominated by churches that have been in our Leadership Community programs because we get to know them over time. Our Leadership Communities and Labs are high commitment and highly selective. That’s where our process of helping churches double their impact in half the time works. Those are our core efforts.

The things like these online Conference is maybe 5% of what we do. It’s a visible 5% but something that we try to do on a shoe string and borrowed time.

And we have used this list project to gather some new names looking carefully at multiple blogs, twitter trails and web sites to check some folks out. I added four dozen blogs to the additional 250 I already follow to check in with folks. And we are going to seek out some videos from some folks that we have gleaned from the site to try. And others we will save for future online conferences.

Now you suggested that we take three minute videos and look at them.

Actually, we already had in the plan something like that and we will announce that soon.

But we don’t have a full time staff to work on this. We sort of throw things together and hope they work. Even with that, I don’t think we could preview all of them. So, Todd has cooked up a plan for that. At least I hope he has. Like I said, we use this to experiment.

If you are looking for slick and polished stuff, by all means go to one of the really great Christian leader conferences that are happening this fall. We announce a new one in our Leadership Network Advance about every issue. And we go hang out and meet lots of folks at them when we can. But we hold these parts of our program together with bailing string and bubble gum and save most of our firepower for our Leadership Communities and Labs.

In 2009, we had 51 “live” gatherings for Leadership Network things and 1 online conference. Sure the online conference reached a whole bunch of folks, but it’s not our core deal.

Skye: On a positive note, what can we look forward to about THE NINES this year? How will it be different than the last conference?

I hope were having Skye Jethani to share with us!

Well it is going to be shorter. ONLY 9 hours instead of 13. Speakers are going to be limited to 6 minutes.

All kidding aside, we have several new layers we are adding this year that we aren’t quite ready to announce BUT here is what I can tell you:

Everyone can still come for free.

IF you want to buy a beautiful program book with a tentative schedule and run order with notes from many of the speakers, that will be an option.

We are going to have a group party option too!

And a super duper, maximum learning option as well I think.

Perhaps a surprise location that will intrigue some and anger others.

Hopefully, some guests and color commentators “live” that day.

If I sound vague it’s mainly because we have thrown lots of ideas on the page and are now trying to figure out if we can do them all. I am not afraid to have us fail boldly at this type of thing. We learn each time and try and improve the next time.

Hang with us. The best is yet to come. Or at least the better.

If you follow @leadnet on twitter you will get the latest information about our event this year.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at June 30, 2010 | Comments (6) | TrackBack

June 28, 2010

An Open Dialogue about THE NINES' Poll

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?

One commenter on Out of Ur named Tim made a very good point. He reminded us that pastors face the “like/dislike” judgment every time they seek a new calling, every time they preach a sermon, and whenever a congregation votes them in or out. It often has nothing to do with his/her character, calling, or heart. Tim is absolutely right. Wonderful men and women in ministry face superficial judgments and popularity contests all the time, and over time it can eat away at their souls. As those seeking to equip and encourage these leaders, we owe it to them to not feed the widespread and destructive view that their values is based on such superficial things. Although not your intent, I’m afraid that is what this poll communicates.

We spoke about how Leadership Journal asks for input on writers and interviewees. Explain how that is different.

I know you desire to find new voices for THE NINES, and you want to involve more people in that process. That’s fantastic. No disagreement from me. In fact, that’s what we try to do when pulling together an issue of Leadership Journal as well. We have two primary ways of accomplishing this.

First, we have a group of about 100 contributing editors--pastors from around the country, from a range of denominations, small and large churches, men and women, urban, rural, and suburban, anglo, African-American, Asian-American, Latino-American, some famous, and many not. As we begin working on each issue of the journal, we contact this group about the theme for the issue. We ask them two questions--what issues related to this topic should we cover, and what leaders/churches should we include? We often get referrals that our writers and editors follow up on. If we find a leader with a great story, a helpful bit of wisdom, or an interesting insight we’ll often include them in the journal. This ensures that each issues doesn’t just include the “big names” but also many “ordinary” pastors.

In the Spring issue of LJ, there was an interview with Francis Chan. We included him because he’s having a significant influence on may leaders in the church. But there were also fantastic articles by Doug Tegner, Brian Hofmeister, and Adele Calhoun--not exactly marquee names in the celebrity Christian world. We found these wise leaders by networking and seeking referrals. One of my greatest joys as managing editor of Leadership Journal has been getting to know pastors throughout the country--extraordinary women and men with hearts for God and devoted to his work. Most are names you’d never recognize, but they’ve encouraged and educated me in many ways.

But there’s a second way we find great contributors--unsolicited manuscripts and queries. Every month we receive dozens, even hundreds, of queries and manuscripts from pastors around the world...and we read every one of them. Sure, many are passed on, but at least once a week we find one that really grabs us. An amazing story. A bold perspective. A fantastic idea. Not long ago we got a manuscript from Lieutenant Commander Bruce Crouterfield, a Navy chaplain in Iraq about what it means to bring the presence of God into the worst places. It blew us away! We published it. (You can read it here.) If we simply relied on buzz and popularity or even an open-source Twitter poll, Lieutenant Commander Crouterfield would never have been published.

In 1991 we received an unsolicited manuscript from a young, unknown pastor with a BGC church background called “One-Minute Maturity.” It was well-written, and Marshall Shelley, Leadership’s editor, saw potential. He published the piece and began cultivating the young pastor as a writer. Years later John Ortberg was hired by Willow Creek and has since published a few books.

Here’s my point. If Leadership Network and THE NINES want to find new, fresh, wise voices, there are far better ways than a thumbs up/down Twitter poll. Even if the poll produces some new names with a lot of “like” votes, there’s still no way to know whether the person has something meaningful to say. I’d suggest a more substantive process. Try inviting pastors to actually submit a short 3-minute video. Watch them. Have others you trust watch them. Find the best, most insightful, best communicators, and then invite those leaders to participate in THE NINES. Yes, it’s more time consuming than a web poll. No, it probably won’t get as much buzz. But I guarantee you’ll find some amazing, unknown, and brilliant people. And you’ll make THE NINES into a far more helpful online conference for the thousands who participate. And you’ll also avoid the pitfalls of the poll that you’re currently using.

Any surprises in the feedback to your original post?

No, not really. The feedback is a mixed bag. Some agree with me. Some think I overreacted. After blogging on Ur and other sites for a few years I’ve learned that people who disagree are more likely to submit comments then those who agree. You learn to take it with a grain of salt.

One thing we hear repeatedly on our sites and from our readers is that it’s wrong to publicly critique or disagree with the work of other Christians as in the manner I critiqued THE NINES Twitter poll you guys published. However, being in the publishing world means quickly understanding that writing books, articles, or even websites and polls is a form of public discourse. Last year I released a book. I’ve had some positive reviews, I’ve also had some very negative reviews. I don’t expect those who disagree with my book to do so only privately and one-on-one. Nor do I expect them to give me a heads up before publicly disagreeing with something I published. I wrote a book--that’s public dialogue and it means I open myself to public critique and disagreement. (Those in academia learn this well.) Leadership Network published a public poll, and the poll is open to public critique.

From time to time Leadership Journal or Christianity Today will publish a negative book review. The angry letters and blog comments flood in. We’ve often seen Matthew 18 tossed around in such cases. “How could you publicly criticize another Christian like that?” they say. “What about Matthew 18?” But that text is about rebuking a brother/sister for sin, not disagreeing with a brother/sister about an idea. For some reason people have come to think that agreement should be public but disagreement private. In the world of publishing, including online publishing, that’s just not the case.

That’s one reason I’m grateful for this dialogue. We obviously disagree about the poll. It’s not personal. It’s not ugly. It’s not about sin. Yes, opinions are strong, but they don’t have to be kept behind closed doors. It’s about what’s helpful and what’s harmful. And talking about the pros and cons of THE NINES poll can help us all learn and grow more. That’s what public dialogue, and public disagreements, are all about.

Just to make sure, you liked THE NINES last year, you just didn’t like the perceptions of the list. Right?

Absolutely! I was delighted to be a part of THE NINES. Given the tight budgets so many are facing, the idea of a free online conference is a wonderful service to many in ministry. And if invited to participate this year, I will without hesitation. I say keep THE NINES, just lose the poll.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at June 28, 2010 | Comments (6) | TrackBack

June 25, 2010

The Kerfuffle about "The Nines"

by Dave Travis

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.

There are some leaders who are great writers, but not very good a speaking. We have learned that the hard way.

Sometimes even a person who is great communicating to a large, live crowd doesn’t do too well with a small web cam speaking as if to one person in a conversational style. We have learned that too. So they may generate some “dislikes”.

The CEO of the twtpick company emailed Todd and asked for suggestions on how to improve his service and we have given him some ideas.

So far over 30,000 people have viewed the site. We are up to about 11,000 comments and over 350 speakers suggested. All of that is way, way more than we ever figured would see the list much less respond. Let’s us know that our event this year could be really BIG.

So in that way it has worked well to suggest some speakers that quite frankly, we would have never considered. (and I told Todd we should be charging the CEO for driving traffic to his site)

It has been funny to us to follow the twitter tags to see how people are reacting to the site.

Some assumed it was a popularity contest to see who would get to speak during this year’s THE NINES. Nope, we already had several lists of people we wanted to invite and will be doing so no matter where they would end up on the list. In fact many of the people on our list to speak aren’t on the big list. And on the page or in our twitters we have never positioned the list that way.

Some started campaigns via their blogs and other social media to increase their “likes”. And some have led campaigns the other way to dislike folks.

It looked like multiple people created twitter accounts with no followers in order to “dislike” about 50 people. Sort of a campaign to get someone disinvited to speak.

In fact some blogger said that he knew his list would never be popular that he wrote that he will be starting a competing event on the same day to get his suggestions on his program. Fine with us.

The top part of the list tends to be people with big names for a variety of reasons. They either speak a lot, they write books, and magazines feature them and the like. That’s fine.

We were more interested in some of the people we didn’t know. And a high dislike is not such a bad thing.

We look at some of that and think, hmmm, perhaps that would help leaders to think clearer even if they disagree with them.

Skye Jethani over at Outofur.com was one of those who posted a blog about the list. He didn’t like it. (But it had a really neat photo on it)

I consider Skye a good guy. He was a great speaker for us last year for THE NINES. He is on the list to invite again this year. I loved his book Divine Commodity too for the record. And we have been partners and friends with Leadership Journal and Christianity Today for years.

The list didn’t sit well with him and he explains himself in his post. He is a much better writer than I will ever be and comes straight to the point. I think I still win in the hair department though.

After an email from me he called and we talked. I explained more about the list and while I still don’t think he likes the technology of the list, I think he did understand better the nuance behind it.

It was a good conversation. He counseled us to post something to explain some of the things I have shared with him and that was good counsel. I appreciate good counsel.

So I thanked him for his call and kind words.

Part of our strategy at Leadership Network is to have Exploring Conversations and Establish Connections. While this list tool is a little crude, it has stirred up some conversations and through the twitter function has allowed some people with similar opinions to connect.

If you join us for THE NINES on September 9th we hope to stir up some more conversations, provide you some great ideas, expose you to some leaders you may not know, find new friends and colleagues online, and hopefully advance the gospel cause.

When registration is opened we hope many of you will register and sign up to host a viewing party to invite other leaders to share the experience.

Like I said above we have a few other wrinkles yet to be revealed that we hope will add value to the whole experience that will be revealed soon.

I learned a long time ago that some people really don’t “like” Leadership Network. And while that sometimes irritates me, I get over it and go on.

Any organization that is trying to help pastors and church leaders is usually on my “like” list but I too have favorites of even that bunch. So I get the discomfort people have with this list.

Hang with us. We are working on it. If we can find an easier technology without some of the baggage we may use it next time. In fact, why don’t you go develop one and tell us about it?

That is the beauty of the new tools. Lots of downsides but upsides too.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at June 25, 2010 | Comments (3) | TrackBack

June 24, 2010

Thumbs Down for "The Nines"

by Skye Jethani

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.

We have all come to expect such juvenile popularity contests from folks like TMZ, MTV, and others in the outrageous and exhibitionist popular media, but to see the leaders of the church behaving this way reveals how far we’ve allowed the values of Rome to infiltrate the kingdom of God. Of all people, pastors and church leaders should be modeling a different way, a different set of values. Fame is not a measure of maturity or godliness. Popularity is not what ought to determine who is heard and who is shunned. And we would be wise to remember that popular opinion is what sent Jesus to the cross and set Barabbas free.

Last year I participated in THE NINES. My 9-minute talk focused on the temptation we face as church leaders to determine our value and worth by the outcomes of our ministry and the popularity we achieve. Instead I encouraged leaders to remember that our value comes from our communion with God—the one who calls us his beloved son or daughter.

Church leaders ought to model this alternative source of human value for our people as a way of subverting the values of our present day Rome. And organizations intending to aid ministers like Leadership Network ought to do the same. But rather than defying Caesar they seem eager to emulate him.

To my friends at Leadership Network, take up your calling and model values worthy of Christ’s church. Take down the poll.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at June 24, 2010 | Comments (36) | TrackBack

June 22, 2010

The Theology of Multi-Ethnic Church (Cont.)

An Out of Ur interview with Mark DeYmaz

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).

I think there can be a perception that ethnically and socio-economically diverse churches are needed in cities, but that America’s suburbs and rural areas are mostly exempt from much of what you write about. What has been your experience in this regard?

First, no matter how ethnically homogeneous a suburb or rural area may be, the future is likely to change these demographics. The latest projections indicate that by 2042, 50 percent of the people living in the United States will not be white. So it is wise for us to plant or develop churches today with tomorrow in mind.

Secondly, even in a rural setting someone owns the shop and someone sweeps it. In other words, ethnic and economic diversity represent two sides of the same coin. In what ways are suburban and rural churches deconstructing barriers of economic class by establishing a church for all people? Do the forms and functions of the church promote a spirit of inclusion, or are they more reflective of the majority culture? What steps are being taken by church leaders to avoid prejudicial favoritism whereby only the wealthy, only English speakers, or only the similarly educated are invited to positions of influence where decisions about the church are made? Where that is not happening, I wonder how church leaders reconcile their practices with the clear instructions in James 2:1-9.

Finally, any attempt to limit or relegate the development of multi-ethnic and economically diverse churches to urban areas is both uninformed and condescending. One's desire to maintain entitlement and privilege is not at all helpful to efforts to express the love of God for all people and therefore, to expand the kingdom of God on earth via the local church.

To wrap up, what baby steps would you recommend to those pastors and leaders interested in leading their churches towards a more diverse expression of the Kingdom of God?

To get caught up to speed from a Biblical, Christ-centered perspective, I would recommend that you read the following books, from two specific categories on the subject:

Theological/Practical: Multicultural Ministry (Zondervan, 2004); Building a Healthy Multi-ethnic Church (Jossey-Bass, 2007); Ethnic Blends (Zondervan, 2010).

Sociological/Foundational: Divided By Faith (Oxford University Press, 2001); One Body, One Spirit (IVP Books, 2003); United By Faith (Oxford University Press, 2004).

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at June 22, 2010 | Comments (2) | TrackBack

June 18, 2010

The Theology of Multi-Ethnic Church

An Out of Ur interview with Mark DeYmaz

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."

You make it clear that while all pastors and church planters face significant challenges in ministry, those who pastor multi-ethnic churches can expect these challenges at another level. Why is this?

Two examples illustrate the unique challenges any time race and class are part of the equation: When an Executive Pastor admonishes a Youth Pastor to step up his game, both being white in an otherwise all-white church, the young man or woman may walk away challenged, discouraged, or even frustrated, but he or she will not wonder if race had something to do with it. In a multi-ethnic church, when an upwardly mobile African American member of your staff informs working class Hispanic members that they cannot set up tables in a specific area of the church for a Quinceañera celebration, you will not only have to navigate the natural human frustrations but subtle racial or social ones as well.

One of the specific challenges you write about are the differing theological perspectives that often exist within a multi-ethnic church. Are there times when you feel the tension between your theological convictions and the unity of the church?

Church leadership should not compromise theological conviction for the sake of increasing ethnic or economic diversity within their church. At Mosaic there have been points at which we were tempted to do so in pursuit of diversity. In the early days of our church plant we were so thankful to have anyone show up that the last thing we wanted to do was alienate anyone over a theological technicality!

Over the years we’ve been forced to consider whether or not to serve communion to a Muslim seeker, to rethink our position on the assurance of salvation for those claiming to be believers, to address if/when/where it is appropriate for a believer to pray in tongues and the role of women in ministry. Such issues are raised in every church; seeking to bring diverse people together in one church for the sake of the gospel only magnifies such concerns and consequences.

As a student of the multi-ethnic church in America you have noted different stages in the movement’s development. At this point you see the multi-ethnic church movement in the “Pioneer Stage.” By 2020 you envision 20% of churches being at least 20% diverse and by 2050, you hope that 50% of churches will be at least 50% diverse. As you talk with pastors and visit churches, what are you seeing that gives you hope that these next stages will become the new reality for the American Church?

First, let me be clear that such percentages provide just one measurement to help determine where a particular church is along a perceived continuum in pursuit of New Testament unity for the sake of the gospel. Additional factors that should be taken into account include diverse composition of vocational and volunteer leaders, acceptance of various styles of worship and cross-cultural transferability of forms and practices of ministry within the congregation. All of these further define the reality and credibility of a church that describes itself as integrated. Pastors should be careful not to rely upon numbers alone in declaring their churches to be multi-ethnic.

Having said this, I do promote a measurable goal of 20% diversity in 20% of churches throughout the U.S. by 2020, knowing that this goal represents a tipping point that will largely inform local church ministry for the rest of the century. The latest statistics show that Protestant churches were three times more likely to have 20% diversity in 2007 than they were in 1998, and evangelical Protestant churches of 1,000 or more were five times more likely to exhibit this diversity. There are also more books being published on the subject, and multi-ethnic churches (and their leaders) are increasingly the subject of magazine and newspaper articles. A growing number of churches are now describing themselves as “multi-ethnic,” “multiracial,” or “multicultural” on their websites, and conferences are including sessions devoted to multi-ethnic ministry.

Stay tuned for part 2 of David Swanson's interview with Mark DeYmaz.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at June 18, 2010 | Comments (6) | TrackBack

June 16, 2010

Out of Context: Darrin Patrick

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.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at June 16, 2010 | Comments (13) | TrackBack

June 11, 2010

Ur Video: Driscoll's Scatalogical Humor

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.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at June 11, 2010 | Comments (22) | TrackBack

June 9, 2010

The Hansen Report: Comedy in the Pulpit

by Collin Hansen

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?

Let me be clear that I find no biblical prohibition against humor in the pulpit. I don’t even think we should make a rule against telling jokes. When I visited a pastor who has publicly argued against using humor in sermons, he joked around with his respectful, adoring congregation to great effect during an anxious time of transition. Other pastors whose sermons top the mp3 download charts wield humor as the medicine that makes their challenging preaching go down more smoothly. When listening to them, it sounds like someone is playing a laugh track. But you can’t fault these pastors for shying away from the Bible’s difficult doctrines. And for what it’s worth, I enjoy the inside jokes pastors share through the award-winning cartoons in Leadership.

I’m here, though, to defend the preachers who would flop as stand-up comedians if Jesus wasn’t raised from the dead (1 Cor. 15:1-34). We are to be pitied. All we have is the good news that Jesus came to save sinners, of whom we are foremost (1 Tim. 1:15). As ambassadors for Christ, we study all week and preach our hearts out on Sunday morning, imploring everyone to be reconciled with God (2 Cor. 5:20). We might not be the best preachers, but we have the best message. We want to grow as effective communicators. But we’re tempted to despair when congregations exhort us to include more funny stories and lighten the mood.

John McClure, the Charles G. Finney Professor of Homiletics at Vanderbilt Divinity School, told The Tennessean that pastors have been debating the merits of humor for centuries. Does it aid communication or steal attention from God? Both, I think we can say, depending on the situation. On balance, though, comedian preachers run the serious risk of flaunting their funny at the expense of glorifying the God of the gospel. “Getting people to laugh feels good, and preachers can get caught up in showing worshipers that they are funny and likable,” Smietana writes.

I’m also concerned, then, for the occasionally funny pastors who will someday realize they can’t make it on the stand-up circuit, either. We can understand why they take this quick path to a congregation’s good graces. Pastoring is hard work. Ministers looking for love and support need to discharge every available arrow in their quivers. But sooner or later, those arrows will run out. If you win the congregation with humor, you need to keep the congregation with humor. The vast majority of pastors, who lack an extraordinary gift for comedy, eventually exhaust their repository of funny things kids say. Rather than an aid, comedy becomes the pastor’s cruel taskmaster.

For the unfunny and kinda funny alike, the good news is that the gospel is enough. You can win your congregation with its beauty, which will never lose its luster. There is power in this preaching when it’s faithful to God’s Word and backed up by a life of integrity. Such preaching, in fact, will leave a lasting legacy that endures long after the jokes go stale.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at June 9, 2010 | Comments (19) | TrackBack

June 7, 2010

Book Review: Making Ideas Happen

Reviewed by Scott Wenig

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.

Belsky’s passion is to help people put their best ideas into action. As the founder and CEO of Behance, a company devoted to empowering and organizing the creative world, he and his team interviewed hundreds of productive people and teams over a six year period to discover the principles behind their success. The result of their empirical research is this book, a systematic presentation of the necessary steps needed to bring ideas to fruition.

The great inventor Thomas Edison once quipped, “Genius is 1 percent inspiration and 99 percent perspiration.” For Belsky the perspiration part is composed of three overlapping forces: good organization and execution, the solidifying power of community, and capable leadership. Each of these is explained by a series of “mini-chapters” that demonstrate exactly how to bring your ideas from the world of creativity to the world of real life. In the author’s view, only by using all three forces can individuals and their organizations overcome such ever-present obstacles as disorganization, perfectionism, and undisciplined creativity.

One of the many strengths of this fine book is its counter-intuitive pragmatism. Some of its most useful suggestions are: when it comes to ideas “less is more”; momentum must be maintained by acting on ideas “without conviction”; both team and interpersonal conflict are not only good but essential for projects to come to fruition; “nagging” others really does help to get things done; and when it comes to being productive, competition can be your best friend. All of these principles – and more – are neatly explained and illustrated with engaging examples from Behance’s research. This makes the book a quick and enjoyable read.

In my opinion, a great number of pastors and Christian leaders could readily benefit from Making Ideas Happen. We’re often creative, idea-oriented types who love to cast the vision or promote the mission of our church or organization. But, as one noted Christian leader has said about vision sermons and mission statements, “If it’s hanging on the wall but it ain’t happening down the hall, it ain’t happening.” Belsky has given us an accessible guide to creating church and ministry systems that will produce what we’ve preached and promised.

Moreover, this book is a helpful and necessary corrective to the “great man (or woman) theory”of church growth and missional effectiveness. Without question there are some omni-competent evangelical leaders who have been used by the Holy Spirit to make a profound impact for Christ and His kingdom via their preaching, writing, and leadership. But if Belsky is right - and I suspect he is - underlying much of their success are empowered teams of both staff and lay leaders who serve as the hidden forces of Christian community. As he notes, “very seldom is anything accomplished alone” and there is “tremendous power waiting to be unleashed in the network” of most groups. This almost sounds like something the apostle Paul would write! And if Behance’s research is any guide, the implications of these principles are clear for Christian leaders. If more of us would simply begin to work with and through teams, our churches and ministries would likely see both our in-house ministries and external outreach to our communities and cities expand and grow.

At a personal level, my favorite part of the book was the third section, Leadership Capability. Belsky makes a number of stimulating and helpful suggestions such as “Leaders should talk last”, “Develop others through the power of appreciation”, and “Capture the benefits of failure”. This probably isn’t new information but collectively it serves as a necessary reminder that good leadership is a crucial element in making ideas happen. My thanks to Scott Belsky for giving us such a valuable guide as we seek, by God’s grace, to make Christ’s mission to a lost and dying world come to fruition through our work and ministries.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at June 7, 2010 | Comments (2) | TrackBack

June 2, 2010

Ted Haggard: Back in the Saddle

by Url Scaramanga

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.

He said he made the decision to start the church just two weeks ago. He also announced that he is working with a documentary film crew, but there are currently no plans to air or distribute the footage.

Haggard resigned in 2006 from New Life Church, a 14,000-member congregation in Colorado Springs, after confessing that he purchased methamphetamine and solicited a male prostitute for massages. He later ended his “spiritual restoration” process with the mutual agreement of his advisers.

Ted Haggard may be one of the most famous church leaders to resign, seek restoration, and return to ministry, but he’s not the only one. Many of our churches have walked with leaders through a similar process. I’d like to hear from Urbanites that have been on a journey like Haggard’s, or who have led a church in the wake of such events. What do you make of his announcement? Has enough time passed? Are we even in a place to make such a call? If not, who is? And what should a restoration process include? These aren’t easy questions, but who said ministry was easy?

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at June 2, 2010 | Comments (72) | TrackBack

June 1, 2010

The Jumbo Jet Generation

by Skye Jethani

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.

Since the 747’s debut a generation ago, more than 3.5 billion people have flown on the plane—more than half of the world’s population. The airliner has facilitated the intermingling and redistribution of people on a scale unprecedented in history. The fact that more immigrants have arrived in the United States through JFK, LAX, and Miami International airports than through Ellis Island verifies the world-changing impact of Boeing’s “queen of the skies.”

I am intrigued by the 747 because I owe a great debt to the airplane. As a young woman with little money, my mother was able to travel to India in the early 1970s thanks to the falling cost of international travel inaugurated by the 747. While in Bombay she began a relationship with my father who later immigrated to Chicago on a 747. My family could not have been formed, and I could not have been born, in a world prior to the Jumbo Jet. Intercontinental travel has also scattered my extended family across the globe—from Hong Kong to Houston, and Sydney to Spain. My first flight on a Jumbo Jet occurred when I was just two-years-old, and before graduating high school I had already visited nearly 30 foreign countries.

While not every child born since 1969 owes their existence to Boeing, and few kids traveled as extensively as I did, even my suburban-bound peers did not escape the 747’s impact. Our public school saw a steady influx of immigrants from South Asia, refugees from Vietnam and Cambodia, and kids whose parents’ careers brought them to suburban Chicago from Korea, South Africa, or Germany. The same Jumbo Jets that distributed and united my family around the world also brought the world to my neighborhood, classroom, and playground.

Of course globalization cannot be credited to the 747 alone. But the plane’s launch 40 years ago does represent the start of a rapid acceleration of technological advancements that have made the world smaller. Just as the Jumbo Jet made physical connections across the planet possible, advances in satellite and telecom technology beginning in the 1970s made instant global communication a reality. Live international news meant we were the first generation to watch world history unfold live on our televisions. We saw hostages being released in Iran. We watched the Space Shuttle Challenger explode on the TVs in our classrooms. And I recall my Saturday morning cartoons being interrupted by Chinese students protesting in Tiananmen Square.

And while my parents’ generation may have experienced The British Invasion, global themes within pop culture had become normative by the 1980s. Michael Jackson led a pantheon of pop deities in singing “We Are the World.” Live Aid, a rock concert to help the victims of famine in Ethiopia, was a simultaneous event held in the United Stated, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Australia. Over 400 million people watched in 60 countries making it one of the largest live broadcasts in history. And who can forget Coca-Cola’s “I’d Like to Teach the World to Sing” commercial? The spot featuring an international cast of young people on a grassy hillside was declared by Campaign magazine to be “one of the best-loved and most influential ads in TV history.”

The spread of globalization inaugurated by the Boeing 747, accelerated by telecommunications, and brought to full maturity by the World Wide Web, has transformed the world more than even Juan Trippe predicted 40 years ago. And those of us born after 1970 have been shaped and influenced by these world-flattening forces. We have grown up in a context of greater diversity, cultural awareness, and global accessibility. We have seen more of the world on our televisions, visited more of the world thanks to affordable intercontinental travel, and welcomed more of the world into our communities than any other generation in history. We are the Jumbo Jet Generation.

The impact of globalization on my generation helps explain why the North American church is now witnessing a surge in popularity around issues of global justice. For example last October I attended a ministry conference with 12,000 other church leaders. The event was held in a sports arena and featured the usual arsenal of multi-media wizardry along with popular Christian bands, high-profile pastors, and marketplace gurus. But what differentiated this conference from a similar event 10 years ago was the pervasive presence of justice issues. Compassion International and a film about human trafficking were given significant time from the platform. A popular comedian spoke to the church leaders about his time visiting orphans in Africa, and there were endless plugs to donate old cars, shoes, or other items to help the poor or to fund the digging of wells for clean water. Surrounding the arena were also dozens of booths populated by ministries advocating free-trade products, the alleviation of third-world debt, children’s health, human rights, or the distribution of mosquito nets to prevent malaria.

This sudden popularity of global justice has caught some older evangelicals off guard. They are concerned that the under-40 crowd is abandoning conservative theology in favor of a social gospel often associated with Mainline and liberal denominations. What they fail to realize is that my generation is not rejecting orthodoxy. We are rejecting the false dichotomy that the American church has perpetuated for the last century. We refuse to believe that the gospel is either social or spiritual, eternal or temporal. Earlier generations of evangelicals were more interested in saving souls than seeking justice because a cup of cold water would be little comfort in the flames of hell. But my generation cannot shake the global perspective imprinted on our minds from our childhoods. The gospel, we believe, must have relevance for this world and not simply the next.

Obviously the Jumbo Jet Generation isn’t the first in the church to care about poverty, injustice, and global matters. Earlier eras have included Christians who also rejected the social/spiritual dichotomy. And there are prominent evangelical Baby Boomers, like Rick Warren, who have discovered the wider mission of the gospel and are advocating for the social and physical dimensions of the church’s mission. But what sets the younger generation apart is the scope of this awareness. Most of us didn’t need to be convinced that justice matters. We can’t recall having an “Ah ha!” moment like Rick Warren did when God’s concern for the poor suddenly jumped out at him from the pages of Scripture. Justice is native to our understanding of God and the world.

The rapid globalization of culture that has marked the four decades since the 747’s first flight helps explain why global justice is dominating the conversation among my generation in the church. But looking more carefully at how the Jumbo Jet Generation is pursuing justice reveals there may be turbulence ahead.

Stay tuned for part 2 of Skye Jethani's look into justice and young evangelicals.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at June 1, 2010 | Comments (2) | TrackBack